Key takeaway
Multi-stakeholder approaches to development, a new trend that is emerging alongside traditional State-led cooperation, is ever-more dominant across multilateral discussions. This blog post highlights this trend by looking at the main global fora monitoring the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Blog post
Every year, governments, civil society, the private sector and other stakeholders gather in New York at the United Nations (UN) High-level Political Forum (HLPF) to evaluate progress on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The 14th session of the HLPF took place from 7 to 15 July 2026 at UN Headquarters in New York under the theme: “Transformative, equitable, innovative and coordinated actions for the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its Sustainable Development Goals for a sustainable future for all”.
The session focused on reviewing SDG 6 (Clean water and sanitation), SDG 7 (Affordable and clean energy), SDG 9 (Industry, innovation and infrastructure), SDG 11 (Sustainable cities and communities), and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the goals). Furthermore, 36 countries presented National Voluntary Reviews, which are documents that governments have the occasion to present every year to outline national progress on SDG implementation.
Amongst the many cross-cutting themes of this global gathering, multistakeholder approaches to development feature prominently. With SDG17 advocating for “effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships” (SDG17, Target 17.h), the UN 2030 Agenda embodies a whole-of-society vision for development, where traditional state-led aid is complemented by voluntary initiatives of philanthropies, corporations, civil society and other stakeholders.
As noted in the introduction of this blog symposia, multi-stakeholder initiatives in development gradually expanded alongside multilateral assistance over the 1990s, notably in the environmental and health sectors. The 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development codified multi-stakeholder partnerships (MSPs) as Type II outcomes, or voluntary actions running alongside negotiated intergovernmental outcomes. MSPs then continued to proliferate in financing and providing public goods and services which are essential for the realisation of human rights, like the rights to health, education, food and water.
The multi-stakeholder approach is also evident across the debates, themes, side events and declarations at the 2026’s HLPF. As each year, the 2026 HLPF and the high-level segment of UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) resulted in a negotiated ministerial declaration, which reiterates the willingness to “enhance the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development, complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships that mobilize and share knowledge, expertise, technology and financial resources”.[i] The declaration also pledges to strengthen “global, regional, national and local partnerships for sustainable development, engaging all relevant stakeholders, including civil society, the private sector, academia and youth”.[ii]
Alongside the institutional program, a range of side events took place at the UN 2026 HLPF, with 2 side events out of 10 focusing specifically on global partnerships for development. The UN Economic Commission for Africa (ECA) and the Multidimensional Poverty Peer Network (MPPN), with its Secretariat, the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI), co-hosted a side-event entitled: “Harnessing Partnerships for Accelerated Poverty Reduction Across Africa”.[iii] Moreover, the UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) and the Institute of Philanthropy (IoP) co-organised an event entitled: “Advancing Inclusive Prosperity through Philanthropy–Multilateral Partnerships”.[iv]
Overall, the debate at the UN HLPF 2026 still shows a strong commitment to multilateral approaches to development in co-existence with MSPs for development. The informal summary reports that participants “affirmed multilateralism as the indispensable means of addressing sustainable development challenges” while also describing “international partnerships” as “indispensable to achieving the SDGs”.[v]
The summary also underscores that participants shared how “multi-stakeholder partnerships are essential for overcoming SDG implementation barriers, as recognized in the Compromiso de Sevilla (the Seville Commitment) from the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (FFD4).”[vi]
This co-existence between multilateral cooperation and multistakeholder-based development is also reiterated at sector level. In relation to SDG3 (Good Health and Wellbeing), discussions underlined the need for “strengthened multilateralism and partnerships.”[vii] Similarly, States’ underlined, the centrality of “inclusive stakeholder engagement” as a key consultation tool. In this context, the lines between different stakeholders seem blurred. MSPs are presented as a tool to engage with a variety of very different actors, from philanthropies, private corporations and large non-governmental organisations to small grassroot movements. The risk is that the line between powerful actors and grassroot associations is increasingly blurred, raising questions in terms of human rights accountability.
For instance, it is certainly positive that discussions acknowledged that “empowering local communities and local partnership is essential. Indigenous peoples, women, youth and other marginalized groups must be part of decision-making process;”[viii] and that “the clear message is that multistakeholder engagement that includes marginalized communities in policymaking and implementation is essential for the world to realize the promise of the 2030 Agenda”.[ix]
Nonetheless, it remains uncertain how this should be implemented in practice, and how the different actors in MSPs should be held accountable to ensure adequate human rights protection, bearing in mind the cross-cutting human rights principles of non-discrimination and participation, as well as attention to structural power asymmetries.
Similar concerns are observable in regional debates before the UN HLPF across Africa, Europe and Latin America.
