UNU-IAS/

Policy Report
Conference Report
Ideas on Governance 'of' and 'for'
Ideas on Governance'of' and 'for'
Sustainable Development
Goals

Sustainable Development Goals

Copyright © United Nations University and the Project On Sustainability Transformation beyond 2015 (POST2015)
The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of theUnited Nations University or Tokyo Institute of Technology.

Published by:United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability (UNU-IAS)
5-53-70 Jingumae, Shibuya-ku,
Tokyo 150-8925, Japan
Te l: +81 3 5467 1212
Fax: +81 3 3499 2828
Tokyo Institute of Technology
2-12-1 Ookayama, Meguro-ku,
Tokyo, 152-8550, Japan

This report is prepared by:
Norichika Kanie, Ruben Zondervan and Casey Stevens
Please cite this report as: Norichika Kanie, Ruben Zondervan, Casey Stevens (editors) 2014. Ideas on
Governance ‘of’ and ‘for’ Sustainable Development Goals: UNU-IAS/POST2015 Conference Report. Tokyo:
United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability.
Design and Layout: Noge Printing Co., Japan

Conference Report

Ideas on Governance 'of' and 'for' Sustainable
Development Goals
Key Messages●

SDGs will need to go beyond MDGs in adopting a systemic approach, having broad inclusiveness and applicability
for both developing and developed countries, stimulating innovative and long term thinking, and recognizing that
we live in the anthropocene era. One idea to reflect this reality is to follow a "sub-goal" approach - establish SDGs
at the global level addressing systemic challenges, supported by sub-goals composed of a set of options fordifferent levels of governance from global to local levels through which systemic challenges could be addressed.
They should be crafted in order to facilitate stakeholder participation in the problem-solving activities.

●

Governance is a problematic and sensitive term in UN politics. The concept of "governance" is understood very
differently and there is no agreement on its meaning and function in the SDG context.

●

Social science research does not provide findings strongly supporting a stand-alone governance goal and politicalexperience indicates high potential for disagreement and infeasibility. SDGs could be better implemented when
governance is woven into each issue, which does not necessitate using the term "governance".

●

There is a strong need for finding incentives for all actors to contribute to the SDG process and to weave that into
the UN process in a broader context.

●

Governance is important for the process leading to and formulation of the SDGs and governance of the SDGs willbe crucial for their implementation. The aspects and forms of governance relevant to governance for and of SDGs
are however different and hence need differentiation in the policy discourse and process.

Note
This summary captures the main outcomes of the International Workshop on Governance 'of' and 'for' Sustainable
Development Goals, held 1 February 2014, in New York, USA1. This workshop addressed the key issues related togovernance and the SDGs. The purpose of the workshop was to discuss key questions relating to the governanceof, and governance for, the post-2015 development agenda, with particular focus on the SDGs. It aimed at
identifying points where expert consensus emerges and to find new ideas through interactive exercise between
governance researchers and policy makers. Discussions addressed four guiding questions. Each question was
first discussed in six breakout groups and later in plenary. The ideas included in this report are an outcome of thecollective effort of the participants.

1

The International Workshop on Governance 'of' and 'for' Sustainable Development Goals was organized by the United

Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability (UNU-IAS), the Earth System Governance Project and thePOST2015 project (hosted by Tokyo Institute of Technology and sponsored by Ministry of Environment, Japan)
http://SDG.earthsystemgovernance.org. For further correspondence, please contact Norichika Kanie (kanie@unu.edu).

03

Conference Report

PART A – Purpose and Architecture of SDGs
Question 1 - What functions are SDGs supposed to serve? What issues
are suitable as goals, targets and indicators?
[Functions and Purposes]
Participants in the workshop identified many different functions the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
could serve, including: the creation of forums for policy discussion, steering implementation of policies in desired
directions, training for actors in new qualitative and quantitative measurements, establishing minimum levels ofprogress for all countries, nudging global society towards a sustainable path, fostering a community spanning
practice and expert communities, and creating compelling visions for progress and hope. Most significantly, theSDGs offer an opportunity at setting the post-2015 global development agenda, inspiring transformation towards
sustainable development, and providing a toolkit for changes in governance.

