The second drafting session for the Third International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD3) began in New York on Monday 13 April 2015. The main agenda item was to begin to negotiate the zero draft of the Addis Ababa Accord (See also: Zero draft for Financing for Development Addis Ababa conference).
Ambassador George Talbot, Permanent Representative of Guyana and Co-facilitator, in his opening presentation stressed that this was a critical stage in the process and that negotiations were about to begin in earnest on the zero draft.
He emphasized that success in Addis will be crucial and a test of commitment to implement an ambitious and truly transformative post-2015 development agenda and to move beyond “business as usual”. The outcome should support implementation of the post-2015 development agenda, hence the timing and importance in responding to the sustainable development goals (SDGs). As he said, there is a need for change of mindset and he urged everyone to proceed with due care, but also with courage.
FfD3 will not be a pledging conference, and Member States should not expect there to be 17 funds for 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Instead strong commitments will need to be made. He highlighted that the zero draft contains 50 specific commitments. A comprehensive approach was needed that includes cross-cutting proposals, especially related to infrastructure, agriculture and energy, while not underplaying the importance of climate finance.
“How we deal with the post-2015 process remains an open discussion,” he further explained, noting that the joint session being convened on 21-24 April (See: Draft Programme for Joint Session between Post-2015 processes and FfD processes now available) will offer more details. He said governments should consider the degree of linkage between the monitoring and follow-up of the FfD3 outcome and of the post-2015 development agenda. On the targets, as proposed by the Open Working Group on the Sustainable Development Goals, on the means of implementation for the SDGs, Talbot highlighted that the zero draft seeks to make them “more ambitious and operational,” with the MOI targets as the point of departure “to be ramped up, not whittled down.”
Finally, Talbot said the zero draft seeks explicitly to address both financial and non-financial MOI. While SDG 17 captures the thrust of the Monterrey Consensus, the FfD3 zero draft has also introduced technology and capacity building.
As reported by the IISD, in the initial exchange of general views on the zero draft, the Group of 77 and China (G77/China) stressed the need to focus on the economic pillar of sustainable development; respect the policy space of countries; and emphasize official development assistance (ODA), adding that the unfulfilled ODA commitments under the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) should be carried forward. The African Group, Arab States and Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) said the outcome should be based on common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR), taking into account the right of development and respect for the policy space of developing countries. They emphasized the importance of ODA, technology transfer, capacity building, and data, with the Arab States calling for increasing ODA to 1% of GNI.
The G77/China and Arab States called for direct, Member State-driven negotiations on the draft text to begin as soon as possible.
The European Union underlined that the Addis Ababa outcome should address the three pillars of sustainable development in a balanced manner, and should be crafted as the MOI pillar of the post-2015 development agenda. A chapter should be added on policy aspects of MOI – such as good governance, sound institutions, gender equality, and stable regulatory environments – and for strengthening them under each section. He highlighted “shared responsibility,” explaining that all actors should contribute “with their fair share” to implementing the goals, in accordance with their circumstances, noting that the draft fails to capture this paradigm shift from an “outdated" North-South model. He highlighted the “co-benefits” of efforts to address climate change and poverty eradication and said the text should widen this further to include sustainable development.
The Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), the Least Developed Countries (LDCs), the Pacific Small Island Developing States (PSIDS), the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), and for the Landlocked Developing Countries (LLDCs) stressed the need to take into account the particular circumstances of countries. CELAC highlighted the importance of peaceful and inclusive societies, good governance and the rule of law, further calling for a plan of action for middle-income countries (MICs).
It was interesting to note that a number of interventions highlighted gender equality and women’s empowerment as well as education and health.
See also: http://sd.iisd.org/news/member-states-start-discussions-on-ffd-3-zero-draft/284925/