Exec Com meeting
17 February 2015
10 00 – 11 30 Brussels time (to allow participation from Indonesia and Bangladesh)
Agenda
1. Notes of last meeting




Pros and cons of technical proofing – Exec Com did not really have much of a conversation
around this over email unfortunately, so not much action or guidance provided.
VPVC – Secretariat familiarising itself with the document, and using.
Mapping – the mid-term review highlighted this. Discuss with Naiara later today. It is not
easy because the agenda is so large, and things are constantly changing. We will keep trying
Intel sharing – monthly calls for structures. Should we be more open and do general intel
sharing calls for the whole campaign in between IGNs? During IGNs?
Helen would like more open intel sharing calls
Neva would like these more open too
Could try one as an experiment
Do it around the IGNs
Have a short section at the start of the call for the Exec Com to highlight the transparency.


We are implementing the key changes suggested.
Scenario planning – not much action. George leading a group – anything to report?
Not much has happened here as yet. JP Helen Ahmed and Neva. Nothing has happened as of yet. Will
try to work on this within the next fortnight. Neva and Helen will move it forward together, as Helen
is around for the next two weeks.
Should be a big part of conversation in Tunis as well. Prep work needed so we can take decisions in
Tunis.
Intel sharing on the intergovernmental negotiations (open discussion)



Feedback from those members who were in NY in Jan + Feb
Andrew – strong references to civil society and the role we can play. This is good
Helen – the declaration is not bad. Question marks and red flags around the 6 elements vs 4 /
5 Ps approach (Brazil, Kamau etc) Governance, peace, inclusive etc were not there. The
politics is very challenging, in terms of how we engage and in terms of how the MS move
forward. Many MS feel that SDGs are done, but many of them feel that they will take the low
hanging fruit. Worry that the universality aspect is not coming through fully with MS yet. This
is a red flag. Could we issue something on this?







Kamau said there will be no target negotiations in March, so we will prob see the proposed
set of indicators.
Europeans don’t want to look at the indicators, though Kamau is pushing them to do so
before September
April session will be back to back or merged with FfD. March and April are meaty political
moments. Zero draft will be in april rather than May. We need to be clear where we add
value, looking at the political picture.
Craig – lots of discussion about para 12 and about how that relates to FfD, worry that it will
be too prescriptive around Addis
Andrew: MS aware of politics around indicators, what they can can or lose, so they want to
have more of a grasp on this. Ministries are starting to realise they will need to measure, and
capitals are thus starting to get more interested. Brazil worried about getting too far into the
target discussion.
FfD fold def concerned that FfD is being looked at as just MoI, they want it to be more
visionary re. financing
Helen – Brazil had good suggestions about how CSOs engage in the process moving forward.
They want us to be more systematic and joined up, and want more systemasiation in terms
of the follow up and review. Some kind of CSO committee of NGOs organised around each
goal – they want better CSO coordination! G77 MS warned that Brazil is way less supportive
of CSO engagement in closed doors – they actually want to reduce the scope and breadth of
CSO engagement. We should keep an ear to the ground on this, Naiara to speak with the
Mission. Is this positive or negative in terms of the space.

Busani and Tania and Gerard
Kamau attending sessions, highlight 3 Ps
Stakeholder session, CSOs sitting with MS!
Leave no one behind / no target met unless met by all


