Report – 22-24 January, Busan, Republic of Korea

Busan Democracy Forum (BuDF) on Democracy and the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDG): Promoting Peaceful, Just and Inclusive Societies in
Busan, Republic of Korea on January 22-24, 2018.

Korea on January 22-23, 2018.

The
Permanent
Secretariat
ofCommunity of Democracies (PSCD), Asia
Democracy Network (ADN), and the Asia
Development Alliance (ADA) withsupport of the government of the
Republic of Korea and Metropolitan Cityof Busan organised the Busan
Democracy Forum (BuDF) on Democracy
and the Sustainable Development Goals(SDG): Promoting Peaceful, Just andInclusive Societies in Busan, Republic ofThis three days event aimed at promoting Goal 16 of the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development, as the enabler of all Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and discussed the interlinkages with other Goals. The forum also provided a platform for a wide range of stakeholders to shareexperiences on advocacy initiatives, implementation, national level reporting and available tools formeasuring progress towards SDG 16. The forum also deliberated various experiences related todemocratization and democratic governance in Asia and beyond, highlighting the importance of
democracy for sustainable development.
Keynote Session
BuDF 2018 opened on 22nd January 2018 Haeundae Grand Hotel with almost 250 civil society
participants from across the globe in attendance. The representative from the Mayor of Busan
Metropolitan City provided his welcome remark which was followed by the opening remark from thesecretary general of Community of Democracy, Mr. Thomas E. GARRETT . He stressed the need ofcollective worldwide effort, in which governments, private sector, civil society, and people in general
would need to work together to ensure a sustainable future for the planet. To achieve the agenda
2030 he anticipated that the Goal 16 Voluntary Supplemental Indicators developed by the CoD,
present during the plenary session, would be useful for states providing inspiration in their effort todevelop complimentary national indicators that consider their national contexts; and the wider
democratic community, including civil society, in strengthening their monitoring processes, facilitatingsynergies and helping assess progress
toward the achievement of Goal 16.
Mr Sangmin NAM , Acting Head, Eastand North-East Asia Office, UN
Economic and Social Commission for
Asia and the Pacific expressed theReport – 22-24 January, Busan, Republic of Korea

significance of SDGs that how can the fragile state could benefit from peace and SDG since peace canaccelerate SDG and integrated part of Goal 16. UN approach to sustained peace building has been apractice moving step by step towards humanitarian assistance however the concept of peace needssustaining approaching.
Keynote speech and Opening Roundtable
The session was moderated by Mr. Anselmo LEE, Secretary General of ADN during the roundtable with
Ms LEE Mikyung, President, Korea International Cooperation Agency (KOICA) and the panelists
consisted of Mr Byambadorj JAMSRAN, Chief Commissioner, National Human Rights Commission ofMongolia and Mr Sushil PYAKUREL, Chair, Alliance for Social Dialogue, Political Adviser to the Presidentof Nepal.

Korea is making a lot of efforts in localizing politics.

Mr. Anselmo LEE discussed thesignificance of having Mongolia,
Nepal and Republic of Korea in thepanel together, since they sharealmost same geographical andstrategic circumstances
being
dependent by their neighboringstates like India, China, Japan andothers but also share a common
goal of democracy and theirsustained efforts in peace building.
For example, Nepal and Republic of

Mr. Sushil Pyakurel said that Nepal being a developing country gets support from many developed
countries however, the component of human right and the rule of law is missing. It also a time ofnational reconstruction in Nepal which is inspired by the Korean movement, Busan city of democracy
and Gwangju , the city of human rights.
Mr. Jamsaran from Mongolia highlighted the history of close working relations with Republic of Korea
since 1990. Mongolia received development assistance from KOICA for implementing several projects
on promoting democracy in the country. He further mentioned that economic capacity is very limited
in implementing democracy. The state organizations although do not address human right values anddemocracy, however, now after 12 years, the nation is going to report on SDG and the government
officials are demonstrating SDGs in the country.
Ms LEE Mikyung comprehended that it’s nice to see countries working on SDGs especially related tocontrolling violence on women and this should be addressed at the policy level so that the SDG
becomes an integral part of policies.
Output of the session:••

Democracy is the pre-condition for SDGs
Economic / financial resource assistance should be provided by KOICA for building capacities

Report – 22-24 January, Busan, Republic of Korea•

Role of CSO on fighting corruption is crucial

1.A Thematic Workshop on Gender Equality (Goal 5) 15:30-16:40 / Day 1
The thematic workshop on Gender Equality was moderated by Ms. Patricia Galdamez, Permanent
Secretariat of CoD (Community of Democracies). Ms. Galdamez introduced the presentors, namely,
Amb. Carmen Moreno, Executive Secretary of the Inter-American Commission of Women –Organization of American States (OAS), Ms. Koh Miyaoi, Gender Expert of the Asia-Pacific GenderTeam – United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and Mr. Cheongsoo Nam, Gender Specialistof the Korea International Cooperation Agency (KOICA).
Presentation 1: Ambassador Moreno
Amb. Moreno shared that the OAS is the world’s oldest regional organization, dating back to the FirstInternational Conference of American States held in 1890. Today, the OAS brings together all 35
independent states of the Americas and constitutes the main political, juridical, and social
governmental forum among its members. The OAS provides research, capacity building, and policy
advocacy. To promote women’s participation in politics, the OAS help prepare candidates forelections, influences the discourse on multidimensional development, peace and security, and humanrights.
Amb. Moreno enumerated some of the continuing challenges for women empowerment and citedstatistical data and researches. The lack of recognition and social protection policies impede women’s
meaningful participation which leads to women’s unequal access in decision making in political,
economic and social spheres. Although the UN General Assembly has adopted the Convention on the
Elimination of all forms of discrimination against women (CEDAW) almost 40 years ago, several
women and girls around the world still experience physical violence, intentional homicide, and female
genital mutilation, among others. In 83 countries, unpaid labor of women is practiced.
In pursuing Goal 5 – Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls, Amb. Moreno pointed
out the importance of data collection and adopting common and comparable data/indicators acrosscountries. Data collection should also be diversified. In addition to government, other data sources
may be tapped: INGOs, local CSOs, and academe. Non-statistical data may also be recognized, such as
personal testimonies. Amb. Moreno closed her presentation by emphasizing that in order to eliminate
violence against women and girls everywhere, it is important to measure and prevent these cases. To
do this, governments need to work with civil society and recognize women’s voices.
Presentation 2: Ms. Miyaoi
Ms. Miyaoi espoused that SDG 5 is an accelerator of SDGs. She pointed out that not all goals can be
pursued equally and at the same time, so pursuit of catalytic actions with impacts across multiple SDG
targets need to be undertaken. It is important to identify and invest in “accelerators” – intervention
areas that can yield multiple dividends such as women and girls’ empowerment. The SDGs promise toleave no one behind, so it is necessary to remove any and all forms of discrimination. If we do not takegender into consideration, we cannot expect full SDG achievement. For example, if we do not address
women’s confinement from the public sphere, access to education, knowledge and justice will remainunequal.
Innovative acceleration solutions across countries should be undertaken. Ending gender-based
violence (GBV), for instance, will help achieve SDG aspirations. SDG 5 aims to reduce violence against
women and girls, but GBV reduction is larger than one ministry or sector – that’s why we call it SDG 5
and Beyond. In order to pursue this, we need to demonstrate the multiple “returns” of reduced GBV
and embed GBV prevention across development interventions. Engaging the private sector(businesses) may be undertaken. Some businesses now consider GBV as a Human Resource concern.

