Ambassador Macharia Kamau, Co-facilitator, in opening the meeting with Major Groups and other Stakeholders, noted that the intergovernmental negotiations (IGN) are constrained by time and space and there is little opportunity in the declaration to express the multitude of views and perspectives. Some people say that their issues have not been taken up and the response of the Co-facilitators is that organizations need a constituency of Member States around the issue concerned, as it is they who are leading the process. Crosscutting issues in the declaration are important. They want to hear from civil society on the goals, which will not be reopened. There is also not much appetite for reopening the targets, although the room is split. On means of implementation the expectation is that organizations have been able to get their views integrated into FFD as well. They would like to hear from civil society on follow-up and review, as sometimes they over-invest in what the issues of concern are, and fail to invest in the long-term work of implementation. This is just the beginning. Organizations should pace themselves as how to invest in this process over the next 15 years.
Ambassador David Donoghue, Co-facilitator, added that they had benefitted greatly from the submissions made by civil society and that, while this is an intergovernmental process, they have tried to give expression of the widest possible range of views in what they have put to the membership. Referring to the declaration, he said that it is meant to be wide-ranging and uplifting, and it seems to be regarded by all as a good start for the work that has to be undertaken between now and July. He warned participants that there will be limited scope to incorporate much in terms of content. The declaration is now around seven pages and they would like it to be shorter, as we suspect Member States would as well.
For presentations relevant to sexual and reproductive health and rights and related issues, see Post-2015 development agenda intergovernmental negotiations, 22-25 June No 3: Civil society statements
Ambassador Donoghue, summed up at the end of the session, saying that the discussion had lived up to his own expectations. It was hard to judge which concepts will be universally accepted and which match the ambitions of Member States. It is helpful to hear the case made by the groups present as to why they want specific language to be reflected in the document. Consensus, however, is key and whatever they do has to be that, which they think, will command consensus. The process is entering the last few weeks and, as Co-facilitators, they need to be economical in the lessons they learn from this dialogue. They will do the best they can to absorb what has been suggested and to see what can still be done.
On the broad issues related to human rights, he said that he had been in Geneva addressing the Human Rights Council, which was a valuable exercise because they want to be involved in the follow-up. By ‘they’ he meant the Council, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and those in Geneva who actively see the links between the work they are championing there and what is being done here in New York. As Co-facilitators they will try to include as many human rights as they can subject to the balance that has to be maintained in the declaration more generally. He thanked the representatives of civil society for giving them a lot to think over.
Ambassador Kamau also noted that they had benefitted greatly from the submissions that had been made. While this is an intergovernmental process, they have tried to put the widest possible range of views before the membership. The declaration is meant to be wide-ranging and uplifting, and it seems to be regarded by all as a good start for the work that has to be undertaken between now and July.
He warned everyone that there will be limited scope to incorporate much in terms of content.
After this process there will be the last two weeks of negotiations and the question is as to how civil society will be involved. IGN becomes too closed towards the end of the process, as is the nature of the process. He has always thought that civil society should always have parallel processes, rather than integrated processes as they have a constituency. As Co-facilitators, they will not be able to involve civil society as deeply and transparently which they have until now. It is necessary to find Member States that can echo their issues. Civil society should then work with them because towards the end of negotiations they will not have the access that they have now. The Co-facilitators will endeavor to meet with civil society even during the hard negotiations. More will be know n about this in a couple of weeks.
Notes from UN-NGLS morning session with Nikhil Seth (Director of DESA-DSD), Thursday, 25 June 2015
Nikhil Seth said that the FfD negotiations are continuing and there is a hope the work will be completed before Addis, after which it will be easier to migrate the MOI into the post-2015.
For the new version of the outcome document, the idea is that it will be kept concise. The Co-facilitators wish to keep the declaration to seven pages and have the intention of doing this in the best way possible. They will have the pen in drafting the new version, and all comments will be taken into consideration.
There is a general sense of optimism about the IGN process so far. The Co-facilitators want to know how civil society thinks it want to engage in the July Session. The presence of civil society will not be an issue because the co-facilitators have made it clear they want to have them there. Should the engagement going forward be a one-on-one meeting or should it take a different format? The possibilities include a half-day with co-facilitators, or two to three statements per day based on what is being said. A half-day during the IGN in July will not mean much. Instead if there are two to three speakers at each session, they can reflect on the previous session and thereby comment more directly on what have been said.