1.
2.
3.
4.
Looking forward to the March sessions.
Capitalising on all of the meetings we are getting with MS
MGs and other stakeholders
How best to engage
Anyone else going?
Importance of reaching out to MS when there.
Andrew
We need to have a position on what a good framing of the whole agenda looks like. Do we like the
Ps, if not why not? Do we like the SGs 6 points? Some more work to be done about how we frame.
Exec Com to carve out a space for this (when, where?)
Helen
Big space for us to be propositional on the framing. They want a more visionary intro statement. If
we have stock phrases which we want inserted, then we should be sharing these with the cofacilitators. We should probably frame it around our 3Ps! Space for us to be propositional, let’s do
this.
For the upcoming sessions the MGs request:
8) The steering committee has an OP from each of the nine Major Groups. Other stakeholders and
constituencies with long-term engagement should be encouraged to follow the rules of transparent
governance and consultation so as to obtain the same position as MGs through the HLPF (see
UNFCCC procedures as an example).
9) The steering committee role is limited to electing speakers from new constituencies.
I’ll not even start to comment on MGs and “rules of transparent governance and consultation”…
I’ll be following this very closely because I want to see how the next hearing will be organized. I
really don’t understand what they are talking about on Para 8 as it seems to me that they are trying
to legislate way beyond the mandate provided by Member States themselves. The other point is
who will be selecting the speakers from “new constituencies”- from my understanding of the OPs
proposal, it will be basically them selecting us.
If you need to flag anything to the Executive Committee tomorrow, I would suggest the following:
1) Beyond 2015 have been engaged in the Steering Committees of January and February
(Naiara and Gerard).
2) We’ve managed to get speaking slots for the Campaign in the two hearings (one in January
and two in February – one shared with the Children and Youth Major Group).
3) The morning sessions have provided space for all Major Groups and stakeholders so far and
have been very interesting to engage with Member States (several have attended the
sessions).
4) Although CSOs have presented written statements they were generally short and to the
point and several were referred by Member States during negotiations (our statement with
the CYMG was referred by several MS).
5) For Beyond 2015, we appreciate the opportunity of rotating our nominees to the Steering
Committee as this allows for participatory leadership and shares the burden amongst active
members of the Campaign. (We cannot rely only on one person as this process demands a
lot of our time).
6) We want a system that is clear, transparent and fair in the treatment of all constituencies.
Nobody should be pressured to come under a Group or coalition if they don’t feel
represented by them (Article 20 of the Human Rights Declaration - Article 20: (2) No one
may be compelled to belong to an association).
7) We are a historic and broad coalition with recognized transparent practices and we will keep
pushing for a space in the process.
2. How Beyond 2015 wants to participate in the September Summit – and what do we want
to achieve there? (Open discussion)

Managing expectations – we won’t be able to influence, so how should we engage, and how
should we encourage participating organisations to engage?
Neva – we should profile our intent for what we do on the implementation and review. We
should start the process from the global level, which would then be taken to the national
level. Key moment for So What Now discussions.
Logistics will be a nightmare, security will be huge!
Hamong – it is just a celebration of the post-2015 agenda. Won’t be crucial to the substance.
Intergovernmental process will be more important. Wants more info so he can discuss more
with colleagues in Asia.
Helen – no influence but we should be there, and we maintain the momentum. Can we get
some stories from the ground? Glitter cannons and jazz hands!
Forward planning is crucial, as ever. Need to plan things as much in advance as possible. Get
venues, get representation sorted, what format would work. Supportive States or other allies
involved to get them involved early? Would we partner with Action 2015 on something?
Would we do something with the MGs? United front of civil society? Need to think through
this.
Craig – important to be present, but there will be no policy impact. Keep pressure on. Who
knows what stage we will be at. Opp for us to discuss what is missing, how we move forward.
Andrew sum up
1. Visibility and recognition of our engagement in the whole process
2. CSO engagement in the process moving forward (monitoring and
review, participation as key part of implementation etc)
3. Exec Com leading these conversations politically
Andrew will get a ToR and then we get a sub committee to take these conversations forward.
Insists on Exec Com leadership on this.
3. Technical proofing

What is the Exec Com’s strategic guidance for the whole campaign? (Follow on from
Andrew’s email)
From GV – it won’t happen as Europe wanted it, but will still happen. Hand in hand with indicators.
Andrew: Politics around this. Some want to make targets better, so want to reopen that whole goals
and targets negotiations. Some like the vagueness. Do we take a position?
Helen – Kamau said not enough consensus on technical proofing, so it has not been commissioned.
So do we really need to do this anymore?
Some see the indicators exercise as a way into the technical proofing
Some MS don’t want Kamau to lock this space down, but it looks like it has happened.
UN has been technical proofing them anyway, but it prob won’t be political.
Neva – what if everything is reopened in June / July because of weakness of Addis? Are people
planning for this eventuality?
Neva – MoI targets? What if they go into the FfD targets? Do we have a position on the division
between action targets and financial targets, or between financial and non financial?
Craig – maybe we do some more digging here on Neva’s points? Naiara and the UN Working Group.
Andrew – hard to take the MoI targets out cos G77 etc fought v hard for this.
Politics – this is the Kamau show, he is engaging very tactically with the G77, he is doing this very
well. Interesting dynamic between Kenya and Ireland. So we focus more on Kenya.
Hamong: Wants Secretariat to analyse the pros and cons for the Exec Com
Decision: No longer politically relevant. Indicator is where we can see gains.
4. Indicators

What is our strategic guidance for the whole campaign? How should we, as a global
campaign, engage with the discussions on indicators?
Neva – CAFOD will be involved in the Task Force, supports the suggested process
Helen – supports. StC looking to do something similar, she will suggest that they join.
What are the outputs and when?
Action: Leo to get this clarity from NY team
Andrew – critical that we link the indicators to the politics. How do the indicators link to the rest of
the conversation, and specifically the politics? Ensure that this is in the ToR.
Request: Can someone from the Exec Com engage in this TF? Andrew to help get the political
leadership.
Action: LW to share the details of the ToR etc.
Background:



The debate on indicators has been attracting a lot of attention as the UN Statistical
Commission has been requested to provide a list of “indicative global indicators” to
be discussed during the March Intergovernmental Session. (See additional
information below).
Also, during the February IGN, the Co-Facilitators have asked MS if they were
willing for Heads of State to adopt a framework containing Goals and Targets in
September but not indicators on how those would be measured, signaling that some
initial agreement on indicators would be needed.
In the past few months, the Beyond 2015 Secretariat has been approached by
colleagues from several regions and organizations recommending a clear engagement
on the process related to the definition of the post-2015 indicators.
Recommendations:

A “brainstorm call” was convened on February 13 including representatives of the
UN Working Group and some colleagues that follow the discussion on indicators very
closely and the general recommendation was for Beyond 2015 to set up an Indicators
Advisory Task Force to monitor the discussions around the post-2015 indicators,
ensuring that Beyond 2015 understands and responds to the process timely, and
highlighting key opportunities for the campaign to engage.



Capacity issues within the Secretariat was strongly highlighted and the proposal is for
the Indicators Task Force to 1) Be responsible for informing the Campaign on
negotiations and processes around the post-2015 indicators; 2) Develop some top line
messages from the Campaign around indicators (although not a list of common
indicators) and 3) Indicate to the Campaign whenever we need to position or take
action related to the indicators process.
A draft ToR was prepared (Attached) as well as a Google form to collect information
on people interested to join the TF (and to facilitate its work).
Isabela Cunha will be dedicating 90 minutes per week to support the new Task Force.
More information:


The 46th session of UNSC will convene on 3-6 March 2015, in New York, US. Please
click here to find the Letter from Post-2015 Co-facilitators and Letter from UNSC
Acting Chair.
Read more: http://sd.iisd.org/news/unsc-confirms-support-on-post-2015indicator-development/279276/
Call to the Campaign to join the Indicators Task Force (For February
Communication?):

Indicators will be a very important element of the post-2015 agenda as they will guide
what will be measured to access progress in the implementation of the SDGs. Beyond
2015 is setting up a Task Force to support the Campaign in following up on processes
related to the setting of the post-2015 indicators. A draft ToR for the Task Force is
available here. If you are interested to join, register using this form.
5. General discussion of where we are, stocktaking, mid-term review (follow up from last
month’s call)


Exec Com to discuss recommendations from the mid-term review on next call
Exec Com to discuss the advocacy plans on next call
Go through the recommendations and the action points, highlight Secretariat thinking.
Leo provides overview of recommendations and the action points.
Neva – scenario planning (may include exiting), vs transitioning into whatever we do next.
Suggest reinstigating the bimonthly updates from the co-chairs (George’s blog)
Intel sharing calls – this is great
Have Ex Com members chairing more calls
The Ex Com inbox, reinstate this (though it never worked)
Helen – something more technological? Google hangout where people can drop in for a Q+A? People
could drop in and out with questions? Exec Com, plus regions etc? This is interesting.
Craig – something on twitter / facebook?
Andrew – 1) clear guidance for the exit planning. 2) Clear comms re. scenario planning is needed and
people need that leadership and guidance. 3) Leadership of the secretariat.
We need leadership from Ex Com to make the structure more transparent. It requires people’s time.
Who will lead on what? We need people to lead on the various issues.
Secretariat leadership – Andrew agrees, he feels that we can play a bigger leadership role here. It is a
culture change, but one which people are comfortable with. People look to the Secretariat to provide
the leadership. Is the Exec Com happy to sanction this direction of travel.
Leo – secretariat leadership cannot come at the expense of the Ex Com leadership.
Action needed: Motivate Exec Com to be on calls and take on tasks on behalf of the campaign.
6. World Social Forum