Agenda Setting – The SDGs will provide an opportunity for policy makers and stakeholders to establish
commitments and express their preferences and interests on a broad set of issues under discussion. The formationof SDGs will help countries to 1. form and coordinate their interests across issues, 2. mobilize collective
action, and 3. help create shared global understanding about the issues and problems. Indeed, some ofthese processes may have already begun in the SDG development process driven by the Secretary-General's HighLevel Panel of Eminent Persons and the Open Working Group on SDGs (OWG).
Crucially, the SDGs can help generate coalitions for actors to work around institutional silos (national ministries
and international institutions) and provide approaches which do not become narrowly focused or controlled
by individual institutions. The SDGs offer an opportunity to shift the paradigm and begin connecting dots andaddressing systemic challenges. Rather than challenging the existing institutions, the most effective SDGs arelikely to be those which are able to nudge institutions away from their silo-vision towards more systemic efforts toaddress poverty.

Inspire Transformation – Participants emphasized that one of the main added values of the SDGs in international
governance is in providing inspiration for a transformation of the development system. However, the ideaof 'transformation' is abstract and means different things to different actors. What the transformation looks likeremained an open question to the participants in the workshop. Some saw the transformation as a change in thebasic production and consumption system while others viewed it as changing the narrow development paradigm,
and others saw it completely differently. However, it was shared across actors that a desired function of the SDGs
would be to start such a transformation. One key aspect of the transformation provided by the SDGs would bein creating a new meta-narrative of development and sustainability for the 2015-2030 era. The attempt tocreate universal targets for sustainable development, not focused solely on the developing countries but focusedon all countries, can transform the worldviews of actors. This effort differs from some of the other preliminary
discussions on the content of the SDGs which do not emphasize this aspect.
Provides a Toolkit – The SDGs can also provide a toolkit for states and other actors in formulating goals,
establishing interrelational understandings between the different goals, and creating benchmarks andstandards for progress. Participants emphasized that the toolkit can connect different efforts with one anotheracross sector and enable stakeholders to act in a more integrated manner. The goals, targets, and indicatorsof the SDGs then are not simply an aspirational statement, but include mobilizational aspects. The measures,
forums, and focus that come with the SDGs can give stakeholders inside government and outside of it to develop
more advanced projects. As a toolkit, the SDGs may complement existing international agreements and treaties,
rather than overlapping or duplicating efforts. Attention to the tools that are provided by the specific framing and04

Conference Report

articulation of the goals is thus an important issue worth consideration by stakeholders.

[Difference between MDG and SDG]
There was a widespread view in the workshop that the SDGs will have to be substantially different from theMillennium Development Goals (MDGs) in order for them to be most effective (they must thus go beyond the"MDG-Plus" articulation). The MDGs were largely a narrative to justify the existing development discourse. SDGs
can be an opportunity to propose a new approach to development/sustainability. A fundamental difference in thediscussion will be that the SDGs will have to recognize and explicitly address earth system constraints, suchas those captured by, for example, the planetary-boundary concept. Participants found that systemic thinking islargely limited in the MDGs articulation and implementation. For example, the MDG target on water (Target 7.C) did
not capture issues about the hydrogen cycles, extreme events, scarcity and abundance. Targets about access andallocation are important, but not sufficient. Incorporating global systemic issues into access and allocation targets is
crucial. Although systems thinking is not new, many participants in the workshop emphasized that we are right now
seeing a critical mass in favor of integrating systems thinking into the SDGs and have a unique opportunity
for introducing systems thinking into governance at all levels.
Relatedly, SDGs can improve on the MDGs by shifting from a focus on input to one on output in terms of thetargets. For example, the focus on gender equity in education could shift from focusing on how many girls go toschool towards focusing on the education and outcomes which happen when girls leave school (in terms of rights,
employment, lifelong education, etc.). To go beyond the MDGs efforts, the formulation of the SDGs then must 1.
introduce interconnectivity of ideas, 2. create interconnectivity in problem-solving, and 3. change theassessments of progress towards more holistic measures.

