My name is Elif Topkaya Sevinç. I speak on behalf of the Regional Civil Society Mechanism.

We cannot open this Forum and ignore how war is derailing sustainable development.

Right now, the escalation of armed conflict, the illegal attack on Iran by Israel and the United States and Russia’s ongoing war against Ukraine, is bringing catastrophic human, social and environmental harm. It is pulling the world into cascading crises: mass civilian suffering, displacement, destroyed infrastructure, and a widening economic shock that directly fuels energy poverty and deepens food insecurity.

War takes human lives, overwhelmingly civilian lives and it leaves behind grief, disability and trauma that echo for generations. And it destroys the civilian infrastructure people rely on to survive: water and sanitation systems, energy networks, housing, transport and food supply chains, turning rights into emergencies and pushing entire populations into poverty.

War also accelerates climate breakdown: the first 14 days of the US–Israel war on Iran generated over 5 million tonnes of CO₂-equivalent emissions.

We are currently also observing a broader militarisation of our region and beyond. As defence spending rises and arms flows expand, public resources are being diverted from the well-being economy.

At the same time, a persisting structural violation is eroding the foundations of sustainable development across the region: anti-democratic attacks. We witness a wave of repression: political prisoners, targeting of human rights and environmental defenders, attacks on independent media and academia, and laws that increasingly criminalise civic engagement. “Foreign agents” laws are being used to stigmatise, restrict and silence feminist, LGBTI and climate civil society, cutting off cross-border cooperation and shrinking the space for accountability.

This matters for multilateralism. When civil society is excluded, intimidated or reduced to symbolism, accountability weakens and implementation suffers. The SDGs cannot be achieved without civil society organisations and social dialogue.

Simultaneously, normative standards and the UN Declaration on the Right to Development make this explicit: States have a duty to cooperate to ensure development based on shared principles of justice, equity, and international cooperation.

This reality shapes the SDGs under review this year.

On SDG 6, water is life.

Yet it is still commodified, polluted and, in conflict settings, weaponised. Water quality is regressing and frontline communities are hit hardest. We need rights-based WASH strategies that prioritise safe public services, menstrual health, accessible sanitation and hygiene in humanitarian response, alongside protection of civilian water infrastructure, accountability for pollution and investment in resilient, publicly governed systems.

On SDG 7, energy poverty is rising and impacting people from multi-marginalised communities the most.

Simultaneously, energy is increasingly entangled with geopolitics and conflict. We need a Just Transition. The transition must not reproduce colonialism driven by extractivism, community displacements and corporate capture. SDG 7 should move us away from ecocide and unsustainable practices and towards a future that respects the rights of nature, yet we are still seeing petrol populism and fossil fuel subsidies.

On SDG 9, infrastructure faces growing threats from armed conflict and climate change, as well as cyber and technological risks. Strengthening resilience requires integrated approaches, including peacebuilding and preparedness for multiple, overlapping crises. Human rights must be the core of innovation, especially innovation in infrastructure. Transport systems must be inclusive and participatory, ensuring that the furthest left behind communities help shape infrastructure priorities.

On SDG 11, cities cannot be sustainable if housing is treated primarily as an asset. The scale of the housing affordability challenge is measurable: in 2024, 8.2% of people in the EU lived in households spending 40% or more of their disposable income on housing. We need rights-based housing strategies that expand non-market options: social and public housing and rent regulation, alongside safeguards against speculative vacancy and displacement. Urban planning must be participatory and accessible, with dedicated mechanisms for those most affected to shape mobility and service priorities.

On SDG 17, partnerships must be grounded in equity, accountability and civic space. Digital governance and emerging technologies, including AI, require transparency and regulation to prevent bias, discrimination and environmental harm. We need to ensure that communities are not excluded from essential services and free access to information or targeted through surveillance and hate due to political repression.

This is a moment for political courage, decision-makers:

• end the impunity of war.
• protect multilateralism.
• deliver on your financial contributions to the UN.
• protect civic space.
• address root inequalities.
• and act on the duty to cooperate.

