Summary of Governments Views on 2030 Follow-up resolution “Zero Draft”

The consultation was held on 12 May 2016 on the "zero draft" of the Co-facilitators draft Assembly resolution on the follow-up and review of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development at the global level. (See: Co-facilitators’ draft resolution of 6 May 2016) Discussions addressed various aspects of the resolution, including themes for the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF); Voluntary National Reviews (VNRs); inclusivity; and UN system coherence and efficiency. A revised draft will be prepared by the Co-facilitators Lois Young, Permanent Representative of Belize, and Ib Petersen, Permanent Representative of Denmark for discussion during the week of 23 May 2016.

At the beginning of the discussion Ambassador Petersen highlighted the consultation process' "mandate of transparency," stating that stakeholders would be invited to comment on the draft text. The Russian Federation, however, said that negotiations on follow-up and review of the 2030 Agenda are “purely intergovernmental," and consultations with stakeholders would not be possible if they are not specified in the resolution and modalities of work of a UNGA meeting. Her country will submit a written reminder about fully complying with the rules and procedures of the UNGA. Australia, Canada, the EU, Norway, Switzerland, the US and other delegations supported a transparent and inclusive process. Representatives from Major Groups and other stakeholders welcomed that the meeting was webcast, as “minimum in terms of transparency.” They also stressed the importance of their contributions to the process, and asked to have more time to prepare for the future meetings.

On discussing a set of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) at each HLPF session “with Goal 17 discussed annually,” Pakistan supported reviewing Goal 17 every year, while the EU, Japan and Norway called for avoiding duplication with the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) forum on Financing for Development (FfD) follow-up.

In discussions on specific themes and sets of Goals for HLPF sessions from 2017 to 2019, the EU and Norway called for more cross-cutting themes. The US, Australia, Japan and the Russian Federation called for the deletion of the proposed theme for the 2019 session of the HLPF under the auspices of ECOSOC, as they do not support the holding of a HLPF session under ECOSOC, in years when there is one under the UNGA, as in 2019. Switzerland stressed the importance of having a theme and of reviewing a set of Goals in 2019. Germany and Colombia called for one HLPF under ECOSOC and one under the UNGA in 2019, with two distinct ministerial declarations. Switzerland noted that if there is no meeting of the HLPF under ECOSOC in 2019, there will be only three sessions during which VNRs could be held in the current cycle (2016, 2017 and 2018). Norway acknowledged the need to accommodate the organization of thematic reviews and of VNRs in 2019. On the other hand, China and Pakistan supported one negotiated declaration and Australia said holding two HLPF meetings in one year is unmanageable for Permanent Missions.

Australia and Switzerland supported aligning ECOSOC's annual themes with the corresponding themes of HLPF each year, which was opposed by the Republic of Korea because of the different nature and mandates of the two bodies. The Russian Federation and Mexico said ECOSOC should be the body to decide on the theme, citing UNGA resolution A/RES/68/1.

On ensuring appropriate organizational arrangements for the VNRs, the EU, Switzerland and US highlighted the role of "innovative arrangements,” while on encouraging each Member States to consider participating in two VNRs in the 2030 Agenda's 15-year period, the EU and Switzerland proposed specifying “at least” two VNRs. Mexico, China, Pakistan and the Russian Federation, on the other hand, did not wish to see any reference. Maldives (for the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), Trinidad and Tobago and Samoa called for inclusion UN system support for developing countries conducting VNRs, while the US objected to including language from the 2030 Agenda on capacity building. The EU supported encouraging Member States to apply voluntary common reporting guidelines, as provided by the UN Secretary-General in an annex to his report on 'Critical Milestones Towards Coherent, Efficient and Inclusive Follow-up and Review at the Global Level' (A/70/684). This was opposed by China. 

On broad participation in the HLPF, Australia, Canada, the EU and the US supported language on “innovative arrangements” in the organization of HLPF meetings. China opposed and Pakistan called for clarification. A representative of Major Groups and other stakeholders asked to reflect better the need to promote transparency and participation, citing UNGA resolution 67/290. He proposed a reference to a HLPF voluntary trust fund to support participation of the least developed countries (LDCs), experts, and other stakeholders.

On documentation for the HLPF, Switzerland proposed a clearer distinction between the Global Sustainable Development Report (GSDR) and the SDGs Progress Report on one hand, and other documents and reports on the other. There should be a reference to the UN Secretary-General's Inter-Agency Task Force (IATF), which is mandated to report annually on implementing the Addis Ababa Action Agenda (AAAA) on FfD and the means of implementation (MOI) of the 2030 Agenda. Canada and Switzerland asked for strengthening and clarifying the reference to making all inputs to the HLPF available and easily accessible in a user-friendly format. Australia, the EU, Japan and the Russian Federation were against a reference to the Quadrennial Comprehensive Policy Review (QCPR) in this resolution.

Language on reviewing the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) to ensure effective support to the 2030 Agenda and the HLPF was also discussed with Japan and Colombia favoring making concrete proposals, the US proposing calling on the UN Secretary-General to streamline DESA, and the EU saying that DESA's Office for ECOSOC Support and Coordination (OESC) and the Division for Sustainable Development (DSD) could be “integrated.” Pakistan and the Republic of Korea said other departments in the UN Secretariat could be included. China suggested, as an alternative, a request to strengthen the UN Secretariat.

The HLPF, Australia, the EU, Norway and the US supported merging the three-day ministerial segment of the HLPF under the auspices of ECOSOC with the high-level segment of ECOSOC, although this was opposed by the Republic of Korea. The US suggested there should be only one political declaration once the segments are merged, which was opposed by the Russian Federation.the EU, Norway and Switzerland stressed the importance of a factual summary of the outcome from the ECOSOC President, although China and Pakistan said this is unnecessary.

The co-facilitators expected to release the updated version of the draft resolution, taking the expressed views into account, during the week of 16 May. 

See also  http://sd.iisd.org/news/governments-exchange-views-on-2030-follow-up-zero-draft/

The Together 2030 Reaction to the Zero Draft Resolution on the Follow up and Review of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development at the global level report is available here.