[Formulation / Articulation]
Multiple participants in the workshop drew attention to the problem-solving aspects, aspirational aspects,
and attractiveness aspects that the specific formulation of the SDGs will need to be attentive to. These different
aspects may sometimes work together, but there will often be trade-offs between the crafting of clear problemsolving goals and targets and their attractiveness aspects. As agenda setting and toolkit opportunities, the SDGs
would need to be formed with specific articulations included. However, as aspirational statements aiming for highbuy-in by diverse actors, framing may need to be framed in attractive ways. Although not shared by all participants,
a problem-solving approach to framing, with attention to implementation roadblocks and opportunities, wasemphasized as having advantages for mobilizing diverse actors and achieving the universal focus of the institutions.
Flexibility and careful construction of targets and sub-goals were seen as opportunities to balance the problemsolving aspects with the aspirational aspects.

[Interconnectivity]
There was consensus in the workshop that the global change problems being faced today are largely
interconnected and that policy responses would need to better capture this interconnectivity. Recognizing earthsystem constraints in the SDGs could be a crucial first step in encouraging more interconnectivity in governanceefforts which would follow. In addition, the interconnectivity of the SDGs with other international governanceefforts was seen as important. It was observed that climate change discussions have been limited in some of theearly discussions about SDGs. Integrating the two ongoing governance efforts, the SDGs and the UNFCCC, wasseen as highly unlikely—although there may be some connections around the issue of energy. However, SDGs may
provide some key nudging potential for these other governance issues and could lead to positive outcomes in theseother forums.

05

Conference Report[Agents / Communities]
Connected to the agenda setting and transformational purposes of the SDGs, the process will hopefully contributeto norm creation and socialization between key actors. The MDG implementation was seen as limited tonational development aid communities. The SDGs process tries to include a much more diverse set of actors
and significant connections between these different actors. While this includes efforts to break the silos innational governments and the United Nations (UN) system, it also must enable connections between emerging
communities of practice which link the private sector, civil society, and scientists.

[Linking Global – Local]
One particular form of interconnectivity between different agents is the need to bridge action at the local levelto action at the global level. SDGs will need to deal with universality across different countries and account forexisting national priorities. In the workshop, it was observed that in many developed countries, policy-makers
and stakeholders view the SDGs largely as a continuation of the MDGs with limited influence on their policies.
Connections in developed countries, developing countries, and between local governments and global efforts thus
need to be considered in the framing. This could include "add on" targets for certain countries, allowing for a shiftinghierarchy of goals and sub-goals within different regions or countries. SDGs would then be "universal" – meaning
shared responsibilities in which every country will be involved in delivery differently.

[Unintended Consequences]
Participants were attentive to possible transformations of world politics and the global ecosystem forthe 2015-2030 period (including the rise of the BRIC countries, climate change and other global change andtransformations) and how these will impact the SDG process. In addition, SDGs may have unintended or secondary
consequences which may be undesired. For example, numbers and measurement can take on lives of their own
where they limit the policy imagination. In addition, if goals do not include various issues there may be key areas
left out of the interconnections between issues. If climate change is left out of the agenda, for example, this could
limit efforts on other SDGs because interconnections would not develop necessarily.

Question 2 - Should governance be treated as a stand-alone SDG or
integrated into the issues?
[The Importance and Definition of Governance]
Governance was viewed by participants as an essential, enabling feature for SDGs and the Post-2015
Development Agenda. Some participants even emphasized governance as a fourth pillar of sustainable
development (complementing the environmental, social, and economic pillars). There was widespread belief thatgovernance should be integrated into the SDGs and a number of creative attempts to take governance seriously in
the SDGs were proposed.
However, there was no common understanding of the components of governance and how it should be articulated
for the SDGs. What do we mean by governance? Governance could be a variety of things – institutions, norms,
implementation procedures, and decision-making and dispute resolution processes. Governance does not simply
adhere to government, but includes a range of public actors including some private forms of governance. In addition,
governance is multifaceted including, for example, good governance, effective governance, and equitable governance.
Some participants recognized the history of including governance at the international level included politicalformulations and the use of these formulations to the disadvantage of states (namely developing countries).
Returning to the division between aspirational goals and problem-solving goals, governance has a tension between

06

Conference Reportpolitically oriented focuses of governance and technocratic focuses. Clarification of terminology, and its relationshipto similar concepts like 'good governance,' 'rule of law,' and 'democracy', might assist the inclusion of governanceaspects in SDGs. Indeed, a potential opportunity exists in creating serious discussions about the content ofgovernance, rather than focusing on creating and negotiating a standard, that could contribute to the agenda setting
and transformational aspects of the SDGs.
The workshop also highlighted that there may be some limits on the knowledge about governance and its interactive
effects. In some specific issue areas, the natural science and engineering knowledge is very advanced while
governance remains largely abstract or tentative. We know some generic things on how to steer societies towards
desired outcomes (i.e.governance), but we might have to think about directing attention towards these broader
generalizations.