Without that, the SDGs will remain words on paper and people will keep paying the price.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

I’m speaking on behalf of the ECE civil society regional mechanism, which brings together representatives from all parts of the UNECE region and from 17 different constituencies.

We want to emphasize a central reality: digital transformation is not neutral. Without intentional, inclusive, and accountable partnerships, it risks deepening inequalities rather than advancing the promise of the 2030 Agenda.

SDG 17 reminds us that partnerships are not only about mobilizing resources—they are about power, trust, and shared responsibility. Today, those principles are under strain.

First, the digital divide is not just about connectivity—it is about exclusion. We heard clearly that older populations, rural communities, and socially and economically discriminated people are not given priority in digital expansion, and are being left behind. Sometimes when digital public services replace physical ones, exclusion becomes structural: people lose access to banking, healthcare, and even their rights. Adequate safeguards are not yet in place to protect at risk populations.

Second, we must confront the growing concentration of power in digital ecosystems. A large share of digital infrastructure, platforms, and data is controlled by a small number of private actors, largely based in the Global North. This creates dependency, particularly for countries in the Global South, and raises a fundamental question: who benefits from digital transformation? Too often, the answer is not communities, but profit-driven models that extract data without accountability. As a result, many stay disconnected—not because solutions do not exist, but because they are not seen as “profitable users.”

Third, we are witnessing across our region an alarming erosion of digital rights and civic space. In restrictive environments, digital tools are no longer enabling participation—they are enabling surveillance. Entire populations are being pushed onto state-controlled platforms, where privacy does not exist and dissent becomes dangerous. At the same time, disinformation campaigns, algorithmic manipulation, and even interference in electoral processes are undermining democratic systems across borders.

Fourth, the risks of artificial intelligence are accelerating faster than governance frameworks. AI is already being used in conflict settings—not to protect civilians, but to identify and target them. This raises urgent ethical and legal questions. At the same time, AI-driven systems are shaping labor markets, often without social protection, transparency, or human oversight. We cannot allow a future where decisions about people’s livelihoods are made by opaque algorithms.

Fifth, we must not ignore the environmental cost of digitalization. Data centers consume vast amounts of water and energy, often in regions already facing scarcity. Without adherence to sustainability standards, digital transformation may undermine climate goals rather than support them.

Yet, there is also opportunity—if we get partnerships right.

Civil society proposes five priorities:

1. Build inclusive regulatory frameworks.

National and international governance must ensure that digital and AI systems are human-centered, rights-based, and transparent. This includes accountability for technology companies and clear standards aligned with normative frameworks and international law.

2. Invest in capacity and inclusion.

Digital access must go hand in hand with digital and AI literacy—for all ages and abilities. This requires public investment in education, reskilling, and outreach, particularly for marginalized groups.

3. Protect civic space and independent media.

Civil society actors working on digital rights, disinformation, and accountability must be supported—not restricted. Partnerships cannot function where civic space is shrinking.

4. Strengthen multi-stakeholder dialogue.

Partnerships must move beyond consultation to co-creation. Civil society, workers, and communities must have a seat at the table in shaping digital policies at national and global levels.

5. Ensure ethical and sustainable innovation.

Digital solutions must align with environmental sustainability and social well-being—not only efficiency and growth.

Finally, SDG 17 calls for trust. But trust cannot be assumed—it must be built through transparency, accountability, and inclusion.

If we fail to act, digital transformation will reinforce divides.

If we succeed, it can become a powerful tool for equity, participation, and human dignity.

Civil society stands ready to partner—but only in a system where partnerships are truly inclusive, rights-based, and accountable.

Thank you.

=======================

Russian version to be read

Спасибо, Председатель.

Я выступаю от имени регионального механизма гражданского общества ЕЭК ООН, который объединяет представителей всего региона и 17 различных групп.