Report – 22-24 January, Busan, Republic of Korea-

Also, GBV trainings may be conducted not as a separate activity, but may be integrated into
community activities and meetings. Another example of an innovative acceleration solution is on
addressing the issue of unpaid care and domestic work. If this is paid or redistributed, it can contributeto employment and income generation. For more information and examples of innovative solutions,Ms. Miyaoi invited everyone to visit the UNDP website.
Presentation 3: Mr. Nam
Mr. Nam presented gender and ODA of Korea. He mentioned that Korea’s aid for gender equality andwomen’s empowerment is foreseen to increase, especially with the appointment of KOICA’s new
President, Ms. Mikyung Lee. KOICA’s ODA is highly concentrated on population and reproductive
health. Mr. Nam iterated that gender equality is not only focused on SDG 5, but should also be
considered in other SD goals such as Goals 1,2,3,4,6,7,10,11,13 and 16.
Mr. Nam also presented KOICA’s gender equality mid-term strategy for 2016-2020, to wit: (1)economic empowerment for gender equality; (2) social status for gender equality; and (3) basic rights
for gender equality. On economic empowerment, KOICA focuses on access to productive resources,
including rights and opportunities. On social status for gender equality, KOICA’s focus in on increasing
women’s participation in decision making processes and in increasing women’s leadership in resolving
peace and security. On basic rights for gender equality, KOICA gives emphasis on guaranteeing sexualand reproductive healthcare and rights, and on preventing and responding to gender-based violence.
Mr. Nam closed his presentation by pointing out that achievement of SDG 5 needs multistakeholder
partnerships among governments, CSOs, academe, and private sector, and KOICA can serve as a hub
and a platform for such partnerships.
After the presentations, Ms. Eun Ha Chang, Director, Center for International Development andCooperation, Korean Women’s Development Institute (KWDI) and Ms. Youngsook Choo, Korean
Women’s Association United (KWAU) gave their responses/comments.
Ms. Chang shared three points to ponder:First, there is a need to reflect on the current status of Korea’s gender-responsive ODA. South Korea
has a complete system for gender response. It has laws, policies, structures and mechanisms forpromoting gender equality which are existing. The problem is that people who implement the projects
know the principle of gender equality conceptually, but are not translated into practice. As such, there
is a need to assess skills and knowledge, build capacities, and conduct more research. Secondly, inorder to properly implement programs for SDG 5 in South Korea, we need to have common
understanding of the terminologies and words used in the goals and targets. Lastly, South Korea maylead the process of shared learning among partners in addressing crosscutting issues of women
empowerment, gender equality, democracy and human rights.
Ms. Choo then shared her comments and ideas on gender equality. She candidly pointed out that it
has been observed that people working on gender equality has grown tired over the years. The
problems persist: no local indicators, no evidenced-based data, no tool for effective gender-based
monitoring and evaluation. Complexity of gender equality is the new normal. She shared thecommitments on women, peace and security:
Ensure that women, peace and security principles are at the heart of the new peace and security
architecture, by seizing the opportunities opened up by the convergence of global processes
Increase dedicated efforts and targeted funding in addition to gender mainstreaming
Increase predictable, accessible and flexible funding for women’s organizations working on peace andsecurity at all levels
Improve monitoring and coordination of ADA to gender equality in fragile states and economies toencourage a more even distribution of this aid and address the needs of women in fragile situations

-

Report – 22-24 January, Busan, Republic of Korea

Strengthen efforts to monitor and evaluate the quality and practice of ODA in support of genderequality in fragile states and economies, and its
impact on women and girls.
Ms. Choo emphasized that there is a need tofocus on the outcome. We need to identify thesignificant change or transformation that hascome out as a result of our development
interventions.
Unfortunately, there was no more time toentertain questions and insights from otherdelegates. The moderator thanked everyone forjoining the session and encouraged everyone tocontinue working for gender equality andwomen’s advancement.
1.B Thematic Workshop on Inequality (Goal 10) 15:30-16:40 / Day 1
The presenters identified issues faced by Indonesians and Filipinos in their own respective national
contexts. Mr. Sugeng Bahagijo from International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development (INFID),
Indonesia shared the political and wealth distribution inequality that topples the democracy ofIndonesia. He believed that one way to measure the effectiveness of democracy is the increasing
number of middle class, and that the number of people below the poverty line has small number
compared to the number of oligarch, or ruling class.
He also mentioned that realizing the Sustainable Development Goals can guarantee democracy. In
principle, democracy promises political equality, and reduced number of unemployment population.
The four main challenges that Indonesia faces while implementing SDG 10 are racism, jihadist
movement, hatred, and cultural intolerance. He emphasized the threat of radical interpretation ofIslam since it proliferates prejudice and discrimination.
Miss Becky Malay from Global Call to Action against Poverty (GCAP) traced back the source of
inequality of the Philippines by looking at the historical context—from the Spanish and American
Colonization, the elite class took hold of the land, leaving Filipinos landless and impoverished. Amidst
Philippine legislations on land reform program, the farmers are not given adequate support from thegovernment to cultivate crops. As a consequence the lands were given to the wealthy, turned it into
housing lots.
Given the Philippine scenario, she emphasized
the significance of looking at multiple aspects
of inequality that proliferates economic
injustices. We should look into the cultural,
spatial, sexual orientation, and political
spectrum of inequality that disempowers
marginalized and impoverished Filipino acrossgenerations.
The
presenters
recommended
advocate/campaign for the institutionalization

Report – 22-24 January, Busan, Republic of Korea

of women participation in private and public affairs, transparency and accountability in thegovernment to protect democracy.
Mr. Trinanjan Radhakrishnan from Commonwealth Human Rigths Initiatives of India appeared agreed
with the presenters that inequality must be tackled hand in hand with access to justice. CSOs shouldlook into the implementation of policies, laws, and regulations, making sure that corruption won’t beon the way of realizing the goals.
The moderator, Mr. Zia Ur Rehman from Awaz foundation, Pakistan agreed with both presenters andto the discussant that there’s a need to challenge the strata that cultivates inequality, and make sureno one is left behind.
Lastly, both presenters identified various indicators to measure the implementation of SDG 10 suchas unemployment rate, poverty index, life expectancy rate, literacy rate, number of internallydisplaced persons due to armed conflict, distribution of wealth in rural and urban areas, and that data
must disaggregated data between men and women; young and old.
1.C Global Citizenship Education (GCED) (Target 4.7+) 15:30-16:40 / Day 1
This session was related to SDG Target 4.7, “By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge
and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education
for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion ofa culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity and ofculture’s contribution to sustainable development.”, especially focused on Global Citizenship
Education. The session was moderated by Mr Boo Won NAM, General Secretary, Asia and Pacific
Alliance of YMCAs, Hong Kong., with more than 20 participants.
Mr Utak CHUNG, Director UNESCO APCEIU presented UNESCO’s work on this target. He discussed that
Global Citizenship Education is about “learning to live together” and “prevention of violent extremism
through education”, with core values such as peace, human rights, globalization, cultural diversity andsustainable development. As a global agenda, GCED is a UN Secretary General’s initiative starting from2012, and since UNESCO is in charge of this, they hosted UNESCO Forum on GCED since 2013. APCEIU’s
roles are to do research and policy advices, give capacity building programs for educators and youth,and build networks and partnerships. Challenges in delivering GCED are overloaded, exam-oriented,
centralized, and teacher-oriented curriculum.
We had two discussants, Ms Sheila WONG, Deputy Director, Inno Community Development
Organization, and Ms Sangeun NAM, World Vision Korea. Ms Wong argued that when we talk about
global citizenship, we should also note that globalization and global value chain as well as businessand human rights, from her experiences of supports to ‘domestic migrant’ workers and cases of
discriminations against ethnic minorities and disabled people in China. Ms Nam stated that global
citizenship education movement can be a process of developing a global civil society, citing GCAP’s
campaign “Make Poverty History”, and that civil society can play a critical role on promoting peace,
human rights and democracy by engagements such as advocacy and campaign.
Following the presentations and interventions, there was an interaction session with comments andquestions from the floor. A participant from Mongolia discussed that GCED would not be covered byschool education. Another student stressed the importance of including parents in GCED. Mr Chung

Report – 22-24 January, Busan, Republic of Korea

said North East Asia (China, Korea and Japan etc.) is a difficult region in terms of promoting GCED withcritical challenges such as nationalism and extremism. Ms Nam also noted the roles of informal
education.
1.D SDGs and Peace / 15:30-16:40 / Day 1

•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•

•

Introduction
The Moderator briefly explained the topic, set the agenda and the time frame for the speakers toadhere during their respective presentations
The Presentations
Some Key Highlights from Mr. Sangnim’s presentation
Integrated approach is needed in promoting peace and Human Rights and democracy for sustaining
peace
Collaborating SDG 16 in sustaining peace efforts
Addressing the root cause, strengthening therule of law at the international and national
level and promoting sustainable socioeconomic development is crucial in peacedevelopment initiative
Moving away from the traditional concept ofpeacebuilding to sustaining peace.
Addressing armed conflicts in Asia especially in
Africa and Middle East countries need urgent
attention from the global community
Number of fragile states affected by armed conflicts are highlighted example Afghanistan, Pakistan and
Myanmar to name a few
31 Billion People are displaced due to disaster and war.
Some Key Highlights from Ms. Hanoi’s Presentation
Competitive arms race among the United States, China, Japan, South-North Korea, Taiwan
National/regional tension caused by Nuclear weapons
Establishment of US military base in Asia countries including South Korea, Japan and Guam.
450 billion in military expenditure in 2016 in Asia
The need of discourse and practice developed on peace, peacebuilding and creating a culture of peaceby CSO
Summary of Discussants
The discussants highlighted the importance of raising awareness among the community on the dangerof arms race, addressing inequality, promoting peace and harmony and good governance in sustaining
peace.
Governments are to fulfill their obligations to defend and promote human rights, and enable anenvironment to promote democracy and open society and protect the rights of vulnerable
communities.