[Do We Need Governance?]
The use of the word 'governance' itself may not be necessary to achieve desired outcomes. If governance is about
the implementation systems, institutions, and steering behavior then these aspects can be included without using
the word 'governance.' The remark that governance as a term should be used only when necessary andshould emphasize mobilization of different actors found broad support.

[Stand-Alone Governance Goal]
There was some support for the creation of a stand-alone goal on governance in the set of SDGs. There arenormative reasons for a standalone governance goal (including encouraging democratic transformations, forexample), but its inclusion would also prioritize the transformational purpose of SDGs by sending a clear politicalsignal. This signaling may come at the expense of setting a tractable agenda or creating tool-kits for policymakers.
Similarly, a stand-alone goal could be justified on the basis of a) the promotion of partnership among governments,
civil society and private sector and, b) the need for greater international cooperative action in, e.g., environmental
sustainability, including climate change; economic sustainability (financial system, equitable trade). In addition, astand-alone governance goal, even if broadly defined, could set the agenda for future international efforts.
In particular, when attention shifts from a focus on goals as outcomes to the drivers of these goals, a governancegoal as foundational (as a condition enabling sustainable development) could be valuable. If governance were not a
standalone goal it will be more difficult to assign responsibility and demand accountability.

[Integrated Governance Goal]
An alternative to a stand-alone governance goal would be to have governance integrated throughout the SDGs.
Governance dynamics (like implementation capacity, finance, participation, accountability and transparency) could
be integrated into the other goals. By focusing not on governance in a stand-alone fashion but instead on "what are
the governance processes and norms that we want?" governance can be integrated throughout the other goals.
To achieve the largest impact, governance would need to be integrated across all of the sustainable development
goals in a manner applicable to all countries.
However, efforts at integrated governance goals quickly run into problems unique to each field. First, there may
not be political support for inclusion of specific governance aspects in some issues. Second, the governancechallenges for each issue have different knowledge levels. Some issues may have advanced understandings ofwhat governance features produce positive outcomes, but others lack such understandings.

[Governance as Enabler]
Another option is to not include governance as a stand-alone goal or in an integrated fashion, but instead to07

Conference Report

incorporate it as an enabler for the entire SDG framework. Governance would then not be an endpoint or goal
sought by states, but instead a tool for the other efforts. The answers varied on how exactly to consider governanceas an enabler. The issue could be included as a foundational principle of the SDGs – detailed in the preamble to the
SDG document for example. In addition, there could be global efforts to recognize governance in other ways. For
example, 2015 could be declared the 'UN Year of Good Governance Principles', discussions could happen in the UN
High-Level Political Forum on sustainable development (HLPF) or other organs on the issue, and other discussions
could occur. Some were hesitant about the political impact that such efforts would have. In addition, the interactionof governance with some principles of the SDGs, such as universality and possibly common but differentiatedresponsibility, were considered by the participants.

[Governance as Sub-goal]
It is possible that governance could be included as a sub-goal to a specific formulation of other goals or as a subgoal connecting different goals. Governance as a sub-goal can focus on creating similar expectations across goals
while still being attentive to the unique governance challenges of the different goals. However, the inclusion of
auxiliary sub-goals may be counterproductive to other desired aspects of the SDGs. The discussion in the workshop
emphasized other alternatives more than this one.