Мы хотим подчеркнуть: цифровая трансформация не является нейтральной. Без целенаправленного, инклюзивного и подотчетного партнерства она рискует усугубить неравенство, а не способствовать реализации Повестки на период до 2030 года.

Цель 17 напоминает нам, что партнерство – это не только мобилизация ресурсов, но и вопросы власти, доверие и общая ответственность. Сегодня эти принципы находятся под угрозой.

Во-первых, цифровое неравенство – это не только проблема связи, это проблема исключения. Мы видим, что пожилые люди, сельские общины и социально и экономически дискриминируемые группы населения не получают приоритета в цифровой трансформации и остаются позади. Иногда, когда цифровые государственные услуги заменяют физические, исключение становится структурным: люди теряют доступ к банковским услугам, здравоохранению и даже к своим правам. Соответствующих гарантий для защиты групп населения, находящихся в зоне риска, пока нет.

Во-вторых, мы должны противостоять растущей концентрации власти в цифровых экосистемах. Значительная часть цифровой инфраструктуры, платформ и данных контролируется небольшим числом частных компаний, в основном из стран Глобального Севера. Это создает зависимость, особенно для стран Глобального Юга, и поднимает фундаментальный вопрос: кто выигрывает от цифровой трансформации? Слишком часто ответ — не сообщества, а модели, ориентированные на прибыль, которые согут использовать данные без контроля . В результате многие остаются исключенными — не потому, что решений не существует, а потому, что их не считают «прибыльными пользователями».

В-третьих, в нашем регионе наблюдается ущемление цифровых прав и гражданского общества. В условиях ограничений цифровые инструменты больше не способствуют участию — они становятся инструментами цифрового контроля. Целые группы населения вынуждены переходить на контролируемые государством платформы, где отсутствует конфиденциальность, а инакомыслие становится опасным. В то же время кампании по дезинформации, манипуляции алгоритмами и даже вмешательство в избирательные процессы подрывают демократические системы по всему миру.

В-четвертых, риски, связанные с искусственным интеллектом, растут быстрее, чем рамочные механизмы управления. Искусственный интеллект уже используется в условиях конфликтов — не для защиты гражданского населения, а для его идентификации и нанесения ударов. Это поднимает неотложные этические и правовые вопросы. В то же время системы, управляемые ИИ, формируют рынки труда, часто без социальной защиты, прозрачности или общественного контроля. Мы не можем допустить будущего, в котором решения о средствах к существованию людей принимаются непрозрачными алгоритмами.

В-пятых, мы не должны игнорировать экологические издержки цифровизации. Центры обработки данных потребляют огромное количество воды и энергии, часто в регионах, уже сталкивающихся с дефицитом. Без соблюдения стандартов устойчивого развития цифровая трансформация может припятствовать достижению климатических целей, а не поддержать их.

Тем не менее, есть и возможности — если мы правильно выстроим партнерские отношения.

Гражданское общество предлагает пять приоритетов:

1. Создание инклюзивных нормативных рамок.
Национальное и международное управление должно гарантировать, что цифровые системы и системы ИИ ориентированы на человека, основаны на правах человека и прозрачны. Это включает в себя подотчетность технологических компаний и четкие стандарты, соответствующие нормативным рамкам и международному праву.

2. Инвестиции в цифровую грамотность и инклюзивность.
Доступ к цифровым технологиям должен идти рука об руку с цифровой грамотностью для всех возрастов и способностей. Это требует государственных инвестиций в образование, переквалификацию и информационно-просветительскую работу, особенно для маргинализированных групп.

3. Поддержка гражданского общества и независимых СМИ.
Необходимо поддерживать, а не ограничивать деятельность субъектов гражданского общества, работающих над вопросами цифровых прав, дезинформации и подотчетности. Партнерства не могут функционировать там, где гражданское общество приследуется государством.

4. Укрепление диалога между заинтересованными сторонами.
Партнерства должны выйти за рамки консультаций и основываться на совместной выработке решений. Гражданское общество, трудящиеся и местные сообщества должны иметь право голоса при формировании цифровой политики на национальном и глобальном уровнях.

