The UN Secretary-General was pleased to be able “to share some good news for people and our planet,” at a press conference with the Co-facilitators and others at the United Nations, following the adoption of Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. History had been made by approving a bold, ambitious and transformative sustainable development agenda for the next 15 years.
As he said the work begun by the High-level Panel of Eminent Persons, had ultimately became the most inclusive and transparent process in UN history and he thanked the Co-facilitators, Ambassadors Macharia Kamau and David Donoghue, as well as all those, including Member States, who had contributed to the making the consensus a reality. He referred specifically to civil society, who shared their vision of the world we want in developing what is truly a “We the Peoples agenda.”. There was now a road map to end global poverty, leave no one behind, and a clarion call, containing 17 SDGs that are integrated, interlinked and indivisible. They are also “people-centred and planet sensitive” and development goals cannot be reached without addressing human rights and humanitarian issues at the same time.
Ambassador Kamau said that history had called upon everyone “to rise to the occasion to make the kind of history that needed to be made for people, planet and prosperity, ” and that the process had changed the way the world does business. It had, however, happened in a fashion that has surprised everyone -- every country and all civil society who had been in the room for over three years. As a process it was one of the most politically, intellectually and complex that he had ever witnessed and he recognized the contributions made by both Ambassador Donoghue and Ambassador Csaba Körösi to the successful outcome.
Ambassador Donoghue noted that the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development was a remarkable achievement and that it was a fantastic day for UN and multi-lateral diplomacy. He emphasized the passionate commitment of 193 member states towards the written agreement through multiple drafts. The emphasis now should be on getting these goals and targets implemented.
Negotiations dragged on during the weekend… what were the challenges?
As Ambassador Donoghue said, half a dozen challenging issues had been known about since previous session, including how to express relationship between Addis Ababa Action Agenda and the new agenda, on which they got a good accommodation of all positions; CBDR, for which there was a good outcome; and the declaration and preamble and how they should synopsize the framework of goals and targets. Member States were happy with the balance and the formation of references in the political and human areas.
Ambassador Kamau was amazed that it only took seven hours of debate on the final text, which was the result of an inordinate amount of time that had been spent building consensus in final two weeks on the “20 moving pieces” that had to be brought together to get the job done. This actually happened on Saturday morning and was really the big challenge. The political issues had been faced before and it was a question as to how to balance them, ie putting the puzzle together…
Were some groups explicitly left out, eg LGBT, and given that are references, such as to extreme poverty at 1.25 a day, would the goals and targets become outdated and, if so, can the Agenda be amended?
Ambassador Donoghue said that it is clear that all categories are covered in the Agenda and not too much should be read into particular omissions. From the beginning it was agreed that the Agenda had to be absolutely inclusive.
There will be a de facto updating through the High-level Political Forum, but the goals and targets will be valid for the next 15 years.
Ambassador Kamau added with regard to LGBT and other issues, that the Agenda says ‘all people’ and no one is singled out to be left behind. As for other groups, he pointed out that there are four references to older persons, nine on ageing and that a lot of those in the room were older persons, speaking clearly and their voice was heard.
How valuable were NGOs for developing the goals; and can their contribution be quantified in the final document?
Amina Mohammed, UN Secretary-General’s Special Adviser on Post-2015 Planning, said that the Agenda is owned by everyone and its development was “most open and transparent” with civil society sending their red flag letters. At the end of the session, it was civil society that was looking for the process to be closed, and they were engaged the international to the grass root levels. Young people were fully involved and 8 million engaged in the World We Want website campaign..
Ambassador Kamau said that there had never before been a situation where civil society could speak directly to government representatives in a room during negotiations. This was unheard of. During the Open Working Group when they got bogged down on modalities, the issue was defining the role of NGOs. Civil society engagement in the process has redefined the way things work. It was not just “tokenism”, sometimes they were combative. And he could not think of any issue brought up by the NGOs, which has not found its way into the document.
Costs of implementation, and the breadth of the goals
Ambassador Kamau said that the costs of implementation were estimated to be between $3.5 – 5 trillion year on year, moving out. Normally the UN does not deal in trillions and while he recognized that it was ambitious, he said it was not unattainable by any measure, citing costs post-1945 and the 1960s. A vast amount of domestic resources will be raised in-country, complemented by the engagement of business and ODA, both public and private, which can lead to a remarkable transformation in 15 years.
