Post-2015 development agenda session on follow-up and review, 18-22 May No 15: Goals, targets and indicators
Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 6:22PM (based on IISD Reporting Services report)
Goals, targets and indicators
On the morning of Thursday 21 May, Ambassador Kamau introduced the “Revised Targets Document” from the Co-Facilitators. (See: Post-2015: revised proposal for the themes of the six interactive dialogues to be held during the post-2015 Summit) The tweaking of the targets had been based on two criteria: to replace the ‘x’s in the OWG’s report with text or values, for which there had seemed to be “a measure of comfort” from what delegates had said during the March session; and to ensure consistency with existing international agreements.
In addition, Ambassador Kamau said that one or two additional targets had also been refined to include references to humanitarian assistance, as issues related to disasters and humanitarian matters were considered “important to a lot of us,” and also to take into account the outcome from the Third UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction in Sendai. The Co-Facilitators did not intend to undertake further tweaking of any other targets than those outlined in the revised document. Co-Facilitator Donoghue added the reason for the work on the revised document was to provide explanations for each amendment and for “clearer” language. The comments from Member States are summarized below:
South Africa, speaking on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, said the Group was not in a position to accept the revised targets, recalling that the Open Working Group’s SDG report should serve as the main basis for the post-2015 negotiations. Nigeria, for the African Group, reiterated the delicate political and substantive compromise, which must be preserved. Tweaking targets would lead to another round of negotiations for which there was “no time.”
The European Union recognized the progress in making the targets more precise and also welcomed target 14.c (related to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)), and the additions on humanitarian assistance. He also proposed a revision to target 4.b to read “expand globally the target on scholarships,” and expressed concern that targets 6.6 and 15.2 were still not well established.
Maldives, for the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), expressed caution about this exercise, and called for transparency and inclusivity. Belize, for CARICOM, was even more concerned, having reviewed the revised targets, and noting the lack of clear criteria. Tunisia, on behalf of the Arab Group, reiterated their statement that they do not wish to reopen the OWG report. Calling for the integration of the report of the OWG, including its preamble, goals and targets and its reservations, into the post-2015 outcome document.
Canada welcomed the inclusion of a clear numerical target under target 3.2 (preventable deaths of newborns and children under five years of age), and called for adding a numerical target under target 3.1 (global maternal mortality).
Mexico remarked that the revision paper helps to ensure consistency with existing international agreement, while noted that some targets are too ambitious and some too vague. Argentina said that the agreement must be looked at as a whole and should not be reopened from a technical standpoint, while calling for setting out a “common agenda” to achieve these goals quantitatively and qualitatively to ensure the UN can play a role in eradicating poverty by 2030. Israel said that any adjustment to the targets should be consistent with the criteria set at the start of this exercise. Colombia, on the other hand, did not see a rationale for revising the targets and was concern about changes brought to target 14.c (UNCLOS).
The United Kingdom supported the revision of the targets, as proposed by the Co-Facilitators. Turkey was not against tweaking targets, and supported, inter alia: the language on “assistance to those affected by complex humanitarian emergencies” in revised target 1.5; revised target 4.4; and revised target 17.2 on ODA provided to LDCs. She opposed revisions brought to target 14.c (UNCLOS), among others. Japan said the technical proofing exercise should: remain “purely technical in nature,” led by the UN Technical Support Team. Greece stressed that it should be clear that no one wants to reopen the OWG report or upset the carefully crafted political balance struck in that document, explaining the need for technical proofing in making the SDGs more measureable and consistent with existing international agreements. He also welcomed the revision of target 14.c on UNCLOS. The United States referred to the Rio+20 mandate, which calls for the SDGs to be, inter alia, limited in number, aspirational and clearly stated, stressing the need for the UN Statistical Commission (UNSC) and delegates to use best available evidence and experience to improve consistency, clarity to end poverty. The US did not see the need to include the added language on humanitarian assistance in targets 1.5 and 11.5 Cyprus, New Zealand, Monaco and Croatia also supported the revisions as constructive and welcomed the revision to target 14.c (UNCLOS). Other countries welcoming the revised target documents included Norway, Sweden and Australia.
Palau in supporting the work of the Co-Facilitators’ to find clarity and strengthen the targets, expressed some concern with the revision to target 1.5, as all humanitarian emergencies require assistance, not just “complex” ones. He also preferred the original formulation for targets 4.b and 4.c. Benin, on behalf of the least developed countries (LDCs), said that in supporting the G77 & China’s statement, they prefer the proposed revision of MOI target 17.2 (ODA), noting that in actuality, LDCs are requesting 0.20-0.25% of GNI. Venezuela supported integrating the report of the OWG in its entirety in the post-2015 development agenda and opposed the proposed revisions brought to target 14.c (UNCLOS).
France favoured the revised amendments and expressed support for the work of the UNSC. Republic of Korea also supported its workon the development of global indicators and said that the tweaking effort should not lower the level of ambition. Switzerland also commented that the post-2015 outcome must give the UNSC a clear mandate to adopt an indicator framework at its March 2016 meeting and update it at a later time, if necessary.
Saudi Arabia argued against reopening the SDGs and targets, saying that if one part of the SDG package is reopened, governments may want to reopen other elements, such as goal 5.6 (reproductive healthcare and reproductive rights).
Update on UNSC’s update on indicators
John Pullinger, the UNSC Chair, updated Member States on the work undertaken by the UNSC on developing a global indicator framework to be presented at its 2016 session, via conference call.
The UNSC had established its terms of reference and membership for the Inter-Agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goals (IAEG-SDGs). It is comprised of 28 representatives of NSOs and observers (representatives of the UN Regional Commissions and international organizations, including those organizations responsible for reporting on the MDGs). It will conduct its work in an open, inclusive and transparent manner; inviting inputs from civil society, academia and the private sector. The Group will meet from 1-2 June 2015, to discuss, inter alia: the process of developing indicators, its working methods for the way forward, indicator proposals for different targets, data disaggregation, and crosscutting issues.
Pullinger said, as reported by IISD, that they will cover all targets, including those on MOI; maintain the balance achieved in the OWG outcome; not bring any contentious issues; maintain the level of ambition; and be limited in number by addressing cross- cutting issues.
Indicators might be organized on three different tiers:
- indicators for which methodology and available data exist;
- indicators for which methodology exists but no data are available; and
- indicators for which methodology does not exist.
He proposed establishing a global data base under the UN Statistical Division to facilitate the implementation of the global indicator framework by ensuring coherence among regional and national reporting on global indicators and stressed the need for capacity building for strengthening national statistical systems. Pullinger also said that the work on the indicator framework is “well underway.” He welcomed further political guidance and questions, and said that the UNSC will provide updates on progress during the June and July post-2015 negotiating sessions.
In response to a question, Pullinger said that the UNSC in March had decided to create a High Level Group to provide strategic leadership for SDG implementation, comprised of NSO representatives and international organizations. This would ensure that the monitoring is not only nationally owned, but capacity building is also being taken into consideration. From 2016 onwards, the UNSC will report to ECOSOC.
For further information see: http://www.iisd.ca/download/pdf/enb3218e.pdf