5. Обеспечение этичных и устойчивых инноваций.
Цифровые решения должны соответствовать экологической устойчивости и социальному благополучию, а не только эффективному росту.

Наконец, ЦУР 17 призывает к доверию, которое необходимо строить посредством прозрачности, подотчетности и инклюзивности. Если мы не будем прикладывать усилия для этого, цифровая трансформация усугубит разделение общества.

Совместные действия могут стать мощным инструментом для обеспечения равенства, участия и человеческого достоинства.

Гражданское общество открыто к сотрудничеству — но это возможно только в системе, где партнерство действительно инклюзивно, основано на правах человека и подотчетно.

Спасибо.

Dear moderator, dear colleagues,

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this discussion. My name is Tania Sanchis, from the LGBTI stakeholder group and I speak on behalf of the Civil Society Engagement Mechanism.

When we speak about renewable energy, we often focus on scaling technologies. But across our region, the real question is also about power. Who controls energy systems, who benefits from them, and who is left behind.

We are seeing that energy is increasingly shaped by geopolitics and conflict. Energy infrastructure is targeted, access is disrupted, and resources are used as tools of political pressure. This directly undermines progress on SDG7 and reminds us that sustainable development cannot be separated from peace and respect for international law.

At the same time, the transition itself is not automatically just. Large-scale renewable projects can reproduce the same extractive patterns we are trying to move away from. Communities are displaced and corporate interests are prioritised over human rights. We are also seeing fast-track decision-making that overrides democratic processes, with people facing pressure to defend their land and livelihoods.

This is happening in a context where structural inequalities remain deeply embedded. Energy poverty continues to affect millions across Europe. Around 42 million people cannot keep their homes warm in winter, and women are disproportionately affected due to income gaps, care responsibilities, and unequal access to resources. If we do not address these root inequalities, the benefits of renewable energy will not reach those who need them most.

We also need to recognise the growing influence of disinformation and political narratives around renewable energy. Across the region, we are seeing the rise of petrol populism, where rising energy prices are used to justify continued fossil fuel dependence and new subsidies. In the context of the current energy crisis, including price shocks linked to conflict in our neighbouring region, governments are under pressure to expand fossil fuel support as a short-term response.

We also need to name a fast-growing driver of energy demand: AI infrastructure. UN reporting notes there are 476 million Indigenous Peoples across 90 countries, and warns that without safeguards, AI can deepen existing harms. As data centres expand, their electricity and water use increases pressure on grids and ecosystems and when projects affect Indigenous territories without free, prior and informed consent, they can undermine rights. A just transition must ensure digital expansion does not come at the expense of Indigenous, rural, queer and other multi-marginalised communities.

Finally, we must respect ecological limits. Expanding renewable energy cannot mean expanding extraction indefinitely. Without clear safeguards, the transition risks driving new forms of environmental harm and what many communities are already calling ecocide.

So what does this mean in practice?

• First, we need to invest in decentralised, community-led energy systems. These approaches build trust, improve access, and ensure that benefits are shared locally.
• Second, we must end fossil fuel subsidies and review energy pricing systems so that they reflect social and environmental realities.
• Third, participation must be meaningful. Communities must be involved from the beginning, not after decisions have already been made. Civic space must be protected, and those defending their rights must be safe.
• Fourth, we need stronger transparency and accountability. h. We need enforceable standards that ensure that renewable energy projects respect human rights.

And finally, we must align energy policy with ecological limits, recognising that sustainability is not only about carbon, but also about biodiversity, land, and long-term planetary boundaries.

If we want to achieve SDG7, renewable energy must be rooted in justice, in rights, and in trust.

Thank you.

Delivered by Geda Requena

Thank you, Chair.

I speak on behalf of the Civil Society Regional Mechanism, representing constituencies across the UNECE region.

