Intergovernmental negotiations on Post-2015 – Day 5: April session and coordination with FfD and closing session

Ambassador Kamau introduced the proposal for the joint session for Financing for Development (FfD) and Post 2015 development agenda. The work of the FfD track in Addis in July must be a success, which means that its outcomes should be consistent with this process’s expectations and fit into its agenda. They must not be duplicative, as they are distinctly different with different timelines. The programme for the intergovernmental negotiations, 20-24th April with FfD was scheduled for the previous week. Their expectation and hope is that participants in the FfD will stay over the weekend and join the intergovernmental negotiations session. The Co-facilitators have had conversations with the co-facilitators Ambassadors from Guyana and Norway and are of the opinion they are all on the same page of moving forward.

The Co-facilitators need to hear from member states as to what they should focus on substantively at the next session. The zero draft of the FfD document has already been released. (See: Zero draft for Financing for Development Addis Ababa conference)  They also need to hear the views of Member States on the means of implementation (MOI) that have been conflated with FfD. It will be important to decide on the organization of work, based on the 4-day programme provided. In addition the Co-facilitators have received request from the President of ECOSOC to facilitate the participation of members of this Group in the ECOSOC/Bretton Woods system meeting on the 20 & 21 April. Monday therefore should be used for joint consultations/conversations with the meeting beginning on Tuesday, lasting for four, not five days. 

Joint session of FfD and Post 2015 Development Agenda

South Africa, on behalf of G77 & China, noted that co-facilitators would be submitting a revised text on the tweaking of the SDGs and targets in near future, which would be basis for further negotiation. They reiterated their opposition to reopening of SDGs and targets. They are concerned that shortening the April session will not allow the MOI maximum attention, but they do want information sharing. Member States can provide broad political guidance to the Statistical Commission, noting that indicators will be finalized by March 2016. The finalized indicators can be submitted and agreed by member consensus. The terms of reference (TOR) for the Interagency and Expert Group should be formalized as early as possible to provide legitimacy and transparency. They request briefings on the their progress.  

Maldives, on behalf of Alliance of Small Island States, feared that tweaking risks unraveling work already done. They recognize the importance of the MOI as April's topic. They expressed appreciation for the Statistical Commission's preliminary indicators by June or July.  Tonga, on behalf of 12 Pacific Small Island Developing States, also emphasized that the SDGs should not be reopened and the risks in tweaking the targets. The MOI are essential to the success of the post-2015 agenda. The thematic dialogues should go further than recycling states' views to bring out clear outcomes with purpose of partnerships, so that we leave no one behind. Belize, on behalf of CARICOM, reaffirmed that the 17 goals and 169 targets be maintained. Filling in the ‘x’s should be done before the Summit, within agreed parameters. Technology should be addressed. Benin, on behalf of the LDCs, said that the issue of ‘x’s should be solved in a transparent, intergovernmental process. The joint session should focus on MOIs as defined in SDG report. 

European Union emphasized the importance of a single integrated agenda including the Addis outcome/global partnership for MOI, based on the adoption of a multi-stakeholder approach, universally applied related to country circumstances. The Conference in Addis should tackle Post-2015 and not be a pledging conference, being based on prior conferences and documents. There should be specific deliverables. The Conference should recognize the need for a complex set of actions by all taking into account of each country's circumstances. The High-level Political Forum (HLPF) should provide oversight and there should be a single monitoring framework. The EU supports the approach included in the Co-facilitators’ draft, with April being a step toward merging the Post 2015 and FfD strands. Technology and follow up review should be given time and they want coherence on outcome documents. 

Peru stressed the need for TOR for Interagency Group of Experts process and welcomed the possible briefings. The final document in September should reference the development of that group, which should be followed up primarily by the HLPF. They also welcomed the proposal of the Co-facilitators for the thematic roundtables, which should consider people living in vulnerable situations including migrants, those with disabilities and older persons.

Ambassador Kamau asked the G77 as to how they saw the interface between indicator process and political oversight and whether this group should continue to have meetings with the Interagency Group or shift it to the ECOSOC/ HLPF track. On the technology transfer mechanism he asked whether there should there be a decision contained in post 2015 agenda or if it should take place elsewhere eg in the Addis track? If the UN Statistical Commission is to be guided by this process, he wanted to know if there should be informal but formal meetings; or a parallel events-driven arrangement, eg during lunch; or something more structured.

In addressing the EU, he felt that there is a lot of convergence, but he wanted more information  about their concern on the concentration of technology and knowledge transfer, and whether they wanted all eight of the Addis process blocks to be discussed.  In his view, the follow up and review track lies with this group, and not with Addis.

Japan suggested a session on global partnership for development, during the April meeting, adding that the follow- up and review arrangements should be kept in the post-2015 track. 

South Africa, for the G-77 & China, asked about the nature of Member States’ interface with the Statistical Commission, and stressed that the Co-Facilitators should take the lead to ensure there is interaction, with structured briefings in future post-2015 sessions. The need for the establishment of a technology facilitation mechanism as provided for in the Rio+20 outcome document was also highlighted. On filling in the ‘x’s, the OWG report should not be tampered with. 

Guyana, on behalf of the Co-Facilitator of the FfD process, cited a possible precedent as to how the FfD and post-2015 processes can cooperate, in the relationship between the Monterrey Financing for Development conference in 2002 and the subsequent World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg later the same year.. 

Closing plenary

Ambassador Donoghue, for the Co-facilitators, presented the following summary and suggestions for the way forward, 

There will be a four-day meeting from 21-24 April 2015, including delegates to the FfD process: 

• Day 1, discussing outstanding issues from the FfD track, systemic issues, and innovation, and a meeting with representatives of the Bretton Woods Institutions; 
• Day 2, a discussion on the technology facilitation mechanism; 
• Day 3, an interactive discussion with Major Groups and a discussion on the global partnership and transformative ideas; and
• Day 4, a discussion on follow-up and review and coherence between the FfD and post-2015 outcome documents. 

On the targets they proposed providing a more detailed explanation on the suggested changes to the 19 targets. 

On the indicators, they proposed that the Statistical Commission will again brief the delegations during the negotiations in May, at which time the Member States could decide to transfer political oversight on indicators to the ECOSOC/ HLPF. 

Ambassador Kamau observed that delegations had generally embraced the timeframe of the Statistical Commission to agree to indicators in March 2016. He also said the April discussion on monitoring and review will just be in the context of MOI and FfD. It was clear that this body will oversee the indicators, until it decides how to proceed in May. 

Ambassador Donoghue noted that “it is a little early” to speak about the criteria that will be used to review the 19 targets, but assured Member States that they will be based on the discussions during the current session. 

Ambassador Kamau said that capacity building will be included in the section on the global partnership, and perhaps in the one on deliverables. Noting that the April session will be a “train station where all the tracks come together,” he brought to the delegates’ attention the fact that it will provide the only opportunity for the post-2015 agenda process delegates to “inject” their ideas into the Addis outcome.