United Nations: Work on Sustainable Development Goals gains momentum
Published on Tue, 2013-04-23 16:09
A conceptual discussion will precede the identification of specific Sustainable Development Goals as momentum picks up on the follow-up to the June 2012 Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20 Conference). Two topics will be the focus of the second session of the United Nations General Assembly Open Working Group (OWG) on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that will take place on 17-19 April at the UN headquarters in New York. The first will be on conceptualising the SDGs and the SDG process, and the second on poverty eradication. The focus on conceptual issues is a shift from the original draft programme of work prepared by the OWG Co-chairs Ambassadors Macharia Kamau of Kenya and Csaba Korosi of Hungary and is the result of a concerted call by developing countries since the first session of the OWG on 14-15 March 2013. At the informal consultations of the OWG chaired by Ambassador Korosi on 5 April, the Group of 77 and China (G77) reiterated this, emphasising that as the OWG designs the parameters and contents of the work programme, it is critically important to allow all members to identify priority issues first through a mapping exercise before adopting the programme of work for the months ahead. Two documents were discussed at the informal consultations: a revised draft programme of work for the second session of the OWG, and an "Overview of Options for Programme of Work 2013-2014". The first document proposed the following topics for the 17-19 April session: (i) conceptual issues, MDG (Millennium Development Goals) gap analysis and lessons learnt, and moving towards SDGs; and (ii) poverty eradication, food security and nutrition, sustainable agriculture, desertification, land degradation. The second document on "Overview of Options for Programme of Work 2013-2014" included various clusters of different issues as well as means of implementation as topics for the OWG sessions. The periodicity options for meetings after the 17-19 April session were: four five-day meetings, every second month or eight three-day meetings once a month. Most developing countries expressed concerns over the choice of clusters of issues at this stage of the OWG's work, with many of them highlighting missing issues as well as the need to first agree on conceptual issues related to the SDGs and the overall approach to the programme of work. [The Rio+20 outcome document mandated the OWG's establishment and restricted its membership to 30 countries. Due to overwhelming interest of Member States, it was finally agreed that some seats would be represented by two or three countries, usually with these countries coming from the same region. There are thus 70 members in total with some countries taking turns being in the official 30 seats. In the inaugural session of the OWG on 14-15 March, all UN Member States were invited to attend and this will continue to be the procedure. [Differences between developing and developed countries over the vision and priorities for the SDGs were evident at the March meeting. Most developing countries emphasised that these goals should be grounded in the 1992 Rio Principles, particularly the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. Developing countries also stressed that adequate and additional means of implementation (finance and technology) must be the basis of the SDGs' plan of action. However, developed countries emphasised poverty eradication as a collective responsibility (as opposed to an equitable approach) of the SDGs, and prioritisation of ecological improvements as an overarching objective of the SDGs.] At the informal consultations on 5 April, developing countries reiterated that the OWG is a Member State process and the proposed panels of presenters on the topics for discussion at the OWG sessions should not dominate the time available, which should be prioritised for Member States. A number of developing countries support the creation of the post of a rapporteur for the OWG, with many developed countries expressing satisfaction for the Co-chairs to prepare the report of the OWG's work. On the periodicity of the OWG meetings, many developing countries preferred five days every two months rather than three days every month, for reasons of resources and practicality, since many of their delegates will be from their capitals. A "hybrid" solution has been proposed by the Co-chairs on 10 April. The draft programme of work dated 9 April that will guide the OWG's work on 17-19 April now states that: The overarching framework is poverty eradication and sustainable development; Cross-sectoral issues will underpin all discussions, inter alia: governance, inequality and equity, gender equality and women's empowerment, human rights and rights-based approaches, means of implementation (added after the 5 April informal consultations); The discussions will be guided by: the principles affirmed in the Rio+20 outcome document, the need to balance the economic, social and environmental dimensions, ensuring coherence, implementation and assessing progress. The 17-19 April session will comprise of three parts. First, a keynote address on conceptualising the SDGs and the SDG process, followed by an introduction of a UN Technical Support Team (TST) Issues Brief on Conceptual Issues, and then an interactive exchange of views with and among the OWG Member States on the topic. There will then be presentations by two panellists followed by a moderated exchange of views on the topic. Secondly, the same process will take place for the second topic of the session, on poverty eradication. Thirdly, there will be a stock-taking by the OWG of its