people and planet

24
“
When the High-Level Political Forum first convened in July 2016, it
emphasized that assessment of SDG success must be based on the
well-being of the most vulnerable groups
”
July 2016, under the theme ‘Leaving no one behind’, it
emphasized that assessment of SDG success must be
based on the well-being of the most vulnerable groups,
both nationally and globally.
The HLPF’s work has been informed by the first edition
of the SDG Report, an annual progress report following
in the footsteps of the MDG Report, which summarizes
regional and global patterns and trends for each goal,
based on a subset of the SDG indicator framework
expected to be approved by the UN General Assembly
in September 2016 (United Nations, 2016b). The SDG
data repository, on which the report is based, is an
achievement in its own right. However, there are concerns
that certain indicators covered by the SDG Report are not
relevant to many countries.
The HLPF was also informed by the first set of national
reviews, submitted voluntarily by 22 member states
(United Nations, 2016a). 1 These reviews are the backbone
of the new follow-up and review architecture. They
suggest that several obstacles common to many SDGs
circumscribe progress on them: financing, capacity,
governance and the immediate day-to-day concerns of
national governments. The national reviews also show
wide gaps in how countries perceive their role. For some
wealthier countries, the 2030 Agenda may still be seen as
a development strategy that pertains to other countries.
Experience from this first year highlights a standing
dilemma in international agreements: what are effective
means and instruments to promote implementation of
global statements of intent at the national level?
THE GEM REPORT AS AN
INFORMED AND HONEST BROKER
ON ISSUES OF EDUCATION AND
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Experience has shown that regional associations (in
which countries typically share values, objectives
and challenges) and thematic groups (within which
particular themes and concerns come to be shared
and seen as appropriate) can serve as bridges between
global dialogue and national initiatives. The proposed
follow-up and review architecture has opened space for
thematic reviews and regional indicators – a welcome
development, as high level global discussions can be
difficult to link to the concerns of individual countries
as well as specialized groups such as the international
education community.
In the Education for All (EFA) agenda, the EFA Global
Monitoring Report series begun in 2002 became accepted
by governments and civil society as a major thematic
follow-up and review mechanism. It provided in-depth
information and analysis and acted as an international
reference point. It sharpened the focus and gave voice to
important emerging issues in education, helping prioritize
and clarify what is at stake. It facilitated dialogue among
global, regional and national actors and, to a lesser
extent, among sectors including health, gender and
social protection.
At the World Education Forum in May 2015,
representatives of the international education
community renewed the report’s mandate to continue
as the Global Education Monitoring Report (GEM Report).
The fundamental aim of the new series is to address
how education at all stages of life – in school, at the
workplace, at home and in the community – can be made
more inclusive, equitable and of higher quality.
2016 • GLOBAL EDUCATION MONITORING REPORT 387