Post-2015 intergovernmental negotiations (Follow-up and review) 18-22 May 2015. Statement by Norway – Comments on co-facilitator’s summary, 20 May 2015

Last updated: 5/29/2015 // Statement by Norway – Comments on co-facilitator’s summary, 20 May 2015.

1) Thanks for comprehensive and useful summary.

2) Let me start by the last point in your summary regarding the level of detail in the outcome document: We encourage you to be realistic and keep it at a level that provides sufficient guidance for elaborating a well-functioning and effective follow-up and review framework, - one which will ensure monitoring and accountability in accordance with different national contexts.

3) We are generally fine with the critical principles you have outlined, including your descrip-tion of HLPF as the main platform for follow-up and review.

4) With regard to the horizontal dimension, reviews should be inclusive and participatory with adequate arrangements for transparency and broad participation, including through the in-volvement of major groups, the private sector and other relevant stakeholders.

5) Regarding the follow-up and review of the commitments on MoIs, we believe we should consider one overarching framework. This would not necessary imply that all parts of that framework will need to be considered by the HLPF. But we need a coherent framework that gives us the whole picture. And HLPF as the "crown" of the system should have the prerogative to discuss all matters related to sustainable development and its financing.

6) Regarding the clarification of other aspects related to the work and role of HLPF, we be-lieve we should leave most of that discussion to HLPF itself. We may, however, want to give some guidance on our expectations for the HLPF's discussions in 2016 and 2017 in order to ensure the establishment of a well-functioning and effective follow-up and review framework.

7) The HLPF should not be overburdened. Some elements may be delegated to ECOSOC or relevant thematic platforms in the system.

8) The HLPF will not need to consider and discuss everything related to the follow-up and review framework. We must maintain the emphasis on HIGH LEVEL and POLITICAL. We doubt whether meeting twice a year would be useful in that regard. In order to become a truly attractive and relevant global forum, it must focus on global progress and challenges and galvanize political commitment and actions for SD

Bookmark and Share