LESSONS FROM EVALUATIONS: SDG LOCALIZATION THROUGH LOCAL GOVERNANCE Co-authors: Anna Kunová, Shivit Bakrania, Solomon Mamo and Mario Biggeri. This paper identifies five lessons from initiatives where United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and others are supporting the localization of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) through local governance. UNDP is an active provider of services to local government across a wide range of sectors and activities. It works with them directly in areas such as energy access and efficiency, disaster prevention and recovery, environmental protection, waste management and recycling, job creation, 'smart cities', health systems, cadastre and taxation systems, and many more. These activities fit within one or more of the SDG targets, although in many cases, links to SDG localization as a distinct process (as defined in the box) are weak. This Reflections paper draws lessons from initiatives that directly link to SDG localization processes, namely: fostering local-national SDG dialogue and engagement of stakeholders; building relevant capacity of locallevel governments; and supporting the gathering and management of local-level SDG data.
Lesson 1
SDG localization is a process through which subnational authorities, citizens and other local stakeholders operationalize the principles of the 2030 Agenda in their specific contexts and pursue the achievement of the SDGs in an integrated manner. This process involves the vertical integration of policies (across international, national, regional, territorial and community levels), as well as horizontal integration across sectors.
Achievement of the SDGs at local level requires policy coordination and alignment across different levels of governance. More successful initiatives balanced the strengthening of local government capacity with support to local-national dialogue and cooperation.
SDG localization requires the alignment of strategies and policies across government levels to ensure coordination in SDG planning, implementation, monitoring and review. Such vertical integration involves the development of national frameworks, which aim to ensure a common vision and strategic objectives and effective legal and regulatory instruments, coordination mechanisms or structures for enhancing local-national dialogue, collaboration and knowledge-sharing. 1
In India, UNDP successfully fostered vertical integration as part of a “whole of government” approach to SDG localization. 1 UNDP contributed to setting up SDG Coordination Centres in five states, across the 24 districts identified to be the ‘furthest behind’. The agency assisted with the articulation of Vision 2030 three-year action plans and the integration of SDG-responsive planning and budgeting, based upon a standard model developed by the national Government. The model has been scaled up and attracted interest from Bangladesh, Indonesia and Mongolia, and led to several South-South knowledge exchange actions. 2 In Nepal, UNDP successfully supported the National Planning Commission to design and implement a project for the acceleration of implementation of the SDGs, building linkages and coordination between government tiers to align federal-level planning, budgeting and monitoring systems with the national SDG framework. Provincial and local governments were also supported to align their plans and programmes, and SDG-responsive actions were successfully integrated into intergovernmental transfer mechanisms for public finance. 3 In Cuba, UNDP piloted the “Articulated Platform for Integrated Territorial Development”, assisting the provincial government to create a local development management model with the participation of local actors. Municipal development strategies that articulate local priorities were developed or updated in a number of provinces. As part of this process, UNDP also helped to institutionalize Communication for Development in local governments, developing territorial capacity and facilitating better communication between local governments and their citizens. 4 In Suriname, on the other hand, UNDP faced challenges in its work towards vertical integration of the SDGs due to contextual and structural factors. These included high fragmentation in the civil service, limited coordination between government institutions at different levels, and lack of awareness in ministries and departments of where the responsibilities and leadership for SDG implementation lay. These challenges prevented UNDP from working on processes at all government levels in a way that could foster effective commitment towards SDG localization. 5
Lesson 2
Engaging relevant stakeholders and including diverse perspectives in the SDG localization process helps to ensure SDG integration and local ownership. Engagement strategies worked best where they included structured mechanisms and empowerment processes, to allow the voices of populations likely to be left behind to be part of the dialogue.
