As can be seen from the letter from the Co-facilitators, accompanying the revised draft of the outcome document for the UN Summit on the Post-2015 Development Agenda, they are discouraging general statements and keeping the “focus firmly fixed on textual work and on finalization of the draft document.” They also hope that group arrangements can be used to articulate the views of Member States on the draft.
There are still divergences in the positions taken by the various groups and with this in mind, we feel it is important that advocates are aware of the groups positions last week. We have already posted those on the preamble and declaration (See: Post-2015 development agenda intergovernmental negotiations, 20-31 July, No 8 Opening statements from G77 and China, regional and other groups). Below we are including those given during the opening of the discussion on the goals and targets:
Introduction by Ambassador Kamau, Co-facilitator
In opening the discussion on the goals and targets, Ambassador Macharia Kamau, Co-facilitator, said that they were on track to complete the discussion around the final draft document by the end of the week.
They were moving into the ‘meat and heart’ of the agenda for the next 15 years and the Co-facilitators were pretty confident that there is a large measure of agreement with the SDGs and the FfD, which has been agreed upon. There has been progress on the follow-up and review, but guidance is needed as to what is to be done elsewhere, eg in the HLPF. But they will not sketch out the work plan for next 15 years. There is, in their opinion, a sense of confidence that they are well down the road. They need to revisit the targets to get a certain measure of comfort as to where they can take up some tweaked targets without opening up the goal set, where they feel that there is a consensus in the room to rally around certain changes. They should take into account that the finish of the OWG was “rather rushed.” They will try to finish this over next 48 hours with the support of the Member States. At the end of the day, they will apply the principles and will not run with anything that doesn’t have broad consensus. And revert to OWG text where there is no agreement.
Responses from groups and further comments from Co-facilitators
South Africa, speaking on behalf of G77 and China, said that the OWG report had been adopted a year ago on 19 July. It was arrived at through painstaking and intensive work over a period of 18 months with the Group participating constructively and in good faith. They have consistently called for the entire report to be fully preserved and reopened. Therefore they were pleased that the goals and targets have largely been retained in the latest draft. On the proposed revision they reiterated that no changes should be made that would alter the intention or undermine the report’s integrity. They have studied the proposed amendments to some targets and will need to see whether the amendments are achievable and realistic and do not alter the substance of the original text. They are not in favour of opening up the SDGs, so as not to compromise the delicate balance of the document.. They recall the methodology agreed on in the last session that if there is no agreement on a proposed technical change or changes they will maintain the SDGs as they currently stand. The group reiterates that a proposal on indicators should be presented to the relevant intergovernmental body.
The Chapeau forms an integral part of the report of the OWG- SDG and they therefore reiterate their call for the inclusion of this language as an integral part of the outcome document. This is because the introduction includes agreed consensus language providing a detailed context for the goals and targets. Excluding this part of the Report of the OWG-SDGs leaves an unnecessary contextual vacuum. They are sensitive to any action that could not only undermine the delicate compromise but that could actually unravel the entire package that was encapsulated in the OWG-SDG report in its entirety. Finally, the Group reiterates its view that a proposal on indicators should be presented for consideration to the relevant intergovernmental bodies by the UN Statistical Commission who has been tasked with the development of global indicators.
Ambassador Kamau said, in response, that the intergovernmental negotiating body (IGN) will have a conversation on indicators the following Tuesday.
European Union welcomed the integration in the draft outcome document of the selected proposals for adjustment. They continue, however, to support the Co-facilitators focused proposal of 20 targets as the list preserves the content and the balance of the OWG proposal, which is also a priority for the EU. They insist that the whole set of recommended technical adjustments are integrated in full, including the improved language for target 14.c in relation to UNCLOS. They cannot invite their Heads of State to endorse a framework where the global level of ambition is still unclear and contains unspecified "Xs" and an expression which is inconsistent with existing international frameworks, UN resolutions and the outcome documents of Johannesburg and of the Rio+20 Conference, and on which the OWG process and proposal must be based. While the Declaration clearly reaffirms their commitment to international law and the obligation to implement the Agenda accordingly, they should make every effort to avoid any inconsistencies with international law in the text. They can still get this right. Once all the proposed technical revisions are integrated, the process should be closed and the goals and targets would be ready for adoption at the summit.