In addressing how cities can advance a just transition, particularly through the housing crisis, our message is clear: there is no just transition without housing justice. The housing crisis in our cities is not inevitable—it is the outcome of policy choices, and it can be reshaped through different choices grounded in rights, equity, and sustainability.

Across the region, housing is still too often treated primarily as a financial asset rather than a fundamental human right and a pillar of a fair transition. This has led to deepening inequalities: a persistent shortage of social and affordable housing, rising rents, and growing insecurity for households already under pressure from climate, economic, and social change.

Informal settlements are part of this reality, not as temporary exceptions but as structural outcomes of exclusion. They are often home to marginalized communities, including migrants and Roma populations, who continue to face insecure tenure, limited access to services, and exposure to forced evictions. These conditions are incompatible with a just transition.

At the same time, many groups remain excluded from how cities are planned and transformed—older persons, persons with disabilities, migrants, minorities including Roma communities, women, and LGBTI persons. A just transition in housing requires urban planning that is explicitly intersectional, ensuring that climate adaptation, energy efficiency upgrades, and redevelopment do not reproduce or deepen existing inequalities.

We also see a mismatch between short-term, market-driven housing development and the long-term needs of people and cities. Too often, housing policy does not adequately respond to demographic change, social needs, or the climate crisis—including the need for energy-efficient, resilient, and affordable homes.

And yet, solutions are well known.

The Housing First approach, as demonstrated in Finland, shows that homelessness can be significantly reduced through sustained public investment and a rights-based framework. Across the region, cooperative and community-led housing models also demonstrate how affordability, inclusion, and sustainability can be achieved together.

The challenge is not identifying what works—it is scaling it, financing it, and embedding it within a just transition framework.

From a civil society perspective, we highlight three priorities for cities:

First, anchor housing policies in the recognition of housing as a human right, including stronger tenant protections, anti-displacement measures, and effective regulation of speculative markets.

Second, invest in social and affordable housing as a core component of the just transition, ensuring long-term planning that integrates social equity, climate resilience, and energy efficiency.

Third, ensure meaningful participation of affected communities in all housing and urban transformation processes, so that those most impacted by the transition are also shaping it.

A just transition in cities cannot succeed without housing that is secure, affordable, inclusive, and sustainable. Housing is not only shelter—it is a foundation for dignity, resilience, and social cohesion.

Thank you.

(follow up question asked of Geda on intersectionality. Reply was no successful implementation of SDG 11 without intersectional approaches and measurement.)

ECE RCEM statement given by Elis Vollmer

Thank you, Chair.

I speak on behalf of the Civil Society Regional Mechanism, representing constituencies from across the UNECE region.

We welcome this session's focus on urban mobility and road safety, because from a civil society perspective, how people move through their cities is inseparable from whether those cities are just, inclusive, and resilient.

Our central message is this:

Sustainable urban mobility will not be achieved through technical solutions alone. It requires that the people most affected – and most often left behind – are genuinely involved in designing, shaping, and evaluating the systems that serve them.

Across the region, transport systems continue to fall short for the people who need them most. Persons with disabilities, older persons, children, women, low-income households, and marginalised communities such as Roma face daily barriers — not as exceptions, but as a structural norm.

What works, where it exists, shares common features: co-design with affected communities from the outset, sustained investment rather than one-off pilots, and accountability mechanisms that go beyond user satisfaction surveys. Age-friendly and disability-inclusive transport frameworks have demonstrated that designing for the most vulnerable improves systems for everyone. But these remain the exception rather than the rule.

We also raise a concern about measurement. Aggregated data routinely masks inequality. Indicators must be disaggregated by gender, age, disability, and income to reveal who is genuinely being served — and who is not. Civil society organisations are often best placed to gather this granular, lived-experience data, and should be resourced and recognised as partners in doing so.

Transport is one of the largest contributors to urban air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions across the region, and the burden of that pollution falls disproportionately on low-income communities and those living closest to major roads.

