Post-2015 development agenda intergovernmental negotiations 20-31 July, no 15: Final session discussion on preamble and declaration

We are now in the final week of the negotiations on the post-2015 development agenda after seven previous sessions. The focus of the discussions is the draft of the outcome document “dubbed for adoption”. The postings on the website will relate specifically to civil society organizations working on sexual and reproductive health and rights, youth and other related issues.

Ambassador Macharia Kamau, Co-facilitator in opening this final session of the intergovernmental negotiations extended a warm welcome to those who had just arrived for this session. The process leading up to this draft for adoption of the outcome document represents many months of work which is coming to a close. This is the draft that is really meant for adoption by Heads of State and Government (HoSG) and reflects a wide range of issues around which they have had credible negotiations and debate. Most, if not all, issues have been picked up without making it unreadable and maybe only some six or so remain to be negotiated. The level of confidence of the Co-facilitators is pretty high.

In order to do the business in next five days, the Co-facilitators suggest not to have all 193 countries coming with tweaks and language changes. Instead, as stated in the letter that accompanied this draft, they hoped to hear from the “groups.” The process to be used is to start on preamble and introduction, not necessarily paragraph by paragraph, and then to move on to Chapter 2 and the targets -- which should be included and which would be difficult. There is also the outstanding matter of the chapeau. At end of last week it may be necessary to have the groups to come together in a way that cannot be done in plenary.

South Africa, speaking on behalf of the Group of 77, said that the latest draft was a significant step in bringing the intergovernmental negotiating body closer to a draft that can be agreed. They did, however, raise key substantive issues, for example on method of work, as they do not believe in ‘informal informals’.

The Group sees no reason for the inclusion of the preamble, but nevertheless commented on it.  It does not reflect all three of the aspects of sustainable development. The reference to common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) refers to entire development insofar as it recognizes different levels of development. They wish to delete the reference to shared responsibility in paragraph 6. 

On paragraph 15 they wish to replace “forced displacement” with “mass movement of refugees.”  The chapeau, in Annex 2, should be included in its entirety. The language on climate change in paragraph 31 should not prejudge the outcome or scope of commitments of the UNFCCC. It is important to avoid language implying the legal nature and scope of commitments. Paragraphs 41 and 66 refer to the establishment for a plan of action with middle income countries. In paragraph 35, migration should be included as an enabler for development and the last line deleted. In paragraph 46 on debt, developing countries have been omitted from list of countries that are vulnerable.

European Union made general comments on the document, noting the reinforcement of references to human rights and gender equality, as well as some improvement in the language on the follow up and review section. The technical adjustments of targets are no longer included which they consider as a step backward. The chapeau of the OWG is still annexed leading to great deal of duplication and lack of clarity on its purpose and added value.

They support the preamble as structured and the proposed 5 "Ps" as a compelling, communicable and action-oriented narrative. They see progress in the message on the integration and interlinkages, which remain a key for the future implementation of our transformative agenda and its ownership by leaders, civil society and the private sector. In the Declaration they support a number of useful additions, including on human rights, gender equality and environmental sustainability. There are some key issues, where they want improvements. Efforts are still needed on the balance between poverty eradication and sustainability in the title, preamble, and paragraphs 3, 8 and 10. The language on MOI, while somewhat improved, remains unbalanced. The text on the relationship with the Addis outcome, should be strengthend to ensure that the documents are considered in conjunction when it comes to MOI and global partnership. They welcome the AAAA, and its full integration is now fundamental. The Global Partnership and MOI section of the text must describe this integration more fully and specifically.  Annexing the AAAA to the September outcome to be endorsed by Heads of States and Government will give it the visibility and political support it deserves. 