The inclusion of relevant stakeholders (such as public and private sector actors, community-based organizations, academic and research institutions and representatives of the media) in SDG localization dialogues can give voice to diverse interests and help to ensure a comprehensive understanding of sustainable development issues. The benefits of participation are illustrated by the cases of Malawi and Uganda, where the engagement of communities in planning processes increased their confidence and assertiveness in demanding services and strengthened public ownership of the initiatives. 6 In Pakistan, the engagement of the private sector in an SDG localization project fostered subnational SDG reporting. 7 In Bosnia and Herzegovina, an SDG roll-out initiative involving both public and private sector actors engaged over 600 businesses, 187 of whom subsequently applied for the SDG Business Pioneers Award which showcased greener, more sustainable and circular business models. 8 Participation and cooperation among societal stakeholders worked best when there were structured mechanisms that promoted the inclusion of relevant actors in dialogue. For example, the Social Participation Forum in Argentina served as a national space for civil society dialogue, linking civil society with provincial and municipal SDG focal points and other stakeholders (United Nations and legislative system representatives, private sector) to inform policymaking and promote joint initiatives. 9 The Forum elaborated a yearly action plan for localization of the 2030 Agenda at the local level, while provinces worked with actors from the private, not-for-profit and academic sectors to validate the SDG priorities selected. Conversely, stakeholder engagement does not produce results when it is unstructured and lacks clear goals. In Pakistan, an SDG-mainstreaming project engaged universities but struggled to communicate a clear rationale in the project 2
design, lacking “focus and realism”. As a result, “there was no evidence that universities have contributed in any significant measure to any of the objectives”. 10 In general, across UNDP programmes, initiatives promoting political participation had mixed results for populations likely to be left behind. There is limited evidence on the meaningful participation of vulnerable groups in local governance and decision-making on sustainable development priorities. 11 In Uganda, for example, efforts to strengthen government capacity to include women, youth and other historically marginalized populations in planning and decisionmaking processes at the district and subnational levels yielded limited results. 12 In a few documented cases where populations furthest left behind benefited from SDG localization initiatives, UNDP had specifically targeted support for empowerment processes to allow the inclusion of their voices in dialogues on the SDGs. In Bolivia, UNDP implemented a project to strengthen the autonomy and capacity of indigenous women and youth to exercise their political voice and participate in decision-making on local economic and social development (within a larger SDG framework but without an explicit focus on SDG localization). The initiative contributed to increased participation of indigenous women in decision-making processes and forums. 13
Lesson 3
Enhancing local government capacity and accountability has been a key enabler of advancing SDG achievement at local level. Initiatives were more successful where capacity-building was systematic, targeted and helped local governments to improve transparency and citizen trust.
UNDP has been providing capacity-building support to local government in many countries, despite a decrease in engagement noted in some countries over the period under review. 14 While some of these initiatives had explicit objectives related to SDG localization, in others the goals were broader and the links more implicit. Relevant capacitybuilding initiatives most often sought to develop skills in finance, budgeting and strategic planning, cashbook management and results-based management, report writing, and other technical skills that support local governments to localize specific agendas. In Nepal, UNDP provided various capacity-building and sensitization initiatives to promote local resilience, supporting provincial and district level Emergency Operation Centres and municipal authorities to decentralize disaster risk management. 15 In Bangladesh, UNDP worked with officials at upazila parishad (sub-district) and union parishad (borough) levels, providing them with orientation and training directly aimed at increasing their SDG localization capacity. 16 The subsequent evaluation reported that 90 percent of the targeted upazila parishads undertook at least one SDG localization initiative (such as SDG-friendly five-year plan preparation, or developing schemes for reducing poverty, ensuring clean drinking water or local awareness-raising), as compared to 71 percent who were not part of the intervention. Although most of these interventions were successful and appreciated by local actors, there were cases where project design and external factors limited their reach and sustainability. In Lebanon, initiatives to strengthen municipal services were one-off and/or too fragmented to sustainably address the capacity needs of local authorities. 17 In some countries, local government capacity-building efforts were impeded by high staff turnover (Pakistan, Peru, Bangladesh, Bhutan 18), or disrupted by political events such as local level elections (Brazil 19). In some contexts, UNDP struggled to adjust to the specific contexts and needs that varied by municipality (Cuba, Nepal 20). In other contexts, UNDP aimed to address the accountability and transparency of local governments (Afghanistan, Colombia 21). In Colombia, these programmes contributed to strengthening municipalities in conflict-affected regions and increasing the trust of local populations, building on the strong rural reach of UNDP. In Afghanistan, in 2020, UNDP provided technical and capacity-building support to municipal and district level authorities to enhance public oversight 3
of budgeting (revenue generation) and local development planning. To increase accountability, UNDP supported the construction of citizen service centres, as well as efforts to raise citizen awareness of municipal finances and spending.
Lesson 4
The generation and use of SDG data increases the capacity to enable SDG localization at local and national levels. Local-level actors were best able to make use of data, or internalize data for planning purposes, where development support was sustained and coherent, not fragmented or infrequent.
