Social Watch E-Newsletter - Special Issue 222 - July 7, 2015
Published on Tue, 2015-07-07 14:12
 |
| Special Issue 222 - July 7, 2015 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Green, yellow, red: The state of the debate around the post-2015 development agenda |
| |
|
| |
A graphic summary of the state of the negotiations around the post-2015 development agenda in the first days of July, showing where there is consensus and who is behind the different conflicting propositions. Green, Yellow, Red
The issues highlighted are arranged in 4 groupings: - Preamble and declaration - Goals and targets - Means of implementation. - Follow-up ad review These groupings mirror the four main sections of the draft UN outcome document for the post-2015 development agenda currently being negotiated by governments at UN headquarters in New York.
This summary was compiled by Global Policy Watch (GPW) based on national and negotiating group interventions in 3 main clusters. Issues and formulations where there seems to be some consensus (or no expressed dissent) are marked in green. Issues raised by some countries but lacking cross-cutting support are in yellow. Issues where there is disagreement are shown in red.
The complete draft outcome document as well as the statements by member governments and other background documents can be found here.
| PREAMBLE AND DECLARATION |
MEMBER STATES IN SUPPORT |
|
The preamble is unnecessary
|
Group of 77 and China, Indonesia, India, Brazil, Lebanon, Nicaragua, Palau, Uganda, Ecuador, Bangladesh, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Ghana and Timor-Leste
|
|
Support the preamble
|
The EU, Japan, Israel, Latvia, USA, Canada, Iceland, Italy, Sweden, France, Belgium, Germany, Spain, Australia, Finland and Liechtenstein
|
| Support the preamble but demands further elaboration |
Norway |
| Main focus of the agenda is poverty eradication |
General agreement |
| Agenda must be communicable |
Croatia, Finland, S. Korea, India, Japan, Sweden, Turkey and Germany |
| Welcome the reference of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR) in particular for climate change |
Group of 77 and China, Indonesia, Iraq, India, Venezuela, Dominican Republic, Brazil, Lebanon, Sri Lanka, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Ecuador, Egypt, Syria, Bolivia and Saudi Arabia |
| Do not support the reference on CBDR, shared responsibilities |
EU, Japan, Canada, USA, Italy, France, Germany, Australia and Finland |
| Leave no one behind |
General agreement |
| Disagree with the 5 P's proposed by the Co-Facilitators (People, Planet, Prosperity, Peace and Partnership) |
Brazil |
| Support the 5 Ps proposed by the Co-Facilitators |
Japan, Canada, USA, Spain and Norway |
| Inclusion of sport as a tool to promote sustainable development |
Tunisia, Monaco, Senegal and Palau |
| Support particular situation of Small Island Developing States (SIDS) |
Dominican Republic, Ghana, least developing countries (LDCs), SIDS and landlocked developing countries (LLDCs) |
| Poverty is multidimensional |
Group of 77 and China, Venezuela, Dominican Republic, Philippines, Panama and Peru |
| Migration should be captured as a positive phenomenon |
Group of 77 and China, Vietnam, Brazil, Lebanon, Nicaragua, Timor-Leste, Peru, Turkey, Armenia, Bangladesh, Egypt, Morocco, El Salvador and Ecuador |
| Consideration of vulnerable situation of middle income countries (MIC) countries |
Vietnam, Ecuador and Costa Rica |
| Creation of a meaningful global partnership |
Latvia, Canada, Sudan, Italy, Tunisia, Uganda, Finland, Mexico, Pakistan, China, Australia, S. Korea, Brazil, Canada and Indonesia |
| Promotion of gender equality |
Australia, Tunisia, Finland, Liechtenstein, Costa Rica, Israel, Canada, Latvia, USA, the EU, Uruguay, France and Brazil |
| Importance of peace and security |
Uganda, Korea, LDCs, Monaco, Timor-Leste |
| Declaration should have strong human rights foundation |
Norway, Finland, S. Korea, Costa Rica, Sweden and Italy |
| GOALS AND TARGETS |
MEMBER STATES IN SUPPORT |
| Heads of state will not engage on a text with reservations of other delegations |
EU, Switzerland, Norway, New Zealand and Canada |
| National indicators defined at national level, country ownership |
Peru, Latvia, Timor-Leste and Philippines |
| Indicators can be modified in the future |
Norway |
| UN Statistical Commission is entrusted to define global indicators |
Group of 77 and China, Ecuador, EU, Latvia, Canada and Switzerland |
| Reservations on the Chapeau [1] |
India, Brazil |
| Support the Chapeau but want to move it to the Goals and Targets part |
Group of 77 and China, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Arab States, Ecuador, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Algeria, Peru and Timor-Leste |
| Want the Chapeau in the outcome document annex |