We would also caution against approaches that achieve emissions reductions on paper while displacing the costs onto vulnerable communities. Climate goals and social equity goals must be pursued together.

From the civil society perspective, we draw together five calls for this session:

First, disaggregate transport data by gender, age, disability, and income — and resource civil society to contribute to that evidence base.

Second, end planning silos. Integrate transport with housing, health, and social services, and build participatory planning processes into governance frameworks as a standard, not an exception.

Third, pair climate and emissions strategies with affordability protections — sustainable mobility must not come at the expense of those least able to bear the cost.

Fourth, adopt Safe Systems and Vision Zero approaches across the region, with meaningful community engagement built into their design and evaluation.

Fifth, direct financing explicitly toward closing mobility gaps — and establish accountability mechanisms with civil society participation to ensure it does.

SDG 11 asks us to make cities inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable. On mobility and road safety, we have the frameworks, the evidence, and many of the tools. What is needed now is the political will to centre the people most often left behind — and to resource the engagement that makes that possible.

Distinguished delegates,

I speak on behalf of ECE RCEM. Achieving SDG 9 requires not only investment — it requires governance systems that are transparent, accountable, and people-centred. Without that, neither infrastructure nor innovation can serve the public good.

I. Public-private partnerships

PPPs are a critical tool for financing infrastructure and driving innovation. But they must be properly governed. Regulatory frameworks are too often fragmented and opaque. Fiscal risks fall disproportionately on communities. Human and labour rights compliance remains weak. And overdependence on a small number of large actors in critical sectors creates systemic vulnerability.

Civil society insists on:

• Transparent, standardised PPP frameworks open to public scrutiny, with clear public-interest objectives
• Binding mechanisms to ensure benefits are shared equitably with affected communities
• Strong enforcement of human and labour rights standards and robust anti-corruption safeguards
• Diversified partnerships to reduce dependency and build more resilient infrastructure systems
• Corrective action on power imbalances with global corporate actors, particularly in critical sectors

II. Innovation, inclusion, and the digital divide

Innovation is accelerating, but governance is not keeping pace. Regulatory gaps around autonomous systems, platform-based services, and AI create fragmentation and unmanaged risk. At the same time, the digital divide continues to deepen — excluding rural populations, older persons, persons with disabilities, and low-income groups. Workers face displacement and precarious conditions without adequate rights or protection. Data privacy and surveillance concerns are growing, especially in sensitive social contexts.

Civil society calls for:

• Coherent national regulatory frameworks for emerging technologies that embed human oversight and allow local adaptability
• Universal access to digital tools and in-person training as part of public services — prioritising ageing, rural, and low-income populations
• Lifelong learning as a core component of just transition strategies for workers facing displacement
• Strong data governance and rigorous risk assessment as mandatory preconditions for technological deployment
• Genuine collaboration between policymakers, technical experts, and civil society — built into governance, not added as an afterthought

Advancing SDG 9 means ensuring that infrastructure and innovation serve people — all people. By strengthening governance, closing inclusion gaps, and upholding rights, we can make progress that is both sustainable and just. Civil society is ready to be a partner in that work — not a footnote to it.

Thank you.

Sylvia Beales - governing body member for Gray Panthers/SGA - spoke on behalf of the RCEM in relation to ageing, gender, climate change and transport at the side event on 22 April organised by the Centre for Research and Policy Making and the Gender Budget Watchdog Network.

The event focused on the need for care, gender and sensitive and inclusive data to be foundational for gender sensitive and climate-smart transport in Eastern Europe. Keynote input was given by Timco Mucunski, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Macedonia, Ștefania Deák, Head of Service, Sustainable Development Coordination and Implementation Service, Government of Romania and Elise Fernandez, UN Women Deputy Regional Director. Results of a 7-country study were given by Alexandru Gribincera, Keystone Moldova.