Brief discussion on who is attending, which meetings will be prioritised, plans for the Exec
Com meeting.
See rationale for Exec Com meeting here
Ensure people know they have to register and how.
28 March in Tunis. Will be opp to tackle some of these bigger questions in more detail.
Southern orgs have confirmed apart from CEPEI.
Neva will attend, and participate in conversations about accountability and what happens next.
Andrew will attend.
Interaction will not attend.
Neva – we should invoke the principle that if Ex Com members don’t contribute / participate for 3
months, they should be asked to step down. We need global leadership, not just national or
regional. Can we get this process set in motion? Neva will like replacements in place by 28 March.
Action: Andrew and George to discuss.
How will we divide up tasks over the last five / six months?
Helen wont be there, but will try to get StC representative there and briefed.
Need to send agenda in good time.
7. AOB
8. Dates of 2015 meetings
All dates have been shared via Outlook. Exec Com members are encouraged to put these meetings in
their diaries.
Tuesday
17 Feb 2015
Formal Exec Com
Meeting
10 00 am - 11 30 am CET
(to allow participation from
Tuesday
3 March 2015
Intel Exchange Call
28 March 2015
Face to face Exec
Com meeting in
Tunis at World
Social Forum
Intel Exchange Call
Tuesday
7 April 2015
Tuesday
21 April 2015
Formal Exec Com
Meeting
Tuesday
5 May 2015
Intel Exchange Call
Tuesday
19 May 2015
Formal Exec Com
Meeting
Tuesday
2 June 2015
Intel Exchange Call
Tuesday
16 June 2015
Formal Exec Com
Meeting
Tuesday
7 July 2015
Intel Exchange Call
Tuesday
21 July 2015
Formal Exec Com
Meeting
Tuesday
4 August 2015
Intel Exchange Call
Tuesday
18 August 2015
Formal Exec Com
Meeting
Tuesday
1 Sep 2015
Intel Exchange Call
Tuesday
15 Sep 2015
Formal Exec Com
Meeting
Tuesday
6 October 2015
Intel Exchange Call
Tuesday
20 October 2015
Formal Exec Com
Meeting
Tuesday
Intel Exchange Call
Bangladesh and Indonesia)
15 00 - 16 30 CET
(to allow participation from USA,
Colombia, Chile)
10 00 am - 11 30 am CET
(to allow participation from
Bangladesh and Indonesia)
15 00 - 16 30 CET
(to allow participation from USA,
Colombia, Chile)
15 00 - 16 30 CET
(to allow participation from USA,
Colombia, Chile)
10 00 am - 11 30 am CET
(to allow participation from
Bangladesh and Indonesia)
10 00 am - 11 30 am CET
(to allow participation from
Bangladesh and Indonesia)
15 00 - 16 30 CET
(to allow participation from USA,
Colombia, Chile)
15 00 - 16 30 CET
(to allow participation from USA,
Colombia, Chile)
10 00 am - 11 30 am CET
(to allow participation from
Bangladesh and Indonesia)
10 00 am - 11 30 am CET
(to allow participation from
Bangladesh and Indonesia)
15 00 - 16 30 CET
(to allow participation from USA,
Colombia, Chile)
15 00 - 16 30 CET
(to allow participation from USA,
Colombia, Chile)
10 00 am - 11 30 am CET
(to allow participation from
Bangladesh and Indonesia)
10 00 am - 11 30 am CET
(to allow participation from
Bangladesh and Indonesia)
15 00 - 16 30 CET
(to allow participation from USA,
Colombia, Chile)
15 00 - 16 30 CET
3 November 2015
Tuesday
17 November 2015
Formal Exec Com
Meeting
Tuesday
1 December 2015
Intel Exchange Call
Tuesday
15 December 2015
Formal Exec Com
Meeting
(to allow participation from USA,
Colombia, Chile)
10 00 am - 11 30 am CET
(to allow participation from
Bangladesh and Indonesia)
10 00 am - 11 30 am CET
(to allow participation from
Bangladesh and Indonesia)
15 00 - 16 30 CET
(to allow participation from USA,
Colombia, Chile)
Annex 1 Key findings of the mid-term survey.
Key findings of the Beyond 2015 ‘Summer Stocktaking Survey’ have led Beyond 2015 to make a
number of changes to the way we work in 2015:





Beyond 2015 structures (regional coordinators, national leads etc) will be strongly
encouraged to ensure more participation from their constituencies. The survey indicated
a clear desire to participate more in different levels of Beyond 2015.
Structures will also be encouraged to facilitate more ‘participatory leadership’ - this was
identified as the most important way for Beyond 2015 to improve its structures. We will
thus try to ensure that more organisations and individuals are able to play leadership
roles within structures, and to undertake concrete activities on behalf of Beyond 2015.
As many participating organisations are unaware of the initiatives of Beyond 2015, the
Secretariat will strive to improve our communication about the work we do, and the
successes we have, with all campaign structures and all participating organisations.
We will focus more on gathering political intelligence during the negotiations, and
acting upon it. The survey indicated that Beyond 2015 is very strong on core issues –
process and participation – but less strong on political intelligence. Linked to this, we
will focus on ensuring a strong political mapping.
The survey highlighted a clear request for Beyond 2015 to focus on three areas of work:
1 - Participating in the intergovernmental negotiations; 2 – Advocacy at national,
regional and global levels; 3 – political guidance and coordination within the
campaign. We will put a lot of energy into these processes!