Report – 22-24 January, Busan, Republic of Korea
•

•
•
•
•

The Outcome – The Way Forward
Finding a link between SD and disarmament anddeveloping SDG indicators on disarmament

Strengthening peace provision of SDG
Recognising the importance of CSO and supporting role of community base organisations on
developing/establishing resilience, peacebuilding and culture of peace.
Need to look at peace in a non-silo manner but we need to look at it in a holistic and integrated manner
The need to address and reflect the reality on the ground on sustaining peace.
2.A SDGs and ODA in Asia (Target 17.1-7.4) 16:50-18:00 / Day 1-It is expected by Japanese NGOs that donors and Japan ODA are to work/invest more on leaving no
one behind, ensuring overcoming poverty and inequality, making more sustainable. But current
Japanese ODA doesn’t reflect these. Japan ODA is now more reflecting national interest/security.
Japanese government thinks to invest on ODA strategically and it will be for national benefits. Under
Abe-nomics, ODA is under Growth Strategy and SDGs are also under growth strategy; ODA is morenational interest oriented.
-Low engagement of CSOs in the ODA strategy both for the recipient countries and the donor
countries. Not even accommodating/facilitating or supporting CSOs.
-ODA more on investment on infrastructure. Better quality infrastructure but very low or fail toaddress environment and social aspects. There is a need to change Japan’s ODA to make it morestrategically oriented to achieve SDGs.
-An Asean experience on ODA, need supports to rural people’s organsations (RPOs); demand driven;based on needs of RPOs; two pronged: funding and advisory services. China, JICA and JOICA: main
donors for SEA region. Biggest share of source of ODA is commercial investments, especially from
China (under public investment; private investment; and public and private investment). Major chunkof ODA from Europe goes to Africa and less on Asia. Compared to ODA from China, Japan and Korea,
ODA from Europe is considered investing more on environment, capacity building, fishing,consultations, even peace building (ODA from Japan, China and Korea is considered less on these, as
more on infrastructure).
-Recommendations:
1. Direct access to ODA and finance. NGOs, local organizations can manage development program,Report – 22-24 January, Busan, Republic of Korea

engaging in public development program; with capacity built and empower, local organizations canmanage the development program
2. finance should be relevant to sectors or communities most affected by development initiatives.
3. a mechanism for CSOs and peoples’ organisations to participate in the process of defining,monitoring and evaluating financing for SDGs
4. ODAs to consider investing in regional cooperation for SDGs
5. JICA and KOICA to consider increased support through CSOs. Particularly Japan ODA and JICA,
current requirements and regulations to apply for finance is very complicated, not reflecting
international standards, making it difficult for CSOs to work with JICA. It needs to focus on output
oriented.
6. Big ODA in the region is on infrastructure and energy sector. This is perhaps in response to climatechange and creating economic competitiveness. There should be a clear criterion of the fact that ODA
for infrastructure/energy needs to be focus on renewable sources of energy (not clean coal for
example). Justice issues with regards to climate change needs to be addressed (ODA must not be used
for energy in response to climate mitigation. ODA to be used on education, health, social welfare, etc.
there must not be competing use of ODA for climate mitigation and other social welfares)
7. need to see more on south-south collaboration focusing on rural development and poverty
eradication and in sectors relevant to our region (e.g. rural, agriculture, fisheries, etc.)
8. we need to ensure environmental and social safeguards of the ODA. Also, there is a need to push
ODA to address human rights.
9. A need to call ODA agencies to contribute some percentage of money to be allocated to CSOs. CSOs
should be included in making national plan of collaboration. A need to monitor ODA. There is also aneed to build trust among and between the governments and the civil society organizations.
2.B Multi-stake holder Partnership : Public, Public-Private and Civil Society Partnership (PPCP)(Target 17.16-17.17) 16:50-18:00 / Day 1
The session was moderated by Mr. Abdul Awal from GCAP-SUPRO, Bangladesh. The key presenters
Mr Katsuji IMATA, CSO Network Japan and Mr Kihyon KIM, 김기현 Program Officer, Development
Alliance Korea (DAK), KOICA presented their views on the current scenario of PPCP and related
challenges. The main discussants were Ms Aewha LIM, 임애화 Manager, UN Global Compact-Korea
Network and Ms Eunju JEONG 정은주 Korea Human Rights Foundation (KHRF) Business and Human
Rights Center.
•••

Challenges
At the international and domestic levels about limited finance support the initiative of PPP
How to realize the problems and addressing the problem together
Imbalance of power of partnership between gov’t, private, and CSOs

Report – 22-24 January, Busan, Republic of Korea•

How multi-stakeholder’s partnership can complement reaching SDGs
Changing relationship between CSOS and Cooperation from watchdog, name and shame; philanthropy
and cooperative support, one-way stream, to be identifying common goal and values throughengagement, collaboration and mutual support, with common solutions and address new challenges
such as power imbalance between big cooperation and small CSO and financial resource dependency;
distinction between genuine environmental/social response practices•

How can effective Public, Public Private and CSO partnership be promoted
Integrative Alliance shared mission and value, common and integrated approach to solve social issues,
joint development of good and services.
Conduct research how PPP of each country can be effective
Private sector can contribute to SDG through finance, technology and human resources
Promote implementation of CRS and taxation

•
•
•

•
•

•
•

Best practice of CSOs and Cooperation in Japan, it was seen that more PPP events are from private
cooperation in the NGOs’ hosted events;
An experience of Development Alliance Korea that its members are from public, private, academic and
CSO partnership alliance to improve communication and develop joint social development projects.
Korean government made platform for PPP included CSO, private and public and academy; with asecretariat office, to communicate, regular meetings, events, capacity building, and to develop joint
projects and innovative ideas between gov’t and CSO and private sectors, especially on health,education and social development program
UN set PPP platform at global level and support implementation of PPP at regional and national levels.
In case of China, government is leading the PPP, but not with CSO yet, due to CSOs’ capacity andprofessionalism
-

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Experiences and best practices of multi stakeholder’s partnership

How National Plan of Implementation can keep scope for CSO partnership

Create and maintain the PPP platform and think tank with CSO at country level, with a secured financial
support.
Implement business and human at global and national level
Diversify financial resources of CSOs that does good work to promote PPP
Promote the communication, regular meetings, events, capacity building, and to develop joint projects
and innovative ideas between gov’t and CSO and private sectors, especially on health, education andsocial development program
Promote partnership, transparency and effectiveness of gov’t, private and CSO
Promote CSR and tax implementation, anti-corruption and environment
Provide financial support to CSOs to play active role in SDG platform/PPP platform
Promote the implementation of human right impact assessment and due diligent system withcooperation,

Report – 22-24 January, Busan, Republic of Korea

2.C Data and Indicator (Target 17.18-17.19) 16:50-18:00 / Day 1
The session was moderated by Mr Heejin LEE, 이희진 President of KAIDEC, Yonsei University while
the key presenters were Ms Young Shil PARK, 박영실 Deputy Director, Statistical Research Institute,
Statistics Korea and Mr Kyung Ryul PARK, 박경렬 Fellow, London School of Economics and Political Science

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.