Reliable and rigorous data is needed at local (as any other) level to monitor progress and determine the focus of future efforts to achieve the SDGs. 22 Mechanisms for collecting and systematizing data are required, to enable evidence-based planning and implementation and reliable reporting. UNDP has been facilitating this in various ways that have helped to increase the capacity to integrate and generate data on the SDGs at local level. Most notably this has been done through support to national statistics offices and the development of SDG data platforms (India, Nepal 23), strengthening local data and statistics systems (Lebanon, Gabon 24), and by producing subnational SDG baselines, needs assessments and monitoring reports (Brazil, Lebanon, Malawi, Nepal, Turkey 25). In India, UNDP technical assistance at state and national levels has contributed to SDG progress monitoring, budgeting and planning. UNDP provided technical assistance to the government thinktank Niti Aayog to track progress against SDG targets as part of the SDG India Index, at national and district levels. 26 In Brazil, UNDP support for the development of platforms and databases for SDG analysis and monitoring was underpinned by technological innovation and strong local partnerships. The Oeste do Paraná 2030 web platform applied business intelligence tools to monitor SDG indicators in the 54 municipalities of West Paraná state, using official administrative data, and linking to other UNDPsupported databases such as the Human Development Atlas. 27 This was recognized as good practice for SDG localization by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 28 In some cases, the fragmented or infrequent nature of support and capacity-building led to a lack of local-level technical capacity to make the best use of data, internalize data for planning purposes, or effectively operate SDG data platforms. For example, in Nepal, UNDP partnered with the National Statistics Office to institutionalize the use of the National Data Profile in all municipalities, but a lack of follow up training in some locations meant that consistent and long-term use of the Profile was limited. 29 In other countries, the support provided was insufficient to overcome large data gaps (Lebanon 30) or low baseline monitoring capacity (Malawi 31).
Lesson 5
Voluntary Local Reviews (VLRs) are a promising approach for accelerating progress on SDG localization. Support for VLRs also helps to facilitate vertical integration by ensuring that national SDG priorities are responsive to local needs.
Similar to Voluntary National Reviews (VNRs), VLRs are a tool to monitor implementation of the 2030 Agenda at local levels, allowing local authorities to identify their own priorities and local specificities within the 2030 Agenda. 1 The VLR also incentivizes the production of subnational indicators, data collection at more disaggregated levels, and local policies and investments. External literature sources note that VLR production is seen as an “outstanding good
Voluntary National Review (VNR) is a tool to monitor the implementation of the 2030 Agenda and the 17 SDGs at the national level. Through an engagement process, including experience sharing, peer-learning, identifying gaps and good practices, and mobilizing partnerships, this tool produces a soft accountability and a progress monitoring mechanism through which countries assess and present the progresses made. 1
4
practice”, 32 that facilitates transparency, SDG awareness, and institutional accountability, 33 and can be a practical approach for accelerating the progress of SDG implementation and localization. 34 VLRs can also reinforce vertical integration by complementing and contributing to VNRs. In just two years the total number of VLRs worldwide tripled, from approximately 40 in July 2020 to more than 150 in July 2022. 35 While there is abundant evidence of UNDP initiatives supporting the production of VNRs, 36 the evidence on initiatives supporting VLRs is still scarce (Kenya, Turkey 37), but shows promising results. In Kenya, UNDP supported counties to develop VLRs, and it is notable that Kenya was the only African country producing VLRs for non-urban areas. 38 UNDP provided catalytic support towards mainstreaming the SDGs into 47 county-level frameworks, thereby helping to ensure that county plans and budgets reflected SDG targets. In Marsabit, a Kenyan county characterized by high poverty rates, this support resulted in notable improvements in the monitoring of development projects. The 2019 VLR indicated that “the county has cascaded the SDGs Agenda at the county, sub-county and Ward levels.” The report further stated that the county had provided planning and budget documents on the county website where budget implementation could be tracked by stakeholders, thus increasing transparency and accountability. VLRs can also reinforce vertical integration by complementing and informing VNRs, and therefore providing a mechanism for local government voices to be reflected in the national review. External literature highlights several successful cases of VNR-VLR integration, including from programming and non-programming countries such as Mexico, Japan and Finland. 39 An evaluation of UNDP support to poverty reduction in least-developed countries highlights cases where UNDP support to local governments as SDG integrators did not translate to VNRs being more responsive or reflective of local SDG-related needs or priorities. Instead, it found that VNRs often apply generic and non-committal language related to SDG localization. 40 VNRs have improved and grown in number over the years, but support to VLRs may also be a promising avenue to continue to improve the quality of VNRs, though this needs to be further tested and evaluated.
