Contributions to the High-Level Political Forum Review Debates
“No actor can find responses thinking and working siloed. The High-Level Political Forum Review Debates (HLPF Review) should be as open as the 2030 Agenda negotiations were in 2015. A first agreement seems to exist: The HLPF design should be adapted to the existing global framework, available tools and to make it an engine that helps bring to reality the Decade of Action and Delivery while building back better”.
February 4, 2021
This work seeks to present Cepei’s inputs to the High-Level Political Forum Review process ongoing debates.
During the High-Level Political Forum (HLPF) – the main body for the2030 Agenda follow-up at the global level-, the UN General Assembly (UNGA) modified the Summit’s original mandate from the ten main tasks assigned in Rio 2012 to three- Seven original mandates were eliminated and of of the three that were kept, one of them was adapted to to strengthen the HLPF role in the 2030 Agenda follow-up.
The HLPF primary missions are:
1. The guidance, leadership and recommendations to keep working on the Sustainable Development commitments and guarantee good results.
2. To enhance the integration of the three dimensions of sustainable development in a holistic and cross-sectoral manner at all levels.
3. To work harder to stay focused and adapt dynamics and actions in order to achieve the 2030 Agenda goals and ensure appropriate considerations of new sustainable development challenges.
To achieve the Sustainable Development Goals and the 2030 Agenda, it was necessary to reconsider and eliminate 7 of the 10 original mandates to focus efforts on the most urgent needs.
The HLPF review process suffered delays and faced diplomatic challenges in times of COVID-19. Its first (virtual) informal consultation meeting was held on January 25, 2021, and the debates are rolling out. The aim is to have a consensus that could be formally adopted by the 76th UNGA period of sessions.
How can the HLPF build better on the regional forums? The main problem here is related to schedules and timing. The most transparent and robust way to support the process would be to hold regional presentations of VNR reports draft versions.