(LSE). The main discussants of thesessions were Ms Moon Suk HONG, 홍문숙, Seoul National University,
Korea and Mr Syed Aminul HOQUE, COAST Trust/Equity BD, Bangladesh. The session highlighted theimportance of data and indicators for SDGs. Followings were the main points of discussion,
Data as foundation of knowledge in development: data relay something then contextualized as
information, become know-how, understanding, experience that will lead to actions.
Data disaggregation will help to breakdown of observation into more details, vulnerable groups thatbeen hidden become visible.
Data will help to break complexity, generate quantified knowledge
Data is socially managed. Having a proportional knowledge is important for a good data set.
Transforming out statistical structure: paradigm shift from survey to new data system
Data is a push to have more democratic decision making/policy

2. What is the state of indicator development on SDGs at the national level – Korea and in Asia?
a. Role of NGO in SDGs:i. determining of targets (analysis of current status), selection of indicators, production, follow up andreview
ii. Develop national indicator and monitoring frameworks: common in international statisticalcommunity
3. What are practical difficulties and challenges in developing national indicators on SDGs, in particular
Goal 16 in your country?
a. institutional setting- lack of coordinated national sdgs strategy, no role of nso in existing legal setting
b. Capacity building to developing countries. Really difficult to define and implement. If we focus on
statistical aspects, it’s difficult to achieve sdgs
c. Informal data with experimental methodd. Human rights indicators might bring to power structure changes which might lead into rejections fromthe government.
e. Categorization and classification is complex
4. What is your comments on global indicators on SDG 16 and Supplementary National Indicators by
CoD?
The indicators might lead to changes in society, for example:
a. Opportunities in practices. In Kenya – using big data from the mobile. Bus provider give feedbacks tocustomers.
b. Satellite and airborne images are increasingly used at different stages of disaster management andmapping and detection of infrastructural damage.
c. Financial transaction data – measuring people’s economic resilience to natural disasters in Mexico
d. Implementation of open platforme. Limitation: unable to track the data sources, unofficial data happened to be provided
f. Supplementary indicators is good, so that capacity building should be done for not only the NSO but
also for civil society.

Report – 22-24 January, Busan, Republic of Korea

g. In Korea, data reporting platform: be transparent and efficient, managed by NSO for consistency andcomparable
5. How can CSOs engage effectively for data development and indicators?
a. CSO should work together with government in order to make CSOs’ experimental data can be
accepted by the governmentb. Multi-stakeholder partnership is important, for example with communities who owns qualitative data
and CSOs who owns experimental data.
c. Sub-national data with specific thematic data will also play a big role so that it would be great if CSOs
could also reach them out.
2.D SDGs and Human Rights City (Goal 11+) 16:50-18:00 / Day 1
The session was moderated by Mr Changrok SOH 서창록, Human Asia, Korea and the main presenterswere Ms Aldhiana KUSUMAWATI, Government of Wonosbo Regency, Indonesia and Ms Sooa KIM,
김수아, Human Rights Bureau, Gwangju City, Korea while Ms Jinjoo, 진주 Gwangsan Gu, Gwangju
City and Mr Dhendup TSHERING, Tarayana Foundation, Bhutan were the main discussants.

•
•
•
•
•
•

Main Points of Discussion
Ms. Aldhiana Kusumatwati
Indonesia suffers from poverty and related problems.
Local Government can play vital role for thisTo Integrating human rights, to leave no one behind and non discrimination there should be some
Framework and action plan align with SDGs and local government can do this.
We have action plan to make Wonosbo city as a human rights city.
Denis institute for human rights make some frame work for HR city we can take that as reference.
For this we should do coordinating and collaborate different stakeholder and develop regional HR
commission for HR City.
Ms. Sooa Kim

•
•
•
•
•
•

•

Shared about the mechanism to sustain the Gwangju City.
The city has different department including human rights department for sustainable progress.
The city also follows the human right principal and work to reduce inequality, overcom from economiccrisis, and responsible labor management. It will help to make equal and inclusive city.
They also have a master plan to protect the marginalize people like disable, elder citizen, pregnant
women, and other.
To monitoring if any discrimination to marginalize community need a human rights committee
Citizen assembly to discuss the policy formulation and implementation. Each Local government can do
this.
Way forward
Political commitment need for HR city.

•••

Report – 22-24 January, Busan, Republic of Korea
Specific Action plan and indicator need.
Local government is important for this and need to make them accountable.
HR city cover many SDGs so work with local government.
Day 2 Reporting
Monitoring SDG 16: Indicators for goal 16
Presenters :• Ms Patricia GALDAMEZ, Permanent Secretariat of CoD (PSCD)• Ms Alexandra WILDE, UNDP
• Ms Dra. Rd. SILIWANTI, Ministry of National Development Planning Unit
Commentators:• Mr Euiyoung KIM, Political Science, Seoul National University / President of Korean
Political Science Association (KPSA)• Mr Ken INOUE,Governance Adviser, JICA, Japan
Main points of discussion:
Ms Patricia GALDAMEZ, Permanent Secretariat of CoD (PSCD)• Indicators from OGP is important to CoD’s initiative to develop supplementary
Indicators• Empowerment of citizens is crucial as well as difficult in achieving SDGs
• Effective monitoring at national level can reach the effective SDGs implementation• Development of supplementary indicators for participatory process, experts opinion
from global organizations.
• In Developing supplementary indicators of CoD, she said that indicators are simple,
relevant feasible policy actionable• At the end she highlighted the voluntary supplemental indicators which CoD
developed
Ms Alexandra WILDE, UNDP
• Alexandra from UNDP emphasized the strong accountable institution, rule of law andjustice a lesson learnt from MDGs
• Theory of change around peace for social development through well-functioning
government, low corruption, access to information and rights equal distribution of
resources• She shared UNDP national level monitoring pilot projects in different countries of theworld
Following this, Mr. Anselmo LEE, moderator of the workshop, conducted the roundtable discussion
on the topic.
Way forward of the workshop

Report – 22-24 January, Busan, Republic of Korea••••

For the Effective monitoring in national level supplementary indicator might be useful.
The development process of the supplementary indicator should be participatory.
Indicator should be feasible ad actionable
We should learn from MDGs whenever we develop indicator.

Seven countries for pilot project. UNDP is
UNDP: Alexandra
UNDP Is working on SDG 16 indicators; Pilot projects- Closing of civic space,- Governance, human rights and human developments are key; Indicators are tools togovernment- Political inclusion of people is the- Goal 16+- Pilot projects are clustered with access to justice- Supplementary indicators and National indicators- A homicide rate
- Trafficking- Violence against children•

More work is needed to ensure that human rights institutions are compliant with international
standard•

There is a need for global, regional and national indicators so that no one living behind principle isachieved•

Country indicators should be developed and included in the Pilot program ;Way Forward•

How Korean Indicators can be Developed•

It’s important to measure and monitor the development•

Supplementary indicators really supplement,•

COD suggestions are good, All additional are good, although some are generic in nature•

Desegregation of data is important;•

Local indicators and base line survey is important, every country can follow the sameprocedure•

In developing countries where financial resources and human resources are not adequate
should be supported by the developed countries .