They do not think the text should single out specific principles, neither from the Millennium or Rio Declaration, but if they do, they support adding a reference to shared responsibilities. In paragraph 13, there is no need to specify CBDR and they are opposed to singling it out among all the Rio principles. Nevertheless, they remain ready to work with others for the articulation of the necessary differentiation of countries that have different capabilities, although repetition should be avoided. They also commented on paragraphs 30 and 31 on climate change. They appreciate the language on cultural diversity in paragraph 9, but do not support the addition of 'culture' in the middle of the language agreed at Rio+20 on universality and differentiation in paragraph 22. On families, they do not support paragraph 44 as currently drafted. 

In a later intervention in the meeting, they called for a better balance between poverty eradication and sustainable development as well as making recommendations on CBDR and the reference to Millennium Declaration principles; global partnership and shared responsibility/differentiation, as well as the link and coherence with Addis, (including adding a reference to "civil society" when mentioning stakeholders in paragraph 47) and conflict affected countries.

Under sexual and reproductive health and rights they wished to add to the end of paragraph 21 "We remain committed to the promotion, protection and fulfilment of all human rights and to the full and effective implementation of the Beijing Platform for Action and the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development and the outcomes of their review conferences and in this context sexual and reproductive health and rights".On gender they wish to add in Para 15, after the 3rd sentence "Gender inequality remains a key challenge" 

On the family, they called for the deletion of paragraph 44 or replacing "the role of family" with "the role of families in their various forms". They also made suggested changes for paragraphs 9, 28, and 53 on children, as well as language on water, food security, corruption, migration, justice, as well as  unilateral economic measures and climate change.

Nigeria, speaking on behalf of African group, said on ICPD and Beijing conferences and the outcome documents of their respective review conferences in paragraph 12, that the Group reserves on the revised text on this controversial issue that has been reintroduced, likewise on 5.6 on the ICPD and Beijing and regional conferences. They are aware of the controversy over the language. They all welcome ICPD and Beijing conference, but the problem is the reference to “regional conferences.” Different regional conferences apply to different regions. The African conference had its own outcome and own concerns. UN member states have made reservations. It is sad that at end of negotiations that this has been sneaked into the text. They will not hesitate to state their reservations on this agenda, if this language will be pushed. Their proposal is to stop the language after Beijing, or to take out reference entirely. 

They referred specifically to the use of “the family” in paragraph 44 and they also commented on Paragraphs 48 and 70e , in which the use of the most vulnerable and marginalized groups is problematic and very controversial.  The vulnerable and people in vulnerable situations should be used instead. 

Maldives, speaking on behalf of AOSIS referred to paragraphs 15 to add “more frequent and intense” in front of national disasters; 25; 26 to add, after indigenous “children and youth, especially those in vulnerable situations;” 38; and 49. 

Qatar, speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, welcomed the drafting contained in paragraph 30 and 35, as well as 15.

On the family they said that the language contained in paragraph 44 is drafted inadequately addressing the main thrust of why family needs to be incorporated into our development agenda. The family should not be referred to as a measure of success and should be seen as a tool for the means of implementation. 

As set out in several UN documents (see family resolutions over the last three sessions of ECOSOC, the General Assembly, and Agreed Conclusions of the Commission on the Status of Women), the family plays a fundamental role as a contributor to development. As such, the subject of family should be treated from a Second Committee, rather than Third Committee lens. The Arab Group maintains that the language proposed by CARICOM as an alternative paragraph presents a constructive way forward. The proposal is based on language agreed in previous documents including A/70/61, reading as follows: "We recognize the role of the family as a contributor to sustainable development and the need to strengthen family policy development in international efforts to achieve the internationally agreed development goals” 

It has become the habit to omit consideration of sensitive subjects in open debates. The important recognition of how the family act as agents for change and how families are essential to achieving the suggested SDG targets and goals cannot be excluded or politicized in our discussions. Families act as a fundamental building block of society and it is with this recognition that the family can function as an instrument for change. If it is their objective to achieve the world we want, then it is their responsibility to remove every foreseeable obstacle that may slow or prevent us from reaching our goal. 

Paragraph 12 includes reference to review conferences in connection with ICPD and the same language is reflected in the introductory section, paragraph 6 and target 5.6, which was contentious then, and remains so now. They therefore see the reference to review conferences in paragraph 12 as superfluous. In paragraph 27 they wish to delete the space between ‘health’ and ‘care’.

