Options for moving forward to the next stage of the work of the Open Working Group

At the end of seventh session of the Open Working Group (OWG-7), Ambassador Kamau, one of the two Co-chairs presented a series of options for the next stage of the work of the OWG, which will focus on devising a set of sustainable development goals (SDGs) and targets. The process so far has been one of “stock-taking” and after OWG-8 the Co-chairs will “pool together” an overall summary document of the 11-month-long stock-taking process. This can then be used as an ‘aide memoire’ for the next step,  a consultative process, which will start on 3 March.

Options A and B

In preparation for the negotiating stage, he offered delegates the following options for Co-Chair inputs:

•  Option A is that the Co-chairs will look at the list of issues that have been discussed and begin to synthesize a shorter list of proposals as to goals and targets 
•  Option B is a “looser,” text-based document that looks at what the OWG has done, the main trends and will be slightly less directive and more conceptual.
• There is a third option that the Co-Chairs would do nothing and leave it up to OWG to say how they would like to start the conversation when they meet on 3 March. 

Kamau made it clear that the Co-Chairs can formulate criteria, based on the Rio+20 outcome and its principles that will make transparent how they will come up with goals and differentiate them from targets.

There was general acceptance that the Co-Chairs should continue to lead the process, although it was clear from the interventions that some delegates lacked clarity between the two options. There was, however, a majority of members who preferred Option A, over Option B.

During the third week in February the Co-Chairs will have shared the stock-taking documentation for the option that the OWG members have chosen, (either Option A or B), so that members can have consultations in their capitals. By the time of OWG-10, at the end of March, it is hoped that there will have been good consultations at the national level. 

There will be an informal in New York. 

Summary of discussion Options A and B

The following points were made during the interventions:

• The process should continue to be open, transparent and inclusive process (UK, Netherlands and Australia)
• The agenda should have the most ambitious list of goals and targets (USA)
• “Less politically attractive” should be looked at – this was referred to twice by Italy, also on behalf of Spain and Turkey
• The five transformative shifts of the High Level Panel Report should be looked at (Italy, Spain and Turkey)
• The OWG will be developing a metric, rather than a text. (Colombia and Guatemala)
• Going from a “listening mode” to negotiating was a huge jump and that the list would be developed by “a few hands only” (Brazil and Nicaragua)
• The Co-chairs should pull together a document that is more actionable (USA) and the report should include a list of goals and targets as a starting point for the discussions. (Denmark, Norway and Ireland)
• The current format of the open working group should be continued (France, Germany and Switzerland)
• There was disagreement over the other documentation with UK wanting the inclusion, in addition to The World We Want, the Millennium Declaration and Outcome Document for the UN General Assembly Special Event. According to Egypt (Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia): the mandate comes from Rio + 20 which is the basis for the work of the Group.
• There should be inter-sessional consultations. There should however be time for discussions with capitals and that formal decisions will be taken in the OWG itself and not in the inter-sessionals. (India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka)

For more detailed comments see attached.