The 2026 Africa Regional Forum on Sustainable Development, which took place in Addis Ababa in April 2026, resulted in clear commitments towards multistakeholder approaches to development finance, with the outcome document endorsing private sector mobilisation through blended finance mechanisms and investment derisking. Furthermore, the outcome document underlined the need to partner with the UN Global Compact to mobilise capital and direct it through regional allocation mechanisms.
The Regional Forum on Sustainable Development for the UNECE Region also took place in Geneva in April 2026. The author of this blog post participated as an academic observer, and noticed that civil society and young people participating to the gathering clearly identify themselves as stakeholders, and often praised multistakeholderism as a horizontal, democratic tool for grassroot and inclusive participation to institutional decision-making. At the same time, businesses and large philanthropic actors also participated in debates around SDG17 under multistakeholder approaches. Overall, though, public actors seemed to be leading discussions, including when promoting multi-stakeholderism.
The Forum on Sustainable Development of the Countries of Latin America and the Caribbean, which took place in April 2026 in Santiago, Chile, highlighted the role of the private sector and of multi-stakeholder approaches for the full implementation of the SDGs, alongside increased tax cooperation for domestic resource mobilisation. The inter-governmentally agreed conclusions and recommendations, for instance, noted: “the role of multi-stakeholder partnerships in fostering strategic long-term investment in the Sustainable Development Goals, including through innovative financing involving the public and private sectors, recognize the emergence and importance of dedicated Sustainable Development Goal bonds, and, in this context, encourage efforts to promote clearer roles and areas of contribution among stakeholders”.[x]
These concerns are being increasingly confirmed by scholarly review. From a human rights perspective, accountability of MSPs as development financing actors is plagued by diffused responsibility, limited answerability, and weak enforceability in transnational MSPs.[xi] In sectors like health, multistakeholder approaches may increase the risk of vertical, technical solutions rather than whole-system, transformative solutions.[xii]
To ensure that human rights are respected, protected and fulfilled, it is essential that multilateral fora on sustainable development coherently engage with the question of human rights accountability in this area. States retain their full range of human rights obligations both individually and as members of international organisations, as reiterated by both the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Committee on the Rights of the Child across their general comments. In addition, states are bound to strictly monitor and regulate private actors involved in development activities, which may also be achieved through effective human rights impact assessments. At the same time, businesses have at the very least responsibilities to respect human rights.
The UN HLPF plays a pivotal role in monitoring the implementation of the SDGs worldwide. As such, the UN HLPF can also be a platform to mainstream human rights norms and standards at all levels of governance within the UN including when third actors are involved in the provision and financing of essential public goods and services, as in the case of MSPs. Nonetheless, human rights are still not central across these discussions. Moving forward, human rights should be firmly embedded in monitoring mechanisms across UN development policy frameworks. Human rights mainstreaming across sustainable development efforts at the UN is a core opportunity for the post-2030 Agenda.
Disclaimer
The research on which this blog post is based is funded by the European Union (ERC Starting Grant, GENESIS, 101117107). The views and opinions expressed, however, are those of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Research Council Executive Agency. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.
©2024 ERC-2023-STG GENESIS
This project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation programme (Project Number: 101117107).
[i] UN Economic and Social Council (2026) “High-level segment on transformative, equitable, innovative and coordinated actions for the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its Sustainable Development Goals for a sustainable future for all”, UN Doc. E/HLS/2026/1, Para 62.r.
[ii] Ibid., para. 43.
[iii] More info at: https://www.un.org/regionalcommissionsnyoffice/news/hlpf-2026-side-events.
[iv] Ibid.
[v] Summary by the President of the Economic and Social Council of the High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development convened under the auspices of the Council at its 2025 session (31st July 2026), https://hlpf.un.org/sites/default/files/2025-08/2025%20HLPF%20President%20Summary.pdf.
[vi] Ibid. P. 1.
[vii] Ibid., p. 3.
[viii] Ibid.
[ix] Ibid.p. 14.
[x] intergovernmentally agreed conclusions and recommendations of the ninth meeting of the forum of the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean on sustainable development, para 12. https://foroalc2030.cepal.org/2026/sites/foro2026/files/2600180e_fds.9_agreed_conclusions.pdf.
[xi] G. Erdem Türkelli, “Multistakeholder Partnerships for Development and the Financialization of Development Assistance,” Development and Change 53/1 (2022).
[xii] Gamze Erdem Türkelli, Rossella De Falco, “Human rights accountability in global health multi-stakeholder partnerships: the case of the Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator” (2025) Health and human rights – ISSN 1079-0969-27:2 p. 65-77.