Report – 22-24 January, Busan, Republic of Korea•

Participation in the decision-making process•

Goal 16 should be integrated into the national politics while goal G17 ii international politics,•

Implementation of SDGs at the grassroot level is important to achieve the goals•

There is also a need to validate the indicators , three different types of indicators all are global
indicators but also to form the national level indicators•

UNDP: Legitimacy of data is important, National level data sovereignty, Democratizing
indicators, bottom up indicators, people generated data

16.6 Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels
16.7 Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels
16.6.1Primary government expenditures as a proportion of original approved budget, by sector (or bybudget codes or similar)
16.6.2
Proportion of the population satisfied with their last experience of public services
16.7.1
Proportions of positions (by sex, age, persons with disabilities and population groups) in public
institutions (national and local legislatures, public service, and judiciary) compared to national
distributions
16.7.2
Proportion of population who believe decision-making is inclusive and responsive, by sex, age,disability and population group
3.A Violence against children and their protection (Target 16.2,16.9)
The session was Moderated by Mr Abid GULZAR, World Vision International while Ms Ratna YUNITA
from Save the Children, Indonesia and Mr Sungho LEE, 이성호 Manager, Global Advocacy &Partnerthip, ChilFund Korea, made presentations.
It was discussed that One out of two suffering violence at a time child. For example, Mongolia has ahighest incidence of violence which may be due to efficient may reporting system on the other hand
many countries do not report so there data hence the incidence reported are comparatively on thelower side. It was also discussed that there is no space for children participation. World Vision has
developed supplementary indicators for gal 16.2. here were also the discussions around preparing
indicators on behaviors which is so far missing.
3.B Rule of Law and access to justice (Target 16.3)

Report – 22-24 January, Busan, Republic of Korea
The session was Moderated by Mr Hideki WAKABAYASHI , Secretary General, JANIC, Japan while Mr
Trinanjan RADHAKRISHNAN, Program Officer, International Human Rights Advocacy, Commonwealth
Human Rights Initiative (CHRI), India , Mr Rajiv NARAYAN, Director of Policy, International Commission
against the Death Penalty (ICDP), Spain and Ms Sujun SONG, 송수전 Governance Specialist, KOICA
made the presentations. The main dicussants for the sessions were Mr Han-Kyun KIM, 김한균
Director, Human Rights Policy Research Division, Korean Institute of Criminology and Mr Aingkaran
KUGATHASAN, Search for Common Ground , Sri Lanka , made presentations.
Followings were the main points of discussion:
Rule of Law and Access to Justice rely on proper national priority setting and there will be no
substantial happening and progress except fancy agenda if it is used as propaganda.
The promotion of Rule of Law and Access to Justice comes from the trust, coalition, andvibration of civil society.
The public are more aware of the changes than we thought. And if one government has proper
democratic system, the leader with political will pays attention to the public. CSOs at the sametime should make space for public to respond to government action.
Clear evidence shows that 16.3 promote against exclusiveness.
Capacity building with a long term and official impact may be one of the direction. It helps toclose the gap between legal bases and public awareness.
Conclusions and Recommendations for CSOs
- Bridging national to local indicators strategically.
- Proposed Indicators:-Police to population ration per 1,000,000 population-Judge to population ration per 1,000,000 population-Average length of civil and criminal trial-Case load statistics per police station-Judge and prosecutor to case load ratio-Death and suicide rate in custody-Number of people accessing legal aid as proportion of the number of BPL and/or below eligibility
bar- Better training and awareness of between judiciary –use of ODA.
More information, more research and analysis, with use of ODA- on the number of death penalty sentences and executions- on the number of people facing the death penalty- more details on who those under sentenced to death are, including socio-economic indicators,
gender, age group- for which crimes is the death penalty used most
- Research on whether this sentencing has impacted and brought down crimes for which they havebeen sentenced
3.C Anti-corruption / transparency (Target 16.5) 10:00-11:20 / Day 2
The session was moderated by Ms Jung Ok LEE 이정옥 Daegu Catholic University / Board Member of
TI-Korea , while Mr Geo-sung KIM, 김거성 Inspector General, Gyeonggido Office of Education, Korea

Report – 22-24 January, Busan, Republic of Korea
and Mr Eruthaiaraj (James) KULANTHAISAMY, Foundation for Community Studies and Development,
Malaysia made presentations. The main discussants of the sessions were Ms Saima GUL, Center forSocial Policy Development (CSPD), Pakistan and Mr Han-Beom YOU, 유한범, Executive Director,
Transparency International - Korea
James is a grassroots researcher/ practitioner who works on sustainable community living. He
shared his experience and findings under the framework of anti corruption and transparency.
He opined that it is critical to examine policies from the grassroots level and not dependent onarmchair researcher or policy makers to make sure they work. He explained there are already toughlaws in place to prohibit bribery among public officials, and even whistleblower protection
established, yet the mastermind or senior staff are never caught only low level abettors are used as
scapegoats and punished. More focus should be placed on the elites and not those from the working
class.
His solution is to start inculcating values of integrity and honesty from young by teachers and family
members. Such inoculation will prevent them from succumbing to bribery or corruption later in life.
Worrying statistics of how Malaysian school children are ok with exchange of gifts for favors
The appointment of judiciary by the executive will render them less impartial and more likely toshow bias as a result of gratitude.
Geo-Sung Kim, inspector general for education at the provincial level shared his experience andpolicy advisory knowledge with us.
Conclusion
Civil society and media need to check the abusespress/media need to be de-regulated and the industry allowed independent self co-regulation to
enable an independent and free press media to develop.
Collusion is an important part of corruption
Happens usually among people of influence at especially among political elites
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Discussion
Are these indicators sufficiently capable of showing up corruption in all its forms?
Propose independent parallel report
CSO report vital, experts, scholars, investigative journalists and the general public must all speak out
together
Policy capture should be exposed.
Collusion and abuse of state power cases should also be documented in the parallel reports from CSO.
Ethical infrastructure
Critical in social development process.
Military
andjudiciaryareneveraccountabletoanyone.
Solution is to empower the citizens to counter anti corruption and push for access to information

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Report – 22-24 January, Busan, Republic of Korea
Formation of liaison committee with citizens to develop policy
Educate and sensitize citizens about their right to access material
Report card on transparency issues
Should consider revision of GCB/CPI methodology to do policy capture
Difficult to capture data or evidence of high level corruption without the help of experts.
Independence of anticorruption institution must be maintained by being independent from govt.
Monitoring must be done by CSOs independent from the government.
Counter discourse on corruption as tradition
OutputAdditional indicators on target 16.5 needed. The participants have all agreed to give their contact tothe organisers to facilitate further discussions on developing the indices.
3D: Country Case Study on SDG 16 Indicators
The session was moderated by Mr Anselmo LEE, ADN Secretary General while the presentators forthe panel discussions were Ms Patricia GALDAMEZ, Permanent Secretariat of CoD (PSCD), Ms
Alexandra WILDE, UNDP Oslo Governance Center, Ms Dra. Rd. SILIWANTI, Ministry of National
Development Planning Unit, Indonesia and Ms Samia HAMOUDA, UNDP Tunisia . and Mr Artemy
IZMESTIEV, UNDP Seoul Policy Office.
The main points of discussions were
Mr. Artemy Izmestiev, UNDP, Seoul• Korea has been very actively taken positive steps on SDG16 on ensuring• UNDP has taken 2 important steps: 1. SDG indicators as a knowledge based; 2. SDG need tohave UN narrative towards the positive/policy changes.
• Using peer interaction for the SDG 16 framework and implementation- countries being
accountable on policies and allocationto each other within the regional and nationally.
• Peer review: good practices: Malavi has done impressively well with information sharing
Mr. Hamong , Indonesia• 2 years ago, Indonesia has become pilot project for Goal 16 under UNDP. A working group on
SDG in Indonesia didn’t agree with SDG16.
• At the same time Indonesia was one of the funders of Open government partnership (OGP).
They on the same hand had no problem with SDG 16.
• The process was to how to rank the pilot process. The Government took the responsibility toidentify the indicators.
• The implementation of the all goals under SDG till now has worked very well.
• Access to Justice and good governance was put as the major area of interest and concern
after the pilot project.
Anselmo LEE:

Report – 22-24 January, Busan, Republic of Korea•

Indonesia has 94 targets; Nepal has 414 indicators for SDG; Japan has no indicators for SDG
16 but has for others indicators; Philippines has SDG official plan. India has 303 indicators.