The Reflections series synthesizes lessons from past evaluations to support organizational learning about what works and what doesn't in different development contexts. The aim of the series is to provide relevant, useful, and accessible lessons to country offices of UNDP, as well as to the wider community of development practitioners. It is a rapid evaluation synthesis from material issued by UNDP between 2013 and 2023, as well as from external evaluative evidence. The sources consist of country-level and thematic evaluations conducted by the UNDP Independent Evaluation Office (IEO), quality-assured decentralized evaluations commissioned by UNDP country offices and key evaluative studies published in academic journals and in grey literature repositories on the topic of SDG localization. This paper broadly draws on 65 evaluations and studies. Development of this paper leveraged a combination of AI-led searches in the UNDP AIDA (Artificial Intelligence for Development Analytics) tool, and humanled analysis.
5
REFERENCES 1
UNDP IEO (2022) ‘Independent Country Programme Evaluation: India,’, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/documents/detail/21433 2 UNDP IEO (2020) 'Evaluation of UNDP Development Cooperation in Middle-Income Countries, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/documents/download/18034 3 UNDP IEO (2021) ‘Independent Country Programme Evaluation: Nepal’, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/documents/detail/20031 4 UNDP IEO (2019), ‘Independent Country Programme Evaluation: Cuba,’ https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/documents/detail/14958 5 UNDP Suriname (2021), 'Evaluation of the UNDP Country Programme (2017-2021)', https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/documents/download/18924 6 UNDP Malawi (2020), ‘Terminal Evaluation – Implementing Urgent Adaptation Priorities through Strengthened Decentralized and National Development Plans – ADAPT PLAN, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/documents/detail/16787 UNDP Uganda (2018), ‘Evaluation of Project Saemaul Initiative towards Inclusive and Sustainable New Communities (ISNC) Covering Period 2015-2017,’ UNDP 2018, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/documents/detail/12282 7 UNDP Pakistan (2020), ‘National Initiative and Mainstreaming, Acceleration and Policy Support for Sustainable Development Goals,’ https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/documents/detail/18147 8 UNDP Bosnia and Hercegovina (2021), ‘Final Project Evaluation for the Project SDGs Roll-Out Support and Private Sector Engagement,’ https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/documents/detail/19609 9 UN Habitat (2022) ‘Multi-level Governance for SDG Localization,’ https://www.multilevelgovernance.org/resources 10 UNDP Pakistan (2020); 11 UNDP IEO (2022a) ‘Formative Evaluation of the Integration by UNDP of the Principles of “Leaving No One Behind”,’ https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/documents/detail/21854 12 UNDP Uganda (2018); 13 UNDP Bolivia (2019) ‘Mid-term evaluation of the project “Strengthening of the Plurinational, Autonomous State and Intercultural Democracy, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/documents/detail/12562 14 UNDP IEO (2019a) ‘Independent Country Programme Evaluation: Afghanistan,’ https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/documents/detail/16846; UNDP Bangladesh (2022), ‘Efficient and Accountable Local Governance (EALG) Project,’ https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/documents/detail/21907; UNDP Bosnia and Hercegovina (2021); UNDP IEO (2020b) ‘Independent Country Programme Evaluation: Brazil,’ https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/documents/detail/19405; UNDP IEO (2019); UNDP IEO (2018) ‘Independent Country Programme Evaluation: Colombia’, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/documents/detail/13781; UNDP IEO (2022); UNDP IEO (2022b), ‘Independent Country Programme Evaluation: Kenya,’ https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/documents/detail/20072 ; UNDP Malawi (2020); UNDP Mauritanie (2021) ‘Evaluation Finale Programme D’appui à la Gouvernance Régionale at au Developpement Économique Local" (PAGRDEL), Cycle 2018-2021’, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/detail/9373; UNDP IEO (2021) ; UNDP Lao People’s Democratic Republic (2021) ‘Final Evaluation of the Governance and Public Administration Reform (GPAR) – Governance for Inclusive Development Programme, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/documents/detail/19678; UNDP IEO (2019b), ‘Independent Country Programme Evaluation: Lebanon’, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/documents/detail/18252;