[Governance Targets and Indicators]
Regardless of how governance is included, there will be some targets and indicators that include governanceaspects in their formulation. Participants grappled with the difficulty in developing such indicators and targets.
Discussion centered around establishing firm quantitative targets (for example, 'achieve X% increase by 2030') or
instead developing a dashboard of indicators and targets which would be suitable to states in different contexts.
In addition, measurement of progress on governance aspects may present significant challenges, especially if theindicator aims towards significant outcomes. National reporting to international agreements and creative use of
indicators were emphasized as useful alternatives.
Despite various issues regarding targets and measurement, verification and monitoring, a focus on governance attarget and indicator levels instead of at the goal level could help to overcome difficulty of getting all the countries
to agree on a single governance goal.

[Institutions]
As discussion moved from the governance for SDGs to the governance of the SDGs, participants discussed various
different international institutions. As many different institutions exist with a focus on sustainable development(within the UN this includes UNDP, UNEP, FAO, and others), the participants did not see a need for new institutions.
What was needed was creating institutional coherence in the context of fragmentation. Similar to the need forinterconnectivity across the SDGs, there was a need for new functions of institutions focused on learning fromeach other and creating shared financing with a long-term perspective. In addition, existing institutions can be an
obstacle to progress on the SDGs. For example member states are overwhelmingly objecting to include climatechange as there is a global process on that already.

[National and Global Governance]
The specific national challenges with implementing governance goals and targets were emphasized by many
participants. The governance implementation for creating universal access to safe drinking water, for example,
means different things in different countries. Cause-effect relationships on governance may be appropriate tospecific national contexts and inappropriate in others. Different sectors and arrangement of ministries at thenational level thus create unique national challenges important for the formulation of any governance aspects.
Similarly, governance impacts and interaction at the international level may be less clear than at the national level.

08

Conference Report

PART B – Towards Implementation and Evaluation
Question 3 - What will it take to move the SDGs from paper to practice?
What organizational, administrative, and financial
resources will this require?
[Moving from Paper to Practice]
Getting the SDGs from paper to actually changing practice is based upon the specific national context and thecontext of the goal itself. Participants were clear that the SDG implementation processes would depend on efforts
from agencies of the UN system but also actors outside of the UN system. Some of this would include turning
existing institutions and financial resources towards different ends articulated by the SDGs, while others would
require some changes in the existing organizational, administrative, and financial context.

[Mobilization for Implementation]
The mobilizational aspect was emphasized by some participants as of critical importance to the implementation
challenges. Implementation and mobilization were argued to be easier if the diverse actors necessary saw that they
have ownership within the system of governance. Including various national level actors early in policy discussions
would grease the wheels for the creation of organizational, administrative, and financial resources for the SDGs.
This could extend beyond state actors to including the private sector and civil society.

[National Implementation]
To articulate universally applicable goals for countries dealing with different sustainable development challenges,
diverse organizational and financial resources will be required. Some participants emphasized the creation of a highlevel national focal point for implementation in order to organize these diverse actors. These high-level national focal
points could coordinate activity across the silos of national government and help plan and establish diverse new
governance processes. New and innovative financing and inclusion of actors can be utilized for a variety of SDG
process, including: national plan formulation, evaluation and re-evaluation, financial assessments, accumulation ofbest practices, and assessments of governance aspects.
Monitoring and assessment were highlighted as key challenges for national implementation. Many countries are
nervous about extensive monitoring systems while others will lack the capacity for significant adoption of advanced
indicators for assessing progress. Creative suggestions for these monitoring and assessment challenges include:
developing reviews based around specific challenges (drought prone cities, declining river basins, etc.) which could
facilitate best practices for evaluation and focus attention across countries, developing more monitoring capacity at
the global level (utilizing remote sensing or an Ombudsperson), and development of new monitoring concepts. In
addition, it was emphasized that monitoring and assessment should not be irregular events, but ongoing systemsof evaluation and re-evaluation.

[Implementation in the UN]
Within the UN system, participants recommended that no new institutions should be created for the SDGs,
but instead the efforts should focus on augmenting the current UN system. This may include partnerships andinteractions with other international institutions (such as the World Bank, World Trade Organization, and global civilsociety). More about these issues was expressed in response to Question 5 below.

09Conference Report[Creating an Adaptive System]
One final point during discussion was that SDG implementation will necessarily require re-definition procedures so that asproblems and technology change, goals can be altered. The organizational and administrative aspects and interfaces with
science for this are currently lacking at international and national levels and would have to be augmented for the SDGs.

