Intergovernmental Negotiations on Post-2015 – Day 4: Sustainable development goals & targets (continued)

(based on report by Ida Klockmann, Sex og Samfund, Denmark)

Process going forward

The discussions in this session continued the discussion of the sustainable development goals and targets. Ambassador Kamau said that the Co-facilitators expected to have feedback from Member States on the goals and targets before the conclusion of the meeting the following day. They will then work with the comments to see whether they can improve their document to the satisfaction of Member States. 

A way forward had still to be agreed for the indicators. Member States had received a set of indicators and ratings from the UN Statistical Commission and had made a round of comments but they are far from satisfactory at this point. The Statistical Commission had requested more time, and a decision should be taken on this. There seemed to be consensus on the time the Statistical Commission had requested to ensure a good set of indicators. There was a question, however, as to whether a list of preliminary indicators should be provided in June as proposed and it was necessary to decide how to characterize the lack of an indicator section in the Post-2015 Development Agenda as put before Heads of States? 

Statements from Member States:

In their statements Member States made a number of suggestion as to how the necessary work could be carried out, with opening up the goals and targets. 

Denmark suggested that the Co-facilitators be given the opportunity to have “another crack at the targets” on the ‘x’s and using existing UN standards as a matter of credibility when presenting the agenda and Finland also supported the proposed tweaking of 19 targets and the criteria behind doing so. Canada said that a robust and transparent process is needed, while understanding the fear of the risk it entails. They supported Japan’s view of aligning the targets with agreements from Sendai on Disaster Risk Reduction. The Addis Conference will provide input and they also supported Australia’s proposal. Germany said that more work needs to be done on the targets and that the co-facilitators should work on the document again. They prefer the term ‘technical proofing’ to ‘technical review,’ while stating that the SDGs are complex and difficult to communicate. They also support the Synthesis Report’s proposal of the six elements. Poland also did in their statement.

Sweden supported the co-facilitators’ invitation to try again, while Norway reflected that OWG report is not perfect but a compromise and will stay imperfect. They also asked for clarification on the suggestion that the summit in September should not only adopt SDG framework, but also reservations. Iceland pointed out that targets 5.4 and 5.a are among those falling below international agreed language, noting that 5.a has a qualifier “in accordance to national laws” which is unacceptable. Gender equality is not included in the six elements of the Synthesis report, which is also not acceptable. Switzerland stated that the reservations made last year were not an intrinsic part of the OWG’s proposal. Changes should only clarify the SDGs with a clear and limited mandate. Countries would need to agree to a clear mandate and scope based on the advice of technical experts. Member States must then agree or disagree on proposals with the fallback option being the OWG proposal, thus not reopen the OWG report. 

Niger encouraged the Co-facilitators to move forward on the basis of the General Assembly resolution so that in September they will be abler to adopt this ambitious programme. For Russia the proposal goes beyond a technical review, and they cannot support it. They will continue the dialogue, on the understanding that the work will only be done in accordance with agreed principles. Egypt suggested parking the discussion for now, because of disagreements among Member States and the need for consultations with capitals on criteria and methodology. The concern was more with procedure than substance. The risk is that it will to become a slippery slope. Raising the level of ambition is legitimate but risky. Furthermore the report of the SDGs includes the introduction, SDGs and the reservations. Guatemala reminded the meeting that they are no longer in the OWG. There was talk of raising ambition even higher than what was agreed in the OWG, but did they really want to open this door again. 

Brazil stated that the need was to lead the process forward, not backwards and that they appeared to be slipping back to the OWG. Understanding that delegations may have reservations or improvements, but while they are legitimate, they could unravel the whole package. The co-facilitators’ proposal triggered such reactions. This is a negotiating process and political science, in particular, is needed. India was conscious of the imperfect world we live in, and the existence of other political agreements and agendas.  The SDGs do not stand alone. The risk of opening the document far outweighs potential gains. Indonesia also wished to park this issue before further clarification has been provided on the methodology behind. 

United States said that the sustainable goals and targets still pose real challenges as to how they will be implemented. Strengthening the targets is possible, critical and motivating in their own right. They found 32 targets to be in need for improvements and 16 others to be un-implementable. 32 percent of targets are excellent, half are in need of modest work and 18 percent need greater work to make them actionable. Sometimes targets are divided for no apparent reasoning. El Salvador: Indicators and means of implementation (MOI) should be based on human rights. Inequality is hampering rights of women and youth. OWG should not be reopened. Turkey welcomed the efforts of the co-facilitators to make the 19 targets consistent with the international framework, which may improve the quality of targets. They are not against tweaking, but work should not lead be lowering ambition or reducing the number of targets. 

Ecuador said that proposed tweaking of the 19 targets breaks the agreement of not reopening the OWG report. Mexico pointed out that the technical input from the experts was lacking, as was the reasoning for the proposed 19 tweaked targets. The focus of the global indicators should be used to measure global trends while the regional should be used to compare experiences and share challenges. There is a need to safeguard integrity of targets based on the OWG.  Morocco supported only revisiting the targets that have ‘x’, and it should not feed into discussions on MOI. Nigeria pointed out that several countries, including Nigeria, have reservations on the OWG report, but in order to make progress they agreed on going along with the compromise. 

It should be noted that both Belarus and Qatar spoke about inclusion of the family, in the case of Belarus as a factor of sustainability and Qatar, on behalf of the Group of Friends of the Family, on the family as a fundamental agent for cultural and social development, stating that Goal 5 is an opportunity to improve gender equality that starts with acknowledging the family. The family, moreover, should be mainstreamed into the SDG agenda.