The Integrating Approach: A proposal for structuring discussions in the SDG OWG

1. The Integrating Approach:A proposal for structuring discussions in the SDG OWG

2. Why a new approach is called for • A key challenge for irreversible poverty eradication & for delivering well-being for 9 billion in the context of sustainable development = break away from silos • Maximize potential synergies and minimize potential trade/offs • Need to take informed decisions • Broaden partnerships for on-the-ground delivery

3. Value added of the SDGs • Interlinkages between sectors & issues, between the 3 dimensions = need to be made explicit and understandable • Facilitate interaction and dialogue between different line ministries & sectoral agencies, between key actors - including government, civil society and private sector • Outputs from such a process would likely be more focused on addressing concrete needs at national level and on implementation

4. What the proposal is about • Focus initially on targets not goals • Adopt mainly a bottom up rather than a top down approach • Engage substantively on issues from the very start REALITY NOT RHETORIC

5. The Logical Framework

7. Business-as-usual in in practice

8. The IntegratingApproach • Foodsecurity Inclusive economic growth Water Health

9. Reduce by x% stunting, wastingby y% and anemia by z% forallchildrenunder 5. • Interlinkages: healthand foodsecurity Increase agricultural productivity by x%, with a focus on sustainably increasing smallholder yields and access to irrigation. Interlinkages: employment, water,foodsecurity • Bring freshwater withdrawals in line with supply and increase water efficiency in agriculture by x%, industry by y% and urban areas by z%. • Interlinkages: Water and food security

12. An exercise with this approach Remember the earlierslidethatshowed the results of a groupexercisefollowing a traditionalapproach? Well, hereis the resultfromanexercisebyone of the groupsusing the IntegratingApproach The processwas simple and enabledparticipants to efficientlyidentifymanyareas of consensus.

13. ? ? ?

14. Benefits of this approach • Inter-linkages between issue areas (eg. gender, equity or resilience) and between sectors better captured • Greater balance in addressing the 3 dimensions of SD • Number of targets could potentially be reduced • No need to discuss what is “stand-alone” / “cross-cutting” • Stronger political support can be built around the targets • Entry point for inputs from other constituencies/ stakeholders • IMPLEMENTATION

15. Moving forward • Start off discussions on the targets, not the goals • Make efforts to identify multi-dimensional or inter-sectoral linkages • Agreed targets would be grouped into goals • Some targets would be shared across goals

16. Reality check • Prioritization will ultimately be a political decision-making process • Through a bottom up process it will be better informed and more substantive • The process will never be simple, but it can be more streamlined and coherent • Efforts will need to be made to limit the number of goals agreed to For the SDGs to be relevant and taken up, we need to get the metrics right

17. A complementary proposal Two considerations should to inform the definition of the SDGS within a universal agenda: • Agreement on a limited number of Goals • A modality for differentiation • Global challenges need to be addressed at the global level • But regional, national, and local specificities must be taken into account The DASHBOARD PROPOSAL calls for agreement on • global goals that focus on global development priorities • targets and indicators tailored to national priorities and circumstances

18. The Dashboard Concept  Global Goals: • Agreement on a few salient global priorities • Each Goal would have a core set of targets & indicators agreed at international level • Eachcountry would determine the speed and level for each target • Each country would determine which targets & indicators are relevant according to their national circumstances In addition to this, • Countries can define additional targets and/or indicators • This would not be taken up at international level – in the MDG process many countries defined additional national MDGs that served a domestic agenda but were not reflected internationally

19. The Dashboard Proposal: An Example • Each country determines its: • Baseline • Milestones • Speed Food Security & Nutrition Reduce postharvest loss and food waste by x% Reduce harvest waste by x% by [year] Each country determines which indicators are relevant and adjusts them to national circumstances (e.g. type of crop, locality, modalities) FS-Target B Reduce handling & storage waste by x% by [year] Reduce consumption waste by x% by [year]

20. The Benefits of the Dashboard Approach • Issues common to many countries would be reflected in the same targets and indicators = good basis for cooperation, capacity building, exchange of experiences, and overall support from all sources • Regional and global comparability and aggregation would be possible • Greater overall coherence within the new framework at all levels • A “race to the bottom” is unlikely because when metrics work and are perceived to be useful, countries and organizations use them..... • …..GDP and MDGs are both voluntary! • If we get the new metrics right, this will spur a race to the top – by all stakeholders, not only by governments

21. Many thanks Muchas gracias Directorate for Economic, Social and Environmental Affairs Ministry of Foreign Affairs Colombia