Ambassador Donoghue said on the breadth of goals, a key difference from MDGs, is that implementation is a much more serious part of the Agenda. The emphasis is on ownership. They are ambitious but have a greater sense of a collective purpose and the goals are for the entire world and are universal, while the MDGs were targeted at poorest.
Wu Honbo, Under-Secretary–General, recognized that the amount of money needed is enormous, but that it is difficult to give a specific figure. They will be looking to mobilize all resources possible, ie mixed financing. SDGs were produced by Member States, as opposed to MDGs, which were produced by experts behind closed doors. As far as he was concerned the goals and targets “are doable.”
Was paragraph 30 on climate change one of the last to be resolved?
Ambassador Kamau explained that paragraph 30 was one of the top five pieces in the puzzle which needed to be got right, as the intergovernmental negotiations did not want to usurp the role of UNFCCC. It was politically sensitive but In the end it was resolved within a couple of hours.
Bangladesh and Mexico referred in their statements to the omission of migrants and the G77 said that SIDS were not part of 13 (b)
Ambassador Donoghue said that the final paragraph 19 had good language from the Rio outcome document, nothing that migrants and older people are covered elsewhere.
Ambassador Kamau also said that paragraph 14 mentions migration and that is one of the most highly-represented issues. As far as SIDS were concerned, it was a matter that was a hangover from OWG process, which was highly technical. The issue was on misinterpretation towards the closing of the debate. It was part of the OWG process and deserves further consideration to be resolved in that manner.
On deliverables on goal number 5, as there are a number of countries that have discriminatory laws against women. What are the obligations of countries that have signed up to the SDGs, do they have to change them and if so when? And does it affect the credibility of the programme.
Ambassador Donoghue said that they political and moral and not legally-binding commitments. Measures to be taken are up to the country concerned. The Agenda includes implementation machinery, which will monitor what Governments are doing on the goals and targets. Peer pressure will be important and a country may experience political discomfort if it is moving more slowly than others
Amina Mohammed referred to the outcome of “leaving no one behind.” She said that in her country at the beginning of the MDGs there was absolutely no appetite for looking at sexual and reproductive health in the curriculum, nor was there for providing family planning and the commodities. By the time they had been through it for seven years they had a line item in their national budget, approved by Parliament, without a law that actually provided for these commodities and a curriculum in the education system, which did just that under the HIV/AIDS.
Role of the internet and the people’s involvement with the internet
Ambassador Kamau said that the ICT issue had been dealt with. The force of sharing knowledge, the capabilities of ICT, number crunching with data is all included in the text as part of the means of implementation.
Mr Wu referred back to the political rather than legal commitment of the Agenda, saying that some of 193 countries had accepted them because they were not legally binding.
Ambassador Donoghue added that it would be inconceivable to have goals of this breadth, if they are legally binding. Countries are not willing to give up that degree of national sovereignty. The goals are universal and political. But the power of the goals and targets on governments around the world should not be underestimated.
How many indicators will there be; will there be any other negotiations to fix the indicators; and what could be the indicators to measure goal 16?
Mr Wu said that the Chief Statisticians of Member States are working hard on the indicators – probably there will be about 300. The present idea is that they are trying to have two indicators for each target and use those where possible, which would cover crosscutting targets as this would reduce the number. The indicators are being formulated by professionals: the Statistics Committee Inter-Agency and Expert Group, which is made up of the Chief Statisticians. They consult with NGOs and others and are receiving support from the Statistics Division.
Ambassador Kamau said on goal 16, that work is going on on peace globally, including good governance and it is also an outcome of participation. He also noted that many countries and regions have their own indicators for goal 16, eg the African Union. He was confident that they will have right indicators that will be universally acceptable.
Will Pope call on world leaders to be committed morally to this document, especially with regard to poverty.
Ambassador Donoghue said that he couldn’t anticipate, but no doubt that the Pope’s visit will be relevant to the process. Presumably he will talk about climate change and also sustainable development and combatting poverty. The visit isnicely timed.
Amina Mohammed said that the Encyclical had been a document that everyone had a part of and that it speaks to issues in the Agenda 2030, eg he has promoted an end to child trafficking, which is also in the Agenda 2030.
At the September Summit , will Heads of State and Government just spend three days endorsing the document?
Ambassador Donoghue said that he and his Co-facilitator were merely the officials working on the document that will go to Heads of State and Government for adoption. The objectives of the new agenda will be discussed and promoted by Heads of State and Government attending the Summit.
Mr Wu added that in addition to official statements and adoption of the Agenda, they will participate in roundtables and will most likely make the best use of the occasion and should promote sustainable development.