Lebanon |
| Do not support the inclusion of the Chapeau on the text |
New Zealand, Canada, Australia and Japan |
| Support the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) agreed on the Open Working Group (OWG) |
Group of 77 and China, Egypt, Turkey, Timor-Leste, Saudi Arabia, Uruguay, South Africa, Brazil, Peru, the Russian Federation, Switzerland, Arab States, Ecuador, Colombia, Korea, Greece, Argentina and Israel |
| SDGs and targets have to be aspirational and short |
EU, Cyprus, UK, Sweden, New Zealand, S. Korea and Greece |
| Flexibility to revise SDGs and targets from the OWG |
Japan, Norway, Island, USA, Mexico, Canada, Latvia, EU, New Zealand, Australia, UK, Switzerland and Turkey |
| Reservations on reviewing targets and indicators |
Group of 77 and China, India, Colombia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Uruguay |
|
MEANS OF IMPLEMENTATION
|
MEMBER STATES IN SUPPORT
|
| Consider Vienna programme of action for landlocked developing countries (LLDCs) on means of Implementation (MOI) |
LLDCs |
| Development banks should provide windows for developing countries |
LDCs |
| The FfD and Post-2015 development agenda should have two different MOI processes |
Group of 77 and China, Arab states, AOSIS, Cuba, China, Brazil, Colombia, Peru, India, Indonesia, Iran and Mexico |
| The FfD is the pillar for the MOI in the post-2015 development agenda |
The EU, Japan, Australia, UK, Sweden, Switzerland, S. Korea, Liechtenstein, Netherlands, USA, Canada and New Zealand |
| Call for increasing official developing assistance (ODA) |
Group of 77, Arab countries, LDCs, Pakistan and Indonesia, Pakistan |
| Call for Duty-free and Quota-free (DFQF) market access for Least Developing Countries |
LDCs |
| MOI should have financial and non-financial, public and private, governmental and non-governmental resources |
UK, Sweden and USA |
| FOLLOW UP AND REVIEW |
MEMBER STATES IN SUPPORT |
| Implementation should be on a voluntary basis |
Group of 77 and China, Arab group, CARICOM, Vietnam, Guatemala, Turkey, Senegal, Timor-Leste, Ecuador, Egypt, AOSIS, Russian Federation, Ghana and Iran |
| Technology transfer, capacity building and enhance national statistical offices |
Group of 77 and China, Brazil, Philippines, Niger, Ecuador, LLDCs, AOSIS, India, Mexico, India, Brazil, Lebanon, Uruguay, Tunisia and Uganda |
| Challenges for SIDS to collect data should be reflected in the follow up |
CARICOM, SIDS, Australia, AOSIS and Ghana |
| UN Statistical Commission should develop the national indicators |
CARICOM, Vietnam and Peru |
| UN Statistical Commission should assess progress |
Switzerland, France, Australia, USA and Spain |
| Shared responsibility, mutual accountability and transparency |
EU, Mexico, Sweden, Liechtenstein, UK and Canada |
| National level standardized reports to enhance consistency |
EU, Mexico, Germany, Sweden and the Russian Federation |
| National level: not support a national level |
Arab group, CARICOM and Argentina |
| National level: do not support an overly prescriptive national follow up and review |
Brazil |
| National ownership on follow up taking into account country realities |
Group of 77 and China, Arab group, CARICOM, SIDS, Vietnam, Senegal, Timor-Leste, Indonesia, India and Mongolia |
| National ownership as a core |
EU, S. Korea, Sweden, Spain and Canada |
| Regional level: important peer review |
EU, SIDS, Korea and Sweden |
| Regional level: do not support peer review |
Argentina |
| Regional level: Regional Commissions should lead regional follow up and review |
Arab group, CARICOM, Mexico, Slovakia, Brazil , Guatemala, Peru, South Africa, Colombia, Egypt, Ghana, Indonesia and Mongolia |
| Regional level: flexibility to implement regional follow up and review |
Germany |
| Global level : Integrated functioning of HLPF |
EU, Mexico, Switzerland, S. Korea, France, Sweden, Liechtenstein, Brazil, Australia, Japan, Norway, UK, Senegal, USA, Egypt, LLDCs, AOSIS, Canada, Israel, Indonesia, India and Mongolia |
| Participation of civil society on review |
Brazil, UK, EU, Mexico, Sweden, Netherlands, USA and Canada |
| Multi Stakeholder monitoring and participation |
EU, S. Korea, Sweden, Liechtenstein, Italy, Canada, Australia, Netherlands and Canada |
Note:
[1] https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/3770chapeau_clea... You can download a pdf version of this table by clicking here
Source: Global Policy Watch.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
SOCIAL WATCH IS AN INTERNATIONAL NGO WATCHDOG NETWORK MONITORING POVERTY ERADICATION AND GENDER EQUALITY Social Watch >>
Social Watch E-Newsletter For comments, sugestions, collaborations contact us at: socwatch@socialwatch.orgTo stop receiving this newsletter send a message with the subject "unsubscribe" to: socwatch@socialwatch.org |
|
|
|
|