Question 4 - What should be monitoring, evaluation and financial
mechanisms for SDGs?
[Importance and Politics of Monitoring]
The selection of indicators may have contributed to the success or adoption of efforts for the MDGs. Indicators
for the SDGs will need to be carefully selected and deployed in order to ensure that progress is made and that the
purposes of agenda setting, transformation, and useful tools are maximized. Reliable and transparent monitoringof indicators is seen by many to be a crucial part of the SDG process. As noted above, there are questions bymany states about the politics of monitoring. Getting buy-in into the monitoring systems is thus crucial for effective
monitoring to be deployed for the SDGs. Making measures which are useful to the international community but
also which help national policymakers better target their various efforts can help satisfy different interests.

[What and How to Monitor?]
A systematic approach to monitoring is needed which is complemented by an annual administrative review process. Therewas strong agreement that monitoring should make use of existing monitoring mechanisms rather than bringing
something new and that best practices should be explored and highlighted. Many businesses and economic sectors alreadyhave sophisticated monitoring and reporting structures that could be embedded. Nation-based monitoring was recognized
as the current dominant approach, but it was criticized by some. Regardless of the focus, the scale of monitoring should
be carefully crafted aware of political and scientific issues. As SDGs are related to environmental aspects, Earth systemobservation is necessary for improving human well-being, which is a different feature from the MDGs.

[Who Should Monitor?]
Monitoring could be undertaken by a variety of (or combinations of) actors. National governments usually undertake
monitoring and are the source of data for aggregated monitoring on UN level (which raises questions on reliabilityof data). Regional organizations could have potential and necessary trust to be part of SDG monitoring processes.
NGO monitoring and assessment of efforts offers one option, but legitimacy concerns may be significant for these
actors. While peer-review mechanisms were considered effective, it was noted that on inter-state level there isinsufficient trust to have states reviewing other states and, domestically, most states will not delegate authority formonitoring to NGOs. A scientific panel / advisory group within the UN could serve as support unit for monitoring
and advance methodologies, and could act as a data or best practice repository. Alternatively, a third partyspecialized institution responsible for monitoring like ISO could be charged, and obviously the HLPF would need tobe linked to monitoring efforts.

[Beyond Monitoring]Countries are in various states of transition and socio-economic situations. Some participants emphasized that
we need to look at the dynamics of interaction between all forms of capital (natural capital, human capital, social
capital, built capital, and financial capital). Moving from simplistic, single-issue measurement towards moreadvanced systems of evaluation requires the need to aim for "knowledge ecosystems" which take the inferencesfrom understanding systems into the formulation of usable knowledge. Big data developments can be used toharness capacity to get data, but require assessments and careful aggregation.

10

Conference Report

PART C – The Role of UN Institutions and Beyond
Question 5 - What can UN do with High Level Political Forum? Howshould the institutions be institutionalized?
[HLPF as a Political Forum]
There is a lot of potential and hope in the HLPF, not least in its ability to bridge environmental and development
efforts at the international level. However, there are some challenges which may limit the impact of the HLPF. This
includes the lack of a bureau and governing body/advisory board, the lack of a strong independent secretariat but
instead one assigned to the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA), a very wide
agenda, and a weak representation of the environmental dimension. It was discussed that the weaknesses ofthe HLPF is not a mere oversight, but that there is strong opposition to the forum attempting to bureaucratize theprocess. HLPF is what member states could agree upon at that point in time – e.g. HLPF is not an institution or
body but a forum – it is a process and platform for discussion. It falls way short of the more significant idea for a
Sustainable Development Council.

[What can the HLPF Contribute?]
HLPF then may play a primary role in orchestrating different action by various actors. As a hybrid organization,bringing together different actors in the UN system, the organization can play a key role in helping with agenda
setting. The potential to achieve these are limited, but the HLPF can develop such a system gradually. In the future
it is possible that the HLPF will develop some role in allocation of means of implementation, influencing policy
developments, performing review, or even implementing some aspects. However, it was observed that ECOSOC's
new mandate is very similar to the HLPF mandate, thus weakening the status of the new HLPF. Key decisions on
this issue, such as the creation of a separate HLPF budget, are being discussed currently.