Gender Budget Watchdog Network and Dragana Dardić, Helsinki Citizens' Parliament gave results on surveys on transport use in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Sylvia highlighted why rapid population ageing in the region (approx 22% of the population and rising in all countries, with women living longest) demands policymakers and planners to ensure that transport and data is fully age and disability sensitive. Older women make up the majority of older persons in cities, are primary users of public transport, have low incomes, may have disabilities but shoulder heavy care duties for young and old. The health of older people can be disproportionately affected by climate change impacts of extreme heat, ice, flooding, and degraded air quality. It is clear that the connection between healthy ageing and climate and age-sensitive transport needs requires age and gender inclusive participation in surveys and the filling of data gaps. Organisers requested information on age-friendly tools and experiences, and the link to healthy ageing (see https://extranet.who.int/agefriendlyworld/age-friendly-practices/transportation/)

Conclusions echoed those given by RCEM in the SDG 11 peer group session fo planners to prioritise inclusion and participation for all in transport development and data gathering, and to stay connected between the organisers and the RCEM for future work at the national level.

Panel Discussion: speaking points

Thank you Özge for the question and for the possibility to present civil society’s perspective on this very important topic.

I’m Rianne from the Swiss CSO Platform Agenda 2030 and I’m speaking on behalf of the ECE Regional Civil Society Engagement Mechanism.

Excellencies, esteemed Delegates and civil society colleagues

First, we recognise that there is a need to go beyond GDP. Not only civil society but also academia as well as some business actors are calling for redefining what progress and prosperity means and how it’s being measured.

Also we need this conversation in order to accelerate progress towards the SDGs and our shared values.

However, we don’t want Beyond GDP to be yet another new framework only generating more paperwork.

• First of all, we need to make sure that the Beyond GDP framework complements and is linked to human rights obligations and the 2030 Agenda.
• We also need to make sure that these indicators and metrics are linked to budget and policy-making processes as well as accountability mechanisms.
• In order to do this, we need an inclusive dialogue around Beyond GDP with: civil society of course, but also academia and businesses actors committed to the 2030 Agenda. Another important point is to include people more in decision-making processes and data generation, for example via participatory budgeting, citizens assemblies or citizen generated data.
• This inclusive dialogue should allow us to create new shared narrative around growth and build trust in the new framework and indicators.

On your second question / challenging the growth paradigm:

We recognise that Beyond GDP is a very important first step to prioritise a transition to the well-being economy. The Pact for the Future - in Action 53 - recognizes Beyond GDP as an important factor in SDG success.

But we believe it isn’t enough. It’s not only about redefining prosperity or progress but it’s about how to make sure that we move forward on the implementation of the SDGs in line with full respect of human rights and planetary boundaries.

The well-being economy we want to see will prioritise care, social protection, the rights of all to health, education, housing, accessibility, a decent and dignified life for all.

We are at a tipping point:

- Seven out of the 9 planetary boundaries have been crossed,
- we are violating human rights on a daily basis,
- and we aren’t managing to fight poverty properly

At the same time, a handful of people keep getting richer.

This is not ok.

The growth paradigm has failed, the “make the pie bigger and more people will eat” approach doesn’t work. And even worse, it’s driving fossil fuel expansion driven wars, and rewarding investment in militarisation. We have entered a new imperial time.

There is no time to waste: We need to rethink the current accepted growth paradigm and talk about what role we expect from the economy. The Donut economics model shows us a way forward. Rather than relying on the traditional three pillars of sustainable development, this model focuses on the social and environmental values and economics is merely in service of people and planet.

This will ensure that our human rights and the rights of nature are fully realised. The Roadmap on fighting poverty beyond growth from Special Rapporteur Olivier de Schutter is also contributing to this conversation, recommending a transformation to a human rights economy, which we fully support.

In rethinking the growth paradigm, we also need to better take into account the historical responsibilities of richer countries as well as their negative spillovers abroad. This conversation cannot happen without debt relief.

In sum, we are calling for reforming the well-being economy to be the bedrock for work beyond 2030 and we call upon member states and all stakeholders to have the courage to say Enough! Now we do things differently, we want system change!