They also commented on climate change, on water and on discrimination. 

Zambia, speaking on behalf of the LLDCs said on paragraph 12 that it recalls major UN conferences and summits and the Group wished to comment on the inclusion of those related to the concerns of the LLDCs, particularly the second UN conference on LLDCs. They also referred to the new paragraph under 19 and the need to ‘acknowledge countries in special situations, such as LDCs, LLDCs, AOSIS. 

Belize, on behalf of CARICOM, stressed that informal informals are not necessary at this stage and they welcome the reference to CBDR in the preamble. They made specific recommendations to a number of paragraphs, including in paragraph 27, to delete “services” after “sexual and reproductive health care” . In the last sentence same paragraph we request deleting “devoting greater efforts to”. In paragraph 37, they recommend sticking to the agreed language of “empowerment of women and young people” and therefore to delete “gender” in the second sentence. In paragraph 44, they propose a new formulation to read “We recognize the role of the family as a contributor to sustainable development and the need to strengthen family policy development in international efforts to achieve internationally agreed development goals”. 

Comments from individual Member States:

In the statements from individual member states comments were made on ICPD and Beijing and the outcomes documents of their respective outcome review conferences in paragraph 12 and on sexual and reproductive health and rights, as well as paragraph 44 on the role of the family. These include:

On ICPD and Beijing and the outcome documents of their respective outcome documents and sexual and reproductive health and rights:

United Kingdom said that they see this language, which is agreed language that has been used elsewhere, as the minimum acceptable. It is essential that it is retained.

Iceland said that they had already, as well as many others, proposed language on sexual and reproductive health and rights into paragraph 21 and they reiterate that proposal. In particular, reproductive rights are important to them.

Uruguay: welcomes and supports paragraph 44, and its mention of the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development and their review conferences and that Women and girls must enjoy equal r​ights and a​ccess to quality education, h​ealth, including sexual and reproductive health and rights.

Australia: on the to ICPD PoA, Beijing and their review conferences, said that the reference was to the five-yearly review conferences.

Switzerland:  expressed their strong support for the references to ICPD and Beijing as well as the reference to their review conferences.

Norway: paragraph 21 should include a reference to ensuring universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights. 

Holy See: delete references to ICPD and Beijing and their review conferences.

On the family: 

United States: that it does not make sense in the MOI section.

United Kingdom: that the paragraph on the family remains problemati and that the simplest way forward is to delete the paragraph. However, if others wish to retain a reference to the family, then the text should say “recognizing that in different cultural, political and social systems, various forms of the family exist”.

Iceland: to delete paragraph 44 or alternatively change the language to include the various and diverse forms of families, as well as a reference to rights of individuals within families.

Uruguay: that in paragraph 44 the language should be adjusted as a paragraph to reflect the recognition of all forms of families and should read as follows: 

We recognize the role of t​he family families as a c​ontributors ​t​o sustainable development; one measure of success of the new Agenda will be its ability to support s​trengthen and protect all families i​n their various forms and ensure equality and non-discrimination within them. 

Canada: Still does not like the inclusion of the family but, if it stays, would add ‘in all its diverse forms’.

Costa Rica: supports the inclusion of the paragraph on the family.

Switzerland: joined others in calling for specificity, and requested addition after “the role of the family” of the words “in its various forms and the protection of the human rights of all individuals within families”.

Brazil: believe paragraph 44, on family, should be deleted. This concept is not present in the Millennium Declaration and neither it is mentioned in Rio+20 or the SDGs. There is a reason for that. The current language is a backtrack if we compare it to the language agreed over 20 years ago at the Cairo International Conference on Population and Development. The current formulation does not reflect the fact that we have already recognized the various forms of families. The reference to family in the text could thus trigger complex, unnecessary discussions at this late stage of the negotiations.

Saudi Arabia: supports CARICOM and the African Group.