Ken, South Korea• Need to setup the data system for the creation of Scorecard system and checklist system forevaluation of the gender sensitive response.
• SDG 5.2 and SDG 16.2 is similar so it need to be addressed together
Katusi Imata, Japan• How much did came out of the discussions came as indicator as a political/awarenesscreation tool. Is there any compasion on creating peaceful and inclusive societies indicators?
Dayasagar, Nepal• Nepal has identified the 440 indicators. The challenges-data are not available for SDG 16
indicators and definely not disaggregated data.
• How to localize the indicators may not work in the states and provinces. Government may
not have the data, so how to collect the data.
Alexandria: Response• There are data gaps, even for OECD countries there are 40% data available. There are many
data which are not used properly. These are often been dissolute under SDG framework.
• Meta data need to use for creating awareness and political participation.
• Communication and awareness need to create for CSO.
• Institutional coordination should be strengthening- in relation with the statistics and line
governments need to brought in line.
• Strengthening local governments for the use of the SDGs. Pilot case of Indonesia- BufanaMexico focused on sub national was prioritized.
• SDG 16+ is the first targets- five years down the line it must turn into major policy of
democracies.
Praricia: Response• Participating states under CoD ensuring the using SDG16 for political awareness creation.
• Levearging the use of Data which is also available to use the fill the data gap. Coordination
with national statistics office
Sugan: Enquiry• Adding some more criteria in CoD: 1 Citizen complaint mechanism: directly complain on
issues; 2. Index of Happiness: like Norway and Indonesia:- peoples concept on government
works.
• Possiblity of putting indicators not as outcome but as the process: to ensure the quality of
government and governance.
Abdul Awal, Bangladesh

Report – 22-24 January, Busan, Republic of Korea••

Integrated SDg with the national development plan (7th 5 Year plans). Government has
taken 5 specific targets, but need to identify indicators.
Localize SDG without the active local government.

Anselmo• Network of cities to localizing and working towards bottoms up approach.
Patrick• How to work towards creating better indicators towards theStatistics, Korea• What is the use the supplementary indicators, is it because of the lack of inclusiveness in the
global indicators or is it to enrich the more participation?
Japan• How to engage the CSO into more substantial dialogue with shrinking civil society space inthe region.
Alexandria• It is important to have indicators are based on the emotions and perceptions: Tier 3 –UNDP.
These are exhaustive process: through household survey and similar formats. Thus using
various departments with statistics office to use it successfully.
• Using UNDGs -MAPS process and programmes to localize SDGs. Engagement with MAPS
process.
• Tripartite association- member state-UN-CSOs for working on the VNR• SDG 16 portal is going to be launching at the end of the month. UNDP-Oslo
Patricia• The supplementary indicators are to supplement the gaps of the global indicators. The
process also focusing on citizen based surveys.
• Inclusion of the CSO in CoD in every action. Further developing it national level: could be
Artemy• Perception indicator is very important to see what level the response is registered.
• Local level approach- bottom up approach should be focused by the multi city coordination
to promote this process.
Ken
•
•
•

Ownership of the indicators: need to own for the successful implementation and for largerchange.
Legitimacy of the indicators: International compassion to the national indicator and localizingit.
Regional Mechanism: setup a mechanism to work together till 2030.

Report – 22-24 January, Busan, Republic of Korea
4.A Democratic decision-making and institution - Shrinking civic space (Target 16.6-7)
Cambodia
The session was moderated by Mr Hyungsik SHIN, 신형식 Director, Institute for Korean
Democracy/Korea Democracy Foundation (IKD/KDF) while Mr Andrew FIRMIN, CIVICUS on Civil
Society Monitoring , Mr Ichal SUPRIADI, Executive Director, ANFREL and Mr Saroeun SOEUNG,
Executive Director, Cooperation Committee for Cambodia (CCC), Cambodia were the main presenters.
There were two discussants of the sessions:
Mr Jungwook LEE, 이정욱 Civil Society Cooperation Division, KOICA and Mr Eruthaiaraj (James)
KULANTHAISAMY, Foundation for Community Studies and Development, Malaysia
Theme of the session•

Civil space is Shrunk. Freedom House rated Cambodia "Not Free" while CIVICUS indicated as
Repressive.
Contribution Factors• In politics, there are still lack of rule of law, unfree election, existing of extremist ideologies,
weak legal enforcement, and political tensions increases esp after dissolution of CNRP.
• In terms of democratic legislation, there are still restricted legal framework for LANGO, Trade
Union Law, Taxation, Labor Law, and many activists were imprisoned while some HR
Organizations were sactioned/ deregistered.
• In regards to Economic sector, Cambodia moved from LDC, 7% growth annually but with lackof fair redistribution. Many private sectors are absence of responsive bussiness conduct. There
are huge funding cut for civil society which effect 65% of them closed their operations.

Role of the CSOs
• Public sensitization on SDGs: to educate public about the importance of SDGs
• CSO Capacity Development on SDGs: to foster SDGs based institutional and program
development.
• Financing for supporting SDGs: To practice funding and earning approaches.
• Monitoring SDGs implementation: to conduct evidence based research and participate in VNR.
Goal 16 as a promoter of the civic space• Effective and independent institutions in the government• Real democratic principles are applied beyond elections• All form of human rights are promoted, and protected by the state;• Citizens empowered to participate in public affairs;• Substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms-enable public to enjoy their
quality public services
CIVICUS Presentation

Report – 22-24 January, Busan, Republic of Korea
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•
•
•

The reality is 108 countries have closed, repressed or obstructed civic space
Significant regional disparities, but a problem affecting all parts of the world
Detention, attacks on journalists and excessive force against protestors are the mostcommon kinds of civic space violation reported to the CIVICUS Monitor
Dissent the main driver but demands for basic human rights also leads to repression
Recent spike in reports of journalists attacked because of political reporting
Demands for some very basic things can lead to tear gas and rubber bullets
Yet civic space monitoring is almost entirely absent from SDG reporting processes. We
should both advocate to bring it into official reporting and do our own monitoring.
Malaysia
Employment Opportunity – Both government and private apply racial quota
Unilateral Conversion – Case of Indra Gandhi. Violation of UDHR Article 18: Freedom of
religion
Electoral Reform: little space for constructive and civil debate for fair election.
Unconstitutional Red Lineation Exercise. Not good hope for next G Election.
Religious Insensitivity – Demolishing of a Hindu Temple Recently. Islamisation Doctrine led
by illiterate islamists, propagating chronic ignorance. Enforcement officers are Muslims. This
causes intimidation and stretching the tolerance level of other religion in the state.
Violation of UDHR Art:19 – Freedom of Thoughts. There is restriction on intellectual
discussion, controlling media via ownership & editorial policies, and no information bill.
Rights to Citizenship: nearly 100,000 people remain stateless. Government is denying actual
figures.
Indigenous Community (Orange Asli) – Land Dispute: IP lost their ancestral land to
encroachment and force appropriation.

CSOs in Malaysia advocate the government-

To fully ratify ICERD, ICCPR, ICESCR, and CAT.
To introduce strong legislation to protect the OA (Orang Asli) land rights from encroachment
by private bodies and state government just in the name of development.
To adopt human rights curriculum in the school system, colleges, and universities.

4B. SDGs and the Role of National Human Rights Institutions – Target 16.10 & 16.bModerator
Ø Mr Sushil PYAKUREL, Alliance of Social Dialogue, Former Commissioner of National Human Rights
Commission of NepalØ

Rapporteur: Aingkaran KugathasanReport – 22-24 January, Busan, Republic of Korea
PresentersØ Mr Byambadorj JAMSRAN, Chief Commissioner, National Human Rights Commission of MongoliaØ

Ms Karen Gomez DUMPIT, Commissioner, Philippines Human Rights Commission (PHRC)

DiscussantsØ Ms Soohee CHOI, 최수희 Busan Office, National Human Rights Commission of Korea (NHRCK)Ø