second meeting, and a summary of the discussions, with concluding remarks by the Co-chairs. As agreed at the 5 April informal consultations, the panels will be composed with due regard to ensuring regional representation, gender balance, and the appropriate mix of expertise. The Technical Support Team is co-chaired by the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs and the UN Development Programme, and contributions to the Issues Briefs are from the various UN bodies and programmes as well as the World Bank and World Trade Organisation, according to the topics. Below are the statements and views of various Member States and groupings during the 5 April informal consultations that led to the revised draft programme of work for the 17-19 April meeting. The focus was on the draft programme of work for the 17-19 April session and the periodicity of meetings for 2013-2014. (There is an "input phase" of dialogue this year, followed by an "output phase" of inter-governmental negotiations of the SDGs next year.) The Chairman of the Group of 77 and China (G77), Ambassador Peter Thomson of Fiji, expressed appreciation at the inclusion of a conceptual discussion in the April session of the OWG. He said that as the OWG designs the parameters and contents of the work programme, it is critically important to allow all members to identify priority issues first through a mapping exercise before adopting the work programme for the months ahead. In this regard, the G77 was of the view that members should have more time to identify and discuss the issues. The involvement of panellists in the April session should therefore be limited with the objective of value adding to assist members to achieve greater clarity in the conceptual debate. The Group also considered that the work programme should not be rigid but provide reasonable flexibility to allow the inclusion of emerging issues as discussion progresses in the OWG. On the periodicity of OWG meetings, the Group reiterated its preference to have five-day meetings taking place every second month. This arrangement is more financially and logistically feasible for most developing countries to engage the participation of capital-based officials, said Thomson. On the content of the work programme, the Group said that the categorisation of cross-cutting issues or the clustering of issues should be identified by members and be guided by the principles affirmed in the Rio+20 outcome document as well as the need to balance the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development. It was concerned that some of the Rio+20 Summit themes were not included in the revised programme (the version that was considered at the 5 April informal consultations) while others have been reflected differently. For example, while the revised work programme attempted to address issues relating to the economic dimension of sustainable development, the Group wishes to include structural and systemic issues pertaining to governance, economic and financial stability. The G77 reiterated the fundamental importance for the SDGs to build upon and complement the MDGs. Thomson said that as we focus our attention on the SDGs, it is necessary that we also examine the inter-linkages of the MDGs and the SDGs in the greater context of the post-2015 development framework. The Group also stressed that it is imperative for the success of the SDGs that the means of implementation must be an integral component of the process. It is essential to underscore the importance of having synergy in the work programme between the OWG on SDGs with the Working Group on Financing for Sustainable Development. (The financing working group is also an outcome from the Rio+20 Conference.) Benin, on behalf of the Least Developed Countries (LDCs), said that the LDC Group's view is that the process of the SDGs should move sequentially starting with the setting up of principles, followed by goals and targets, and finally framing the report outlook. It also said that the draft Programme of Work 2013-2014 has no clarity on some of the important procedural issues and does not yet reflect some of the substantive proposals of the Group. Benin stressed that the entire process should be owned and led by Member States. The issue notes prepared by the Technical Support Team should not pre-judge the discussions. For the credibility of the notes, they should be prepared in a balanced and objective manner, with full reflection of the challenges and priorities of the LDCs. The first set of thematic areas, namely poverty, food security, agriculture, desertification and land degradation are vitally important, said Benin, referring to the cluster proposed in the draft programme of work for the 17-19 April meeting. However, the time allocated for interventions by Member States would be insufficient. While the LDC Group was happy to note that the means of implementation has been identified as a stand-alone agenda item, it called for explicit reference to Official Development Assistance (ODA), trade, debt relief, investment, capacity-building and technology transfer. The same issues should be highlighted under the MDG gap analysis scheduled to take place on 17 April. (The 9 April version of the draft programme of work does not explicitly refer to MDGs; however, the two Issues Briefs provide information and analysis of the MDGs in addition to possible ways forward for the SDGs.) The LDC Group stressed the particular importance of ODA to the Group because a recent OECD-DAC report demonstrates that development aid has decreased by 4% in real terms in 2012, following a 2% fall in 2011. Worse still, bilateral net ODA to LDCs has plunged by 12.8% in real terms in 2011, said Benin. The Group also wants the inclusion of productive