[HLPF: Accessibility]
Participants noted that the HLPF has allowed multiple stakeholders, such as the Major Groups, to have moreaccess than other UN bodies. The need to retain the inter-governmental nature (as stressed by the member states
opposed to strong policy on sustainable development) means that this aspect could be diluted in the future.
Similarly, to be effective in the UN system the HLPF needs to be truly high level, but this could come at the riskof losing some of the connections with social actors.

[The UN System]
Some participants saw the HLPF as a limited agent within the UN system and the global order more generally.
Although HLPF was an improvement over the Commission on Sustainable Development which preceded it, the
HLPF remains significantly constrained in its efforts. In more general terms participants also addressed the issueof qualified majority voting as an approach to improve decision making processes in the UN system. Here aclear difference emerged between researchers and practitioners. The UN Secretary General's Scientific Advisory
Body has recently been established but seems composed along distributional criteria rather than quality criteria.
It also is again an initiative of the UN Secretary General that circumvents existing structures and institutions (e.g.
ICSU, UNESCO) and institutionalizes issues.

11Conference Report

Question 6 - How can the UN System engage with other actors, bothpublic and private, to enhance to fulfillment of the SDGs?
[Outside the UN System]
The UN should involve a wide range of actors in a meaningful way that also can incentivize participation andconvince actors that they have something to gain from participation. For example, large companies may bemotivated by the need to have common enforcement (for example, of environmental standards) and the UN isthe best suited to do this through either promotion or standardization. There would be an added value for SDGs ofhaving a pluralistic of actors. For the SDG system it may turn out simply that: pluralism is good.

[Who gets Included?]
The selection of such actors is complicated. For example, which epistemic communities can be included as there isnothing resembling a coherent network of SDGs experts, but there are viable networks organized around specificsustainable development questions. Additionally, the legitimacy of non-state actors is a persistent question.
The selection could be different for each SDG, with regional sub-divisions. With its comparatively wide mandate
regarding involvement of major groups and other stakeholders, the HLPF is the "most inclusive" setup in UN systemfor participatory approaches but there could be parallel processes in the Global Compact, and other venues like theregional organizations (as for example the civil society preparatory meetings in the Asia Pacific region).
Digital platforms (e-governance, etc.) were mentioned as a promising option but warnings were voiced that social
science research on existing digital decision and consulting processes calls for caution (digital divide, technologicalobstacles, democratic challenges).

[Transformation]
A major question was how to transform the system and create more robust linkages between the various actors
outside the UN system. The Global Compact and other partnerships offer some significant efforts to build on. In
addition, the Major Group system offers some strong aspects (legitimacy), but it was recognized that this system
may have reached its limits and has systemic shortcomings in inclusiveness and accountability. This system, as
sub-optimal it may be, is holding the line for non-state participation in the UN system as quite a number of member
states would like to use a reform of the Major Group system to reduce non-state involvement.
The SDG process could be the initial step towards creating new global partnerships – leaving MDG donor-recipient
relation behind towards much wider array of relations and catalytic processes.