Ms Uransooj GOMBOSUREN, Center for Human Rights and Development (CHRD), Mongolia

Mr. Pyakurel briefly introduced the topic and the purpose of the discussion. In his opening remarks,
he highlighted the nature of NHRIs and the role they play in the implementation and monitoring of
the SDGs.
Firstly, Dr. Byambadorj, explained the mandate of the National Human Rights Commission ofMongolia. In his presentation, he highlighted the efforts taken the Commission to work with CSOs andhow effective that has been. The National Human Rights Commission along with the CSOs fought
against government’s decision to
shut downthe
National
Statistical Office of Mongolia,
which is an independent agency
under the supervision ofparliament. He further pointed
out that in the annual report for
the year of 2018, the Commission
will highlight the importance of
implementing and monitoring
SDGs and as the bridge between
different stakeholders, including
government,
civil
society,development partners, UN agencies, etc. they can play a vital role in making the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development a reality. He further emphasized on the role the NHRIs can play in realizing
human rights through the SDGs. He further suggested the following for promoting effective
corporation between NHRIs and CSOs 1. Creating a national database of the progress of the implementation of SDGs;
2. Raising awareness amongst the general public as well as public officers about the importance ofachieving SDGs; and3. Conducting multi-stakeholder dialogues, including the government, CSOs, development partners,
human rights activists to discuss the progress in implementing SDGs and addressing the challenges
in implementing SDGs.
Secondly, Ms. Dumpit pointed out that SDGS, as globally agreed blueprint for 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development, will become the major point of reference for development actors at alllevels and will have a significant impact on the human rights agenda in the years to come. She also
pointed out how the States’ responsibility to respect, promote and fulfill human rights is enshrined in
the SDGs. She highlighted how Goal 16 acknowledges the importance of accountable institutions,
good governance, participation, access to justice and information, and fundamental freedoms. She

Report – 22-24 January, Busan, Republic of Korea

also touched upon the bridging role of NHRIs in promoting transparent, participatory, and inclusive
process to monitor and realize human rights by achieving SDGs. She further stated that NHRIs shouldplay a key role in developing tool, guidance and knowledge on promoting a (Human Rights-BasedApproach (HRBA) to the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
Thirdly, Ms. Choi echoed the same sentiment and the role NHRIs can play in achieving SDGs. She madea few suggestions for CSOs in engaging with the government in implementing SDGs. One of her key
suggestions was to utilize the National
Action Plans, UPRs and other treaty
body processes to hold Statesaccountable at the national as well as
theinternational
level.
She
highlighted the importance of States’
responsibility in fulfilling theircommitments
underMeridaDeclaration, which outlines thevarious roles and functions NHRIs canundertake to make human rights thefoundation for the implementation forthe 2030 Agenda for the Sustainable Development, in the next Asian NGOs Network on National
Human Rights Institutions (ANNI)
Lastly, Ms. Gombosuren, emphasized on the role CSOs can and should play in monitoring theimplementation of the States’ commitments to their citizens as well as the international community,
including the SDGs which guarantees inclusive and participatory process.

Thematic Session 4C – Fundamental Freedoms and Non-Discrimination
Moderator: Ms Ma. Genesis CATINDIG, Asia DHRRA, Philippines
Presenter 1: Mr Deepak NIKARTHIL, Asia Dalits Rights Forum (ADRF), India- Addressing non-discrimination in human Rights through SDG in- Dalit is term is used for people associated with caste system. Categorizes people based on theirdescent. SDGs something which has changed the paradigm. We should have development throughright based approach.
- The SDG architecture,- Discrimination based on work and descent globally. Used to address various forms of
discrimination. India has around 201 million people- Key issues and challenges: the literacy level of dalits reached 65.8% among the advises 81.4
poverty level among the rest of the population is 33.3%- Increasing inequalities: 37% dalits live below the poverty line, 54% are undernourished, 83 per1000 born in a Dalit household die before their first birthday. And 45 % remain illiterate.
- Crimes against SCs (registered under POA)
- Key strategies and action:- The need to create more capacity building in implementing SDGs. We need to reach people aswide and local and grassroots as possible. Create an alternative data to address lack of data. People
can create data for all SDG targets so that we can give on what gov’t is missing on.
- Create shadow reports.

Report – 22-24 January, Busan, Republic of Korea---

Action guidelines for CSO Monitoring Report, address and ensure the recognition of the issues ofdalits and under marginalized communities under SDG 10; need of disaggregated data on all goals
to evaluate the progress of the SSDGs in respect to Dalit
How SDGs could be a total disaster, indivisibilization (dalits may become invisible in the national
SDG processes, thereby w/o any recognition in the official document) or they might be recognize
but they are not the most important part of benefit (elite may capture the benefits of SDGs),
manipulated diversion (none of the targets indicators reflect the need of the dalits)
Right to information, Indian CSOs have been using

Moderator: more data to popularize the issue of displace/marginalized communities
Presenter 2: Mr. William Gois, Migrant Forum in Asia
- There are two kinds of movement: Immigration, and migrant worker population (people who go
out for work but they are not included in the scope of laws that would allow them to become
permanent residence).
- The democrats called for the government shutdown. They wanted a policy for the dreamers, forchildren on migrants who came to US to work. The dreamers are people who are children of
migrants.
- Countries of destination and origin are beginning to take polarized position on this.
- The aging people will call for migrants. The care work and the low skilled work will be brought infor migrant workers.
- Starting from the grassroots. Understand why people move out.
- GCM: the UN has decided to become political discourse on SDGs and migration. UN GA conferenceon migration. For the last 12 years, migration has been talking out of UN. On 2016, when they saw
the large movement of people. Basically to come up with draft, co-facilitators report. Every month,they will negotiate a compact on migration to look at how to handle large movement of people.
The issue of migration has become politically toxic, we are in the wrong time to do something
about it.
- Those who are undocumented, what are the return procedures for them? What are happening tochildren and women?
- Fundamental freedoms and non-discrimination: ILO conventions. ILO conventions- More often the COD does not give accurate and adequate information to migrant workers. Right
to information, Standard contract, MOUs and BLAs, reference wage (avoiding the pitfall of race tothe bottom).
- Getting your terminology right (undocumented),- SDG paradigm are in sync with global processes.
Discussant: Mr Changho KIM- Discrimination against foreigners, including Korean migrants in Japan- Koreans migrant went to Japan during the WWII.
- Former colonial citizens from Korea have to live as foreigners.
- Housing discrimination- Korean with Japan citizenship has no right to vote in the election.
- Hate speech in Japan; Xenophobic Political Party- Fake news inciting discrimination against Koreans. Online fake news: false information about
crimes committed to japan.
- MIPEX Anti-discrimination Index

Report – 22-24 January, Busan, Republic of Korea-

Recommendations (from CSOs): Japanese government should guarantee the rights to vote, moreanti-discrimination law on both race, hate speech on xenophobia.
Problems of SDGs implementation of guiding principles in Japan. No ethnic minority areincorporated in the SDGs implementation.
Promotion of “Mental Barrier-Free to create an inclusive society where people respectnationalities.
Challenges of SDGs to tackle discrimination, cherry picking.
Suggestions on indicators, global indicators, COD indicators.

Discussant: Mr. Padam BAHADUR BK, Dalit NGO Federation, Nepal- Leave no one behind. Opportunity for grassroots community.
- Importance of SDGs. One case study, dalit communities were being punished arbitrarily by police,
proliferating the discrimination in Nepal. How can Dalit people participate in reducing poverty andengaging in SDG implementation.
- Issues and challenges in Nepal: Dalit Communities has less representations on Nepal.
- Anti-discrimination laws in Nepal that are not being implemented well.
- Dalit I the problem of south asia.
- Government and CSOs should make national action plan.
Discussant 3: Mr Onil KSHETRIMAYUM, Bridging for Sustainable Development (BSD), India- India has manages to evade caste as a racism issue- Castes groups that mingle and intermarriages happen. The caste distinction roots back to 7
generations based on DNA lies.
- Existence and institutionalization of caste system should also be recognized as an indicator of SDG
implementation.
- India has problems with discrimination ingrained and political.
Q1: the prisoner management in Japan is harsh. The indigenous people in Hokkaido are
discriminated. Minorities in Japan faces a lot of social injustices.
Presenter 1: look into the draft indicators made by government, use it as a power tool to urge
government to take action in monitoring the SDG processes, and make sure that the implementation
will trickle down to the community level. Nepal has done good job of including dalits.
Presenter 2: stock taking of what are the issues for marginalized population, and the problems thatthey face. Moving forward, it would be challenge for the Asian context to gather community(marginalized, and ethnic groups) to talk about this.

