Follow‐up and Review of the Sustainable Development Goals: Alignment vs. Internalization

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12150
• Author: Åsa Persson,Måns Nilsson,Nina Weitz
• Date: 01 April 2016
• Published date: 01 April 2016

Follow-up and Review of the Sustainable

Development Goals: Alignment vs. Internalization



Asa Persson,* Nina Weitz and M

ans Nilsson

Follow-up and review arrangements will play a criti-

cal role in ensuring that the Sustainable Development

Goals (SDGs) are effectively implemented, much of

which will need to happen at the national level. This

article examines the nature of commitments that coun-

tries have made and if follow-up and review arrange-

ments currently planned are consistent with those. In

particular, we consider the need to encompass both the

global SDG targets and the nationally defined targets

foreseen. We also discuss the balance between follow-

ing up and reviewing outcomes vis-

a-vis behaviour to

achieve those outcomes. Following a review of current

plans for follow-up and review, we further draw les-

sons from principal–agent theory and from the two

predecessors of the SDGs, Agenda 21 and the Millen-

nium Development Goals. We conclude that increased

attention and visibility of nationally defined and inter-

nalized targets is likely to enhance implementation

effectiveness, and that they should therefore be accom-

modated in the follow-up and review systems.

INTRODUCTION

With the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of

Agenda 2030, adopted by the United Nations General

Assembly (UNGA) in September 2015,

1

now firmly in

place, attention has shifted to their implementation.

Where some actors see a task of implementing a set of

unrealistic and sprawling goals with no clear definition

of sustainability guiding them, others see a uniquely

comprehensive set of universal, integrative and

ambitious aspirations that offer a shared agenda for

transformation. Considering the multiple pathways that

implementation could take at the national level, the sys-

tem for follow-up and review at the global, regional and

national level will arguably have a significant effect on

which pathway is chosen. This article discusses the

follow-up and review arrangements currently agreed

and proposed, and looks for lessons from theory and

practice with a view to identifying what various

arrangements might imply for implementation effec-

tiveness and the ultimate achievement of the SDGs.

Arrangements for domestic implementation of the

SDGs in Member States were addressed but not elabo-

rated in detail in the negotiation phase. This can be

explained by the principles of national sovereignty and

subsidiarity, but possibly also by the fact that Agenda

2030 is so broad and all-encompassing that it is difficult

to define discrete implementation processes and

responsibilities. However, while calls have been made

for implementation efforts by various global institu-

tions and non-State actors, it has been clearly agreed

that governments at the national level have a key

responsibility, as well as the mandate to act. The UNGA

Resolution on Agenda 2030 states:

Cohesive nationally owned sustainable development strat-

egies, supported by integrated national financing frame-

works, will be at the heart of our efforts. We reiterate that

each country has primary responsibility for its own eco-

nomic and social development and that the role of national

policies and development strategies cannot be overempha-

sized.

2

Whereas guidance on national implementation

arrangements is therefore sparse, the design of the

follow-up and review system has been more elaborated.

The Resolution text states key principles and identifies

overarching institutions and processes.

3

This was fol-

lowed up by a Secretary-General report

4

in January

2016, proposing more specific design and reporting

guidelines, ahead of the first global-level review oppor-

tunity: the High-Level Political Forum (HLPF) in July

2016, under the auspices of the United Nations

Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). While these

documents elaborate on how follow-up and review are

to take place, there is less elaboration of what needs to

be followed up and reviewed, why and with what effect.

They leave some important gaps: what does follow-up

and review mean, respectively, and what is their

purpose? These two terms are not explicitly defined.

Further, what is to be followed up and reviewed: the

* Corresponding author: 

Asa Persson.

Email: asa.persson@sei-international.org

1

Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Develop-

ment (UNGA Resolution A/RES/70/1, 25 September 2015) (‘2030

Agenda’).

2

Ibid., at paragraph 63.

3

Ibid., at paragraphs 72–91.

4

Critical Milestones towards Coherent, Efficient and Inclusive Follow-

up and Review at the Global Level. Report of the Secretary-General

(UN Doc. A/70/684, 15 January 2016) (‘Follow-up and Review

Report’).

ª2016 The Authors Review of European Comparative & International Environmental Law Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use,

distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

59

RECIEL 25 (1) 2016. ISSN 2050-0386 DOI: 10.1111/reel.12150

bs_bs_banner

Review of European Community & International Environmental Law