12Conference Report

The International Workshop on Governance 'of' and 'for' Sustainable Development
Goals was attended by the following participants (in alphabetical order):Steinar Andresen – Research Professor, Fridtjof Nansens Institutt
Steven Bernstein – Associate Chair and Graduate Director, Department of Political Science and Co-Director of theEnvironmental Governance Lab at the Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto
Frank Biermann – Professor, Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam; Guest Professor,
Earth System Governance, Lund University; Chair, Earth System Governance Project
Mathilde Bouyé – Post 2015 Task Force Coordinator, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, France
Guy Brendan – Global Fellow, Natural Resources Defense Council
Olivia Caeymaex – Associate, United Nations University Office at the United Nations
Sakiko Fukuda-Parr – Professor, Milano School of International Affairs, Management, and Urban Policy, The New
School for Public Engagement
Joyeeta Gupta – Professor, Amsterdam Institute for Social Science Research, University of AmsterdamPeter Haas – Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Massachusetts Amherst
Yuka Hayakawa – Researcher, Graduate School of Decision Science and Technology, Tokyo Institute of Technology
Masahiko Iguchi – Researcher, Graduate School of Decision Science and Technology, Tokyo Institute of Technology
Ngeta Kabiri – JSPS-UNU Postdoctoral fellow, United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability
Norichika Kanie – Senior Research Fellow, United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of
Sustainability; Associate Professor, Graduate School of Decision Science and Technology, Tokyo Institute ofTechnology; and Project Leader of the POST2015 Project
Rakhyun Kim – Postdoctoral Fellow, United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability
Yuto Kitamura – Associate Professor, Graduate School of Education, The University of Tokyo; Project Theme Leaderof the POST2015 ProjectMarcel Kok – Department of Nature and Rural Areas, PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency
Csaba Kőrösi – Ambassador, Permanent Representative of Hungary to the United Nations
Marc Levy – Deputy Director, Center for International Earth Science Information Network, Earth Institute, Columbia University
Maja Messmer Mokhtar – First Secretary, Permanent Mission of Switzerland to the United Nations
Mans Nilsson – Deputy Director and Research Director, Stockholm Environment Institute
Ian Noble – Chief Scientist, Global Adaptation Institute
Kate Offerdahl – Writer/Editor, Earth Negotiations Bulletin, International Institute for Sustainable Development
Simon Høiberg Olsen – Senior Policy Researcher/ Task Manager, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies
Tomoko Onishi – First Secretary, Permanent Mission of Japan to the United Nations
Lazlo Pinter – Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences and Policy, Central European University
Barbara J.Ryan – Secretariat Director, Group on Earth Observations
Mayumi Sakoh – Policy and Partnerships Advisor, Millennium Institute
Masahisa Sato – Associate Professor, Faculty of Environmental and Information Studies, Tokyo City University
Yasukuni Shibata – Senior Coordinator, Biodiversity Policy Division, Japanese Ministry of the Environment
Jan-Gustav Strandenaes – Senior Policy Advisor, the Northern Alliance for Sustainability
Anne-Sophie Stevance – Science Officer, International Council for Science; Future Earth Interim Secretariat
Casey Stevens – JSPS-UNU Postdoctoral fellow, United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability
Zoltán Szentgyörgy – Director General, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Hungary
Farooq Ullah – Executive Director, Stakeholder Forum
Arild Underdal – Professor, Department of Political Science, University of OsloPeter Veit – Acting director, Governance Centre, World Resource InstituteTancrède Voituriez – Programme Director Governance, Institute for Sustainable Development and International
Relations at Sciences Po Paris
Takahiro Yamada – Professor, Faculty of Urban Liberal Arts, Tokyo Metropolitan University
Oran Young – Professor Emeritus, University of California, Santa Barbara
Dongyong Zhang – Associate Professor, Hennan Agricultural University
Ruben Zondervan – Executive Director, Earth System Governance Project; and Lund University
Irena Zubcevic – Senior Sustainable Development Officer, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs

13The United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability (UNU-IAS) is a leading researchand teaching institute based in Tokyo, Japan. Its mission is to advance efforts towards a more sustainable
future, through policy-relevant research and capacity development focused on sustainability and its social,economic and environmental dimensions. UNU-IAS serves the international community, making valuable andinnovative contributions to high-level policymaking and debates within the UN system. The activities of theinstitute are in three thematic areas: sustainable societies, natural capital and biodiversity, and global change
and resilience. ias.unu.edu
The Project On Sustainability Transformation beyond 2015 (POST2015) aims at contributing to the establishmentof Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and thereby to the transformation towards global sustainability. The
project is supported by the Environment Research and Technology Development Fund (ERTDF) as its strategic
research project (FY 2013-2015) by the Ministry of the Environment, Japan. http://www.post2015.jp/en/index.html
Earth System Governance — a global research alliance, is the largest social science research network in thearea of governance and global environmental change. The Earth System Governance research alliance takes up
the challenge of exploring political solutions and novel, more effective governance mechanisms to cope withthe current transitions in the biogeochemical systems of the planet. The normative context of this research issustainable development; earth system governance is not only a question of institutional effectiveness, butalso of political legitimacy and social justice. www.earthsystemgovernance.org

This report is a product of the Governance for Sustainable Development (GSD) programme of UNU-IAS. For
further details of the programme, please contact the Programme Head, Norichika Kanie (kanie@unu.edu).

Conference Report

UNU-IAS/

Policy Report