Presentation

4.D Access to information Open Government Partnership (OGP)Highlights of the SessionReport – 22-24 January, Busan, Republic of Korea

Open Government Partnership- Jiwhan Park started to present possible link between OGP
and SDG16 in achieving more open, accountable, andresponsive. He defined OGP as international platform thatgovernments can work together with civil society anddevelop national action plan (NAP) containing a set ofopen government commitments).
- The NAP as an effective tool to promote transparent andaccountable implementation of the SDG 16.10.
- OGP ensures participating countries to work for open
government. According to the WJP Open Government
Index 2015 data, OGP countries attain higher open
government scores than non-member countries for all levels of development and the OGP
countries in their second action plan cycle also perform better than countries in their first action
plan cycle.
- There are 3 ways on how OGP can help to attain SDGs by: (1) setting goals and targets specificallyfocused on openness and echoing Goal 16 for a just, peaceful and inclusive societies for all throughaccountable institutions; recognizing open government principles in order to achieve the broader
range of sustainable development goals, linking openness to governance for the improvement of
the lives of the many vulnerable and poor around the world and providing tools for better
designing accountable and transparent mechanisms for monitoring and reviewing theimplementation of the SDGs.
 Existing monitoring mechanisms for OGP - The WJP Open Government Index and the Independent
Reporting Mechanism (IRM).
NOTE: Korea, one of the OGP participating countries, got a low remark in their IRM. But later on, Korea
became active in the implementation of their national action plan, got a higher remark and now amember of the Steering Committee of OGP.
Panel Discussion-

According to Sanghak Lee, it is important to note that OGP and SDGs emphasize deepening
democracy and achieving development. They both value the citizen participation as an effective
mechanism to ensure the realization of plans. They should complement together in terms
implementation.
- He added the strategy to make the plans or agenda into concrete actions by:ü Make a network and develop collective action
ü Active involvement of the CSOs and citizens in developing action plans and agenda

Report – 22-24 January, Busan, Republic of Korea

ü Provide a good avenue/platform to disseminate information/raise awareness and monitor thecommitments and indicators for OGPs and
SDG 16üMaximize all the spaces provided by
OGP in order to realize the achievement of
the SDG 16 (NAP as a good platform)
On the other hand, Adrian Heokcited some challenge of civil society in
Singapore in terms of openness of thegovernment. He mentioned that the
government provided limited space for the
CSOs to engage and the presence of the government organized NGOs (GONGOs).
What needs to be done:
contextualize the issues and harmonize theindicators in order to identify the strengths
and weaknesses of the government in theimplementation of such initiaives - OGP and
SDG 16Singapore is not a member yet of
the OGP but the concern raised is how to
implement SDG 16 if the country is not yet amember of OGP and the space for CSOs is
quite restrictive.
OGP experience of Indonesia andPhilippines was shared also in the plenary. During the sharing, it was emphasized the importanceof openness of the government and active participation of the citizens in the process in order toachieve good governance.
III. Next Steps- Complement mechanisms for OGP and SDG 16- Mobilize and educate CSOs in the importance of OGP to realize SDG 16- Be part of the process from developing plans or agenda to monitoring the commitments- Create “power” through strengthening civic power to create change or difference in the world- Develop effective feedback mechanism
Plenary Session on UN and SDGs (09:00-10:00) / Day 3
CSO engagement in SDG Implementation and MonitoringØ UN High-level Political Forum (HLPF)-

Review of 2016-2017 and Preview of 2018-2019

Ø UNESCAP Asia Pacific Forum on Sustainable Development (APFSD)

Report – 22-24 January, Busan, Republic of Korea
Moderator Mr. Anselmo LEE / ADA Co-Convener, India
PresentersØ Ms Beckie MALAY, NGO Major Group Asia Representative / GCAP PhilippinesØ Dr. Jyotsna MOHAN, ADA Coordinator
The session deliberated the Civil society engagement in the High Level Political Forum (HLPF) byreviewing and previewing 2016-17 and 2018-19 scenario.Agenda 2030 clearly acknowledges theengagement of civil society and other stakeholders not only served to greatly enrich the debates andbuild global awareness but it also resulted in concrete suggestions and proposals, many of which wereendorsed by governments. CSO’s have played very crucial role in the whole process of SDGs
formulation, monitoring and implementation at national, regional and global levels• Directly with national government ministries and subnational bodies,• UN agencies, and other entities created by these institutions (UN ESCAP, UN DESA, UNDPetc.) to implement and monitor the SDGs.
• HLPF at the Global level
A strong civil society and a working relationship with government seems to directly correlate with astrong plan for SDG implementation, especially regarding adaptability of implementation to local contexts. Across Asia, civil society interacts with governments in unique ways, but the national
governments that have included CSOs in a consultation for drafting their HLPF report, and included
them in the overall process in an inclusive and participatory fashion, have a much more detailed andtangible plan set forth to tackle the SDGs. This can be seen in countries like Nepal, Bangladesh,
Malaysia, Indonesia, Japan. When civil society is weakened, due to a tense political environment orlack of strong national coordination within CSOs, civil society is more likely to be left out of formal
processes. The outcomes of the formal processes are therefore weaker and they often do notreference the entire context by including the perspectives of multiple stakeholders. The countries
under review that have had less engagement with CSOs in the drafting or consultative process havesubmitted less well de ned proposals that may not include how practical implementation will beachieved. This can be seen in India, Maldives, Afghanistan
Summary:• There is a clear relation between civil society and democratic-political society, as a result of theirroles in creating awareness, stimulating an informed citizenry, and holding government moreaccountable.
• In general CSOs build social capital, trust and shared values, which are transferred into the politicalsphere and help to hold society together, facilitating an understanding of the interconnectednessof society and interests within it.
• But because civil society is broad concept–and a concept under dispute–its capacity and power
can be exercised in different ways–e.g.
private lobbyists that corrupt government's
officials, whether legally or not, callthemselves civil society too

Report – 22-24 January, Busan, Republic of Korea

Thematic Workshop 5 on HLPF VNR
East and South Asia

Countries

Pre VNRCSO Report

Thailand

Govt and CSOs
did not
interacted before
VNR presentationback in the
country before
New York 2017 ,July.

CSO’s produced
their ownthematic reports

Malaysia

The government
Listened to ideas
but didn’t put inthe report

CSOs produced areportDuring VNR
Government
decide to join
VNR
The call for otherstake holder
Then present tostakeholders andcheck if their
ideas
were
accepted which
need not be
incorporated.
At the same time
CSOs need toprocess their own
report.
During VNR CSOs
give their own
opinion.

Post VNR
Localization
process of theSDGs may bedifferent
from
one to anothercountry.
So there is a needto learn the bestpractices.
Need to have
VNR
follow-up
engagemonitoring

One interaction CSO-Government

CSOs
and
government
jointlyhostedmeeting in NY,
HLPF
Malaysia had one
report.
CSOs
producedtworeport one before
and another after
HLPF

CSOs Produced
one report post
VNR

Report – 22-24 January, Busan, Republic of Korea
Japan

Japan CSOs had Japan produced 1
had
two reportdiscussions withthe government
before the VNR

Japan had a side
event with RoK
CSOs

Republic of
Korea

First interaction Korea came up
two weeks before with one report
HLPFPolicy
dialog

Korea- organized
two side eventswith japan, andinvitedthegovernment, andtheyjoined,anotherside
event with Korea
embassy in Korea
in NY.
S
Korea
governmentorganizeside
event with UNDP
Seoul CSOs on the
other
hand
invitedgovernment

Korea had three
government
discussion post
VNR

Philippines

They had only
one meeting withthe government
two weeks before
the submission of
their reports.

they were part of
the government
delegation
they had meetingwiththegovernment
delegation.
No side eventswithgovernment. , butthey had theirown side events.

No serious follow
up meeting ,person in charge
in NEDA retired

Came with the
spotlight report.
There was a CSO
representation in
the government
delegation

Follow up
meeting with thegovt., Happened
JapanThe
japan government
Government
prepared SDGs
organized their implementation
independent
plan 2018
event.

Report – 22-24 January, Busan, Republic of Korea
Indonesia

Thailandmore than two made one report
times
policy but
nodialog with the publication
govt. the CSOs
push
thegovernment ofIndonesia
toreport VNR Joint
report by CSOs
and govt. thedata came fromthe government
was
a
big
challenge for the
CSOs
The
CSOs
produced
4reports.
Three thematic
reportone
process report.

, Indonesia there
was joint report.
Indonesiaorganized
event
UNICEFside
with

Follow up
meeting with thegovt., Happened