Intergovernmental Negotiations on Post-2015 – Day 3, Sessions 4 & 5: Interactive discussions and Sustainable development goals & targets

Summing up by Co-facilitator 

At the end of the interactive session, on which three of the civil society inventions have already been posted, Ambassador Kamau gave a summary of the session. He spoke about the “sense of urgency” and the need to “get on with the business,” in order to ensure that the post-2015 development would be ready for the Heads of State Summit in September. As he said, the focus should be on what is possible and we should appreciate fully the significance of what we have been able to do. He challenged everyone to find a historical precedence for what has already been done. To emphasize the point he quoted two Kiswahili sayings: “Too much greed is for the hyenas” and “He who wants everything, loses everything.” He also reminded everyone that without civil society involvement, Governments will not be able to do anything, as civil society is “of the people, and for the people.”  

Discussion on the sustainable development goals and targets begins

(based on report by Lara Cousins, Youth Leadership Working Group (YLWG) & Women’s Global Network for Reproductive Rights and Samuel Kissi (YLWG))

As referred to our posting on Day 1 of the negotiations (See: Intergovernmental Negotiations on Post-2015 Development Agenda consideration of goals and targets – Day 1: Indicators), the Co-facilitators have developed a new paper “Targets in the proposed SDG framework,” which suggested some possible tweaks to the goals and targets. The discussions focussed on this paper.

Speaking on behalf of Group of 77 and China, South Africa emphasised that the group remains averse to reopening of OWG report and firmly rejects any attempts to do so, including technical proofing. They said that the report must not be re-opened and must be entirely integrated into agenda, including its chapeau, SDGs and targets, and reservations. They reminded delegates that the report was adopted through a General Assembly resolution and that any attempts to re-open it may need another such resolution. And the group did not want to go there. Furthermore, there was no time for this exercise in the process of negotiations and that it risks unravelling the entire report of the Open Working Group (OWG), which represents the delicate political balance that had been achieved after 18 months negotiations.  They also said that the Co-facilitators new text on 19 targets had only been presented at midday on Monday and appealed to the Co-facilitators to share documents well in advance. Furthermore, they requested information as to how the document was compiled and which stakeholders were involved

Namibia, speaking on behalf of the African Group, associating itself with Group of 77 plus China statement emphasized that the OWG report must be included in the post-2015 agenda in its entirety, including reservations made by Member States. They would not support any attempt to reopen or renegotiate the goals or targets, nor would they support any proposed technical proofing. They suggested, however, that the Statistical Commission could be asked to assist in removing the ‘x’s, or that it be left to each country, according to national standards.

The European Union spoke on the need to keep the ambition of the OWG proposal and balance among its three dimensions. They welcomed the efforts to complete the work on targets; to make them more measurable and specific; and to make them consistent with existing standards and frameworks. They requested more clarification on the process, stressing that the work of UN must be done in a transparent and evidence-based manner. They agreed with the Co-facilitators that it was necessary to address all existing ‘x’s – a specific issue that needs to be addressed as soon as possible, and that the Co-facilitators proposal goes in the right direction, enhancing the specificity without losing the ambition of OWG. They would, however, like a better understanding of the reasoning behind the suggestions made.

Countries and groups also raised specific points. For example, Mexico supported the African proposal while stressing the need to safeguard integrity and legitimacy of the OWG outcome and saying that they were not in favour of an exercise to group together or cluster SDGs, or to reopen the goals agreed.  The Maldives, on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States was concerned that any attempt to reopen the SDGs would upset the delicate political balance.

In other interventions, the United Kingdom welcomed the breadth and depth of political balance, and while they should not be reopened, the targets should be universally relevant. To succeed, clearest guidance was needed, but without unravelling the OWG proposal. They suggested further strengthen of the targets in a pragmatic way, eg that they should have a numerical value and be in line with existing international agreements. They welcomed the Co-facilitators document as a helpful step; but needed more time before they could say that they agree. They also requested further clarification as to why these have been listed, and others have yet to be addressed. Australia added that targets would have implications for policy and funding. While the balance should not be tampered with, Governments cannot be asked to accept a document with ‘x’s in it. Some targets do not go far enough and require minor changes that will be vital to improving the ambition of the framework in some places and there is time to make adjustments without unraveling the work of the OWG proposal.They suggested allowing the UNTST to go through the targets and to propose changes based on clear criteria. Member States would then either endorse, or not, in which case they would revert to the original OWG proposal. It would essentially be a take it or leave it proposition. The Republic of Korea pointed out that good indicators can only come from good targets and that it would not be possible to come up with feasible, suitable, relevant indicators if targets themselves lack clarity. France sought improvements for certain targets that would not undermine overall balance and that the issue of the ‘x’s requires Member States to move efficiently forward.

At the end of the meeting, the Co-facilitators reviewed the process, which had led to the current paper on Targets. This had included the communications that the Co-facilitators had had with the Statistical Commission in December (See: UN Statistical Commission confirms support on post-2015 indicator development), reported on this website. Subsequently, they had asked the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs to write to the UNTST to look at addressing the problems of the ‘x’s and those that fall below internationally agreed standards. The reply, that was received, provided far more information than had been requested. They, as Co-facilitators, were not comfortable with the commentary, as it seemed to ignore the debate in the OWG completely and failed to adhere to the two criteria asked for.

They therefore tried to whittle down the document to what had now been circulated. They had circulated the paper as soon as it was ready.  They requested the opportunity to “take another crack at it” to make sure it meets current levels of ambition and not to restate the goals and targets. 

Ambassador Kamau specifically recognised that, given the comments of a large group (G77) and others, there was no broad agreement to go through it. There was a question of what is doable. He asked whether it would be possible to “do the unthinkable” and try to trust the Co-facilitators to have one more crack at it. He referred to examples that were lacking ambition, according to the United Kingdom and Australia and agreed that they could have been stronger. He likened opening up the work of the OWG to “bad nightmares.”

(Revised 26/3/15)