Post-2015 development agenda intergovernmental negotiations, 22-25 June No 5: 1st meeting – introduction by Co-facilitators and Group positions

The 1st meeting of the fifth session of the intergovernmental negotiations, which began on 22 June, was opened by Ambassador Macharia Kamau, Co-facilitator, who welcomed everyone to the meeting on the zero draft document, referring specifically to those who are new to the process as well as the civil society who were present “in full force”. The zero draft had been circulated to facilitate conversation to ensure that there would be the kind of post-2015 agenda that they will wish to have and that we will be proud to put before Heads of State and Government (HOSG). He referred to the Financing for Development (FfD) process, which signals a very important outcome that can hopefully be incorporated into the document later on. There seems to be real progress, and that a document acceptable to all members is on the verge of being adopted in time for the Addis conference.

On the zero draft, the Co-facilitators were heartened by comments from various groups, including Member States, civil society and others expressing support and encouragement for zero draft. He also referred to the Papal Encyclical, which touches directly, or indirectly, on all areas of the sustainable development goals (SDGs). It is indicative of the universality of the agenda and how integrated the agenda is. Indeed, the world of silos is gone.

He hoped that the IGN can move ahead on the basis of zero draft. The preamble is the attempt of the Co-facilitators to give a “neat synopsis”, that is communicable and attractive to the general public. In the declaration they had tried to respond to the requests of the IGN to touch on all issues and reach out to all groups without it becoming a laundry list. They had tried to avoid replicating the OWG in its totality and asked IGN to exercise constraint. The declaration has a particular purpose and they hope is self-evident. The next chapter is on the goals and targets and they may revisit a couple of targets, based on the attachment recommending that they are aligned with international standards. If there is no agreement, the IGN will revert to the OWG text. The next chapter is on MOI and global partnership. It includes indicative language and spelt out the MOIs including Goal 17, but have clearly indicated that this chapter is waiting for outcome of FfD process. The challenge is how to do it -- should they take in the entire FfD outcome; are they satisfied that global partnerships is dealt with in FfD, or do they need a couple paragraphs on it; are the issues in Goal 17 fully addressed in FfD outcome? This will be discussed on Thursday. The next chapter is on follow-up and review. The good news is that FfD track has done splendid job on follow up and review and the FfD outcome is better than currently in the zero draft. They wished to hear comments on how to align FfD and HLPF, which starts on Friday.

Ambassador David Donoghue, Co-facilitator, said that he was looking forward to the comments that will be made and hoped that people will respect overall importance of maintaining overall short, concise, and readable text. Comments should be as specific as possible.

South Africa, on behalf of the G77 and China, said that the zero draft is a key milestone of post-2015 agenda and that it is a credible starting point of negations. However, some aspects require intergovernmental scrutiny to address the needs of developing countries and they trust co-facilitators to guide this process.

Rwanda, speaking for the African States in a statement covering entire document, welcomed the zero draft as a useful starting point. Generally it communicates a strong level of ambition. In general, it is important to reflect development in title, eg: New Development Agenda for Globalization. Some section in the preamble highlight some goals over others and it has no value added as all 17 goals are of equal importance. The African Group called for its deletion. There is an emphasis in the declaration on human rights, which has its own track in the UN system  and should not overload the post-2015 development agenda. There is a need to reflect peace and security in declaration. The African Groups wishes the inclusion of the entire SDGs and target. It remains averse to technical proofing and the OWG report should be entirely integrated in the post-2015 agenda including the chapeau and reservations. The global indicator framework should be agreed by the General Assembly and are a critical component.

On the MOI, the global partnerships will be anchor of Post-2015 and the African Group supports inclusion of all specific MOIs. Addis will be supplemental and not be a replacement for these sections. The Region recognize the role of technology innovation and transfer and the need for it to be strengthened. The follow up and review should focus on universal goals, in particular the SDGs and must remain voluntary. They have African Peer Review Mechanism that has been very effective. Any review has to be owned by governments and they should conduct their reviews according to their priorities.  The document should emphasize role of national parliaments of implementation of agenda. And they asked why should the HLPF be tied by QCPR process?

European Union said that they support the structure of the draft, and hoped that the annexes will not be needed in final draft. They look forward to continued engagement of all stakeholders, including civil society. The text for the preamble is a welcome effort. It is important to ensure the coherence between the preamble and various parts of agenda. The draft puts forward valuable new language.

The declaration should better set out and infuse throughout text the purpose of agenda as well as universality, balance, and its transformational nature. There should be more emphasis on transformative features. He referred to the reference to eradicate extreme poverty in paragraph 3. The three dimensions of sustainable development should be emphasized and climate change should be reinforced and inter-linkages addressed in paragraph 15. Meanwhile the spirit of new global partnership and universality should also be addressed and included in the introduction and vision. The EU also supports promoting gender equality, human rights, non-discrimination, democracy, good governance references, but they need to be strengthened. Children should be recognized as active participants and there should be an emphasis on the human rights of women and girls with mention of ICPD, CEDAW, Beijing and the review conferences.

There is a need to mobilize all MOIs, both financial and non-financial. They were also concerned about paraphrasing the OWG outcome, particularly in paragraphs 22-28. It is necessary to preserve the balance that the OWG represents and there is a need to strengthen synergies and inter-linkages across whole agenda. The EU would like reference to the 2-degree climate change objective and linkages to other parts of agenda. Decent work, human rights, peace, and gender equality should also be included. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) should be mentioned before the Rio agreements, while CBDR should not be singled out and should not apply as overall operational principle of agenda. The Agenda is underpinned by universality, while taking into account national capacities, etc. There is also a need to recommit and building more clearly on Millennium Declaration and substantive human rights content. The right to development is not on equal footing of UDHR. The EU would also prefer more emphasis on the international dimension than on the national one and the importance of national ownership and implementation should be included.  The Addis outcome should be included in the MOI section.

The Maldives, on behalf of the Alliance of SIDS (AOSIS), while saying that the zero draft is good basis for discussion, thought there should be a more balanced approach for incorporating goals and targets. The title should clearly indicate the agenda it frames. They recommended that the title include a reference to post 2015 agenda and were still indecisive of added value of preamble, which should be consistent with SDGs. The three dimensions should be balanced better.  There is room for merging and tweaking of document and they welcome the mention of countries in special situations. They have concerns about the attempts to cluster documents, which need further work. The entire OWG report should be included.  National level and regional level sections of follow up and review are too prescriptive.

Benin, on behalf of least developed (LDCs) said that the document provides a solid basis for discussions. They are happy with the outcomes of OWG and goal and targets are at the centre of the document and that poverty eradication has ben recognised. They stressed the importance of overcoming structural problems experienced by LDCs, which should be captured in the declaration. At present it contains few elements of the economic pillar and more emphasis on economic foundation for LDCs is required. The new agenda should absorb the lessons learnt from the MDG implementation. Paragraph 8 should be stronger in this regard, as the LDCs are still off-track on the MDGs. Post-2015 should aim at social and economic transformation for LDCs and look at eliminating inequality across and within countries. It fails to recognise the importance crisis mitigation for LDCs, including public health emergencies. The revision of targets should not lower than current levels of ambition and targets must be numerical.

The SIDS position on MOI is well known. On follow-up and mechanisms, the group supports a horizontal review, including developed and developing countries, as well as other stakeholders. LDCs will be the battle ground of success so their concerns should be heeded.

Algeria on behalf of Arab Group said that they welcomed the zero draft but that it could be improved. There is no point in the preamble as it is repeated in para7. It also speaks to some targets but not others. The declaration includes provisions relating to poverty eradication and global principles, primarily those enshrined in international law and human rights. Foreign occupation is greatest obstacle to sustainable development. They wish to stress sovereignty. On the right to development and CBDR the group referred to the adverse impact of violence, extremism, terrorism, and the causes of migration and their impact on states that are trying to  develop. The text should include a paragraph about positive impact of migration for exporting labour force and receiving countries. There should be a reference to end unilateral sanctions against states. They wish to see a reference to the rights of those with disabilities. Technology transfer needs emphasis and should be across all pillars of sustainable development, not just environmental pillar. The restoration of plundered monies is called for, as well as references to the provision of water and combating drought and desertification. At this point it is premature to  welcome FFD, as negotiations are still on-going.

Belize, on behalf of Caricom, said that the first part must be inspirational and credible. The preamble is repetitive. The declaration should capture political will, but requires refinement. Some of the language requires clarity eg paragraph 16, and the terminology in paragraphs 8 and 39 need more accuracy. The declaration should recognise programmes of action of countries in special situation eg Samoa Pathway.  On the role of private sector and philanthropy, the nature of economies in region means their role is limited and role of private sector is not applicable to all developing countries. On the follow-up and review there should be general principles and the reaffirmation of the HLPF outcomes. This part should provide guidance, but not prescriptive. The MOI should acknowledge that technology transfer mechanisms are nuts and bolts, while remaining open pending outcomes of FFD.

Tonga on behalf of 12 P SIDS said that this test is balanced on many issues. More attention is, however, needed on the balance between sustainable development pillars, with more emphasis on the environmental dimension. Oceans and seas and coastal areas are critical to poverty eradication, nutrition and sustainable development, but they are under threat. They have concerns on preamble, as there should be no hierarchy of goals and the IGN should not ‘cherry pick’ some goals for special focus. They wish the integrity of OWG report preserved. They acknowledge role of Addis in constructing the MOI but wants to make progress on this and not wait for Addis outcome. They support the technology transfer mechanism.

Zambia on behalf of Landlocked DCs (LLDCs) saw the zero draft as being good, forward looking and visionary. It should recognize the specific needs of LLDCs, included in the Vienna Plan of Action and call for its support on key areas.  They recognise the importance of the MOI.