6
UNDP Pakistan (2020); UNDP Peru (2019), ‘Sixth Operational Phase of the GEF Small Grants Program in Peru (LAC Region), https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/documents/detail/19179; UNDP Uzbekistan (2017) ‘Final Evaluation, ‘Local Governance Support Project II,’ https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/documents/detail/10843; UN Capital Development Fund (2022), ‘Final Evaluation of the Local Climate Adaptive Living Facility (LoCAL),’ UNDP, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/documents/detail/22082; 15 UNDP IEO (2021); 16 UNDP Bangladesh (2022); 17 UNDP IEO (2019b); 18 UNDP Pakistan (2020); UNDP Peru (2019); UNDP Bangladesh (2022); UN Capital Development Fund (2022); 19 UNDP IEO (2020b); 20 UNDP IEO (2019); UNDP IEO (2021); 21 UNDP IEO (2019a); UNDP IEO (2018); 22 Orozco, E. H., et al, (2021) ‘SDG localization baseline: How local-level actors are driving change and advancing the achievements of the 2030 Agenda’, Stockholm Environment Institute, https://www.sei.org/publications/sdg-localizationbaseline-2030/ 23 UNDP IEO (2022); UNDP IEO (2021); 24 UNDP IEO (2019b); UNDP Gabon (2022), ‘Final Evaluation of the UNDP Country Programme,’ https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/documents/detail/21816 25 UNDP IEO (2020b); UNDP IEO (2021c), ‘Evaluation of UNDP Support to the Syrian Refugee Crisis Response and Promoting and Integrated Resilience Approach, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/documents/detail/18370 UNDP Malawi (2020); UNDP IEO (2021); UNDP IEO (2021c); 26 UNDP IEO (2022); 27 See www.oestepr2030.org.br 28 UNDP IEO (2020b); 29 UNDP Nepal (2023) 'Accelerating Implementation of Sustainable Development Goals in Nepal (AISN Project) UNDP/NPC Final Evaluation Report,' https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/documents/download/22644 30 UNDP IEO (2019b); 31 UNDP Malawi (2020); 32 UN Habitat (2022) ; 33 Orozco, E. H., et al., (2021); 34 UN Habitat (2021) 'UN Habitat Tracking Progress Towards Inclusive, Safe, Resilient and Sustainable Cities and Human Settlements'; Nairobi, Kenya, 2018 quoted in Osman, T. et al. (2021) Voluntary Local Review Framework to Monitor and Evaluate the Progress towards Achieving Sustainable Development Goals at a City Level: Buraidah City, KSA and SDG11 as A Case Study. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9555. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179555 35 UN Habitat (2022); 36 UNDP IEO (2021d), ‘Independent Country Programme Evaluation: Angola,’ https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/documents/detail/19779;
7
UNDP Armenia (2022) ‘Mid-term Project Evaluation: Modern Parliament for a Modern Armenia,’ https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/documents/detail/19796; UNDP IEO (2019c), ‘Independent Country Programme Evaluation: Azerbaijan,’ https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/documents/detail/15615; UNDP IEO (2020c), ‘Independent Country Programme Evaluation: Barbados and Eastern Caribbean,’ https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/documents/detail/18575; UNDP IEO (2019d), ‘Independent Country Programme Evaluation: Bosnia and Herzegovina,’ https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/documents/detail/16966; UNDP Botswana (2019) ‘MTE: Country Programme 2017 – 2021,’ https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/documents/detail/15349; UNDP IEO (2021b), ‘Independent Country Programme Evaluation: Peru,’ https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/documents/detail/19831; UNDP IEO (2019e), ‘Independent Country Programme Evaluation: Turkmenistan,’ https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/documents/detail/16881; UNDP IEO (2019f), ‘Independent Country Programme Evaluation: Uruguay,’ https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/documents/detail/15637; and others. 37 UNDP Kenya (2020) ‘Strengthening Devolved Governance in Kenya Project,’ https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/documents/detail/18373; UNDP Türkiye (2022) ‘Final Evaluation for Local Administration Reform Phase III (LAR III) Project, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/documents/detail/21702 38 UNDP Kenya (2020); 39 Ortiz-Moya, F.; Saraff Marcos, E.; Kataoka, Y.; Fujino, J., (2021) 'State of the Voluntary Local Reviews 2021: From Reporting to Action,', Institute for Global Environmental Strategies https://www.iges.or.jp/en/publication_documents/pub/researchreport/en/11553/Ortiz-Moya+et+al.+2021++State+of+the+VLRs+2021.pdf 40 UNDP IEO (2018) Evaluation of UNDP Support to Poverty Reduction in Least Developed Countries, https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/documents/download/12300
8