More formalities have been fulfilled so far with high risks of losing big opportunities provided by the global agenda. A more worrying phenomenon is the sidelining of economic agenda, including this crucial one, by politics and power which is never ending The launching of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) almost one year before was a historic event. Despite enormous complexities, it largely incorporated many progressive agendas, very crucial from the low income country’s perspectives. Goals such as eradication of poverty and hunger by 2030, universal access to social services, including health, education, water, sanitation and energy, gender equality and empowerment, inclusive and sustainable growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all, resource conservation and preservation of ecosystem, including sustainable production and consumption patterns, reduction of inequality within and among countries and promotion of peaceful and inclusive societies are the best examples of these. The goals require strategic shifts embedded in the changed development discourse as they recognize an ongoing dominant route perpetuating poverty, exclusion, environmental destruction, inequality and unsustained development. As a common global agenda, it is not surprising to see overlaps, contradictions and tradeoffs there. This underscores the need of overcoming such problems while developing country- specific framework on SDGs which are associated with strategic direction and ways of development, policy approach and their coherence as well as institutional means for effectiveness in implementation. How the 6 SDGs of Nepal have embedded such aspects in the frame is crucial. However, after one year, no improved report based on a robust framework has been brought out by improving the preliminary report prepared in the beginning of this year 2016. This was necessary to evolve a system that could obligate the concerned to fulfill the stipulated task on time. Notwithstanding its contribution to create a strong base, being the preliminary, it has many shortcomings. The foremost is that it is largely grounded on business as usual presumptions and hence gives less attention to the necessity of adopting transformational approach as required by the SDGs. Such an approach demands that the development route predominantly driven by neo-liberal orthodoxy led policy, structural and institutional set-ups and arrangements encouraging, among others, unproductive investment and rent grabbing activities be changed. Unless the existing production structure, consumption and distributional pattern are altered drastically through economic restructuring and reforms, resources shifting and massive reallocation processes, raising of productive capacity and enhancing of productivity in the sectors having huge potentials and competitive strength will be impossible and a key for sustained high growth with social justice and equity. Social transformation enhancing of human capabilities and empowering of most deprived forms an integral part. Wide-ranging reforms and changes in the structural and institutional fronts taking efficiency and sustainability, including environmental sustainability, issues are needed. Grounded on such a strategic shift, targets and indicators projected would have been revised in a coherent way by addressing the tradeoff problems as well. Serious inconsistencies in the preliminary report entail such a necessity. For instance, for realizing the per capita income of 2500 in US dollars by 2030, annual average growth rate of 7.6 percent is implicit in the projection with 2014 as a base. However, the growth in projected per capita GDP for the same period 2014 to 2030 comes out to be less than 6 percent. Opposite growth projections in these two for the sub-periods are found unlike the expected similar directions. Assuming income as one of the key drivers in achieving major goals, this raises added questions on the bases and projections of major targets and indicators. A major problem is also found in the entire exercise related to the labor market and employment. Unlike the tradition, productive or decent employment is yet to be embedded in the exercise without which accomplishment of goals is unthinkable. In the absence of coherent framework, the inter-linkages are missing which prevented fixing priorities and sequencing grounded on the maximum positive spillover effect. The ambitious targets of poverty and inequality reduction, food security, universal access to social services and many others provide no reasonable or convincing bases of projections. In view of both coordination and implementation failures so far, the most critical aspect of all is related to the means proposed to ensure that targets set are achieved as stipulated. This requires a built-in effective governance system in which each concerned institution and entity of different levels is made fully accountable. A very important and closely interlinked exercise is associated with the estimation of likely resource requirement for accomplishing the set goals. For mobilizing resources both internally and externally, including the role of private investment and cooperatives, this is essential and yet to be carried out. More formalities have been fulfilled so far with high risks of losing big opportunities provided by the global agenda. A more worrying phenomenon is the sidelining of economic agenda, including this crucial one, by politics and power which is never ending.