Second, on the introduction to the SDGs and targets, they continue to support a very short introduction for the SDGs and the targets highlighting, as proposed, that SDGs are global in nature and universally applicable, taking into account different national realities, capacities and levels of development and respecting national policies and priorities. The text should remain as it is, so that the introduction to the section on SDGs remains concise and focused and they do not support adding the chapeau of the proposal of the OWG. On the last paragraphs, they agree on the importance that the agenda respects, supports, and builds on existing multilateral agreements, commitments and processes. However, they do not wish to engage in selective quotation of some, as there are many landmarks in fields other than those suggested, including in human rights or for instance UNCLOS.
Maldives, speaking on behalf of AOSIS, stressed that no one should be left behind and that the reality of it happening for SIDS is only too real because of small size of the Member States in the Group. They therefore support a target having been met, when it is met by everyone, which is the true spirit of the agenda. In paragraph 51, UNCLOS should be included under the list of conventions. Goals and targets much not be re-opened. AOSIS Member States have looked at the revisions as to whether they are substantive or technical in nature. Only those that are technical should be opened. They then focused on measurability, which is especially important with the undefined ‘Xs’. The changes in 8.7 is substantive. In 6.6, 15.5 and others they make the target less ambitious. There is a solution in Para 52 for the disclaimer therein. Numerical ‘Xs’ either substantially increase or decrease the value. A substantial increase is subjective. But who decides, and based on what? This was the heart of the debate in the OWG , but there is still no answer. They are faced with subjective revisions that are not measurable. The solution may be to maintain ‘Xs’, A second answer may be to replace the ‘X’ with ‘all’, but 100% may not be achievable, setting ourselves up for failure. They could not agree on the baselines and wanted ‘global’ but could not be ‘universal’ – ‘Xs’ identify commitments and data. There is a need in the case of new targets to establish baselines. Therefore the solution may be to give time to the statisticians to come up with more robust and technically sound figures.
Kamau thanked him for his considered arguments which are the ones on which they have to come to some conclusions very soon.
Belize, speaking on behalf of CARICOM thanked the major groups and other stakeholders for their valuable contributions. Their regional secretariat had reviewed the SDGs and associated targets seeing areas for improvement. On indicators alone after the MDGs, where they had struggled with data, they found areas where they would need to strengthen data collection and analysis. Now they cannot in good faith press the restart button. The sustainable development goals and targets represent a delicate political balance and they are not in favor of re-opening targets for substantive amendments. Although they had said they would consider how to treat with the ‘Xs’ in some targets, the proposals are too vague, and they would be better treated with relevant data on baselines for measurability and for determining the associated costs for implementation. Several proposals for revised timelines result in a reduction of ambition and others in substantive amendments. They are therefore not in a position to accept the proposed revisions for ‘Xs’ variables.
Given the work currently underway in the Statistical Commission, the IGN should not hastily and for political expediency revise targets. The decision should be deferred until after the Commission’s report at its 47th session, underscoring that the nature of the Agenda is not static. In target 11.b they agree that the “Hyogo Framework” be replaced with the “Sendai Framework”, which is a factual change and nothing more.
Tongo speaking on behalf of the P-SIDS said that the targets should not be substantively reopened because of the delicate political balance. They seek clarity on criteria for the selection of revised targets. Some are unpalatable to many in the room. Although 20 were included and also called for inclusion of 14(c), as written in Annex – to be merely technical and underscore its importance and all members of the P-SIDS will engage on this issue. The paragraph introducing the SDGs should speak to the role of indicators.
Kamau – try to open up conversation. He said that they had had this debate for quite a while. The Co-facilitators thought that the ‘Xs’ are not a good idea in moving forward at the very least. If it is an ongoing process, the HLPF will concretized eg ‘substantial increase’. Not in a position to do it now, nor is the IGN the right people, but it is important to give as close an interpretation as possible. Not a number as can’t put in a number at this point, but it is an indication. This entire goal set will be Implemented at country level. Therefore it will be up to countries to decide what does it mean at country level? Need not fear the term ‘substantial increase’ as being onerous. Gives countries a lot of flexibility. Important as to why came down on ‘substantive increase’. It is imprudent to leave an ‘X’ in an internationally agreed document. Leaving the goal set unresolved would be leaving it to another forum. If handled by others, all goals and targets are “fair game.” We should have as neat a set of goals and targets as possible. HLPF will work on it over time.
Ambassador Donoghue, Co-facilitator, agreed and reinforced that leaving the ‘Xs’ as they are would expose them to ridicule and it would be the worst of all possible worlds.
The Co-facilitators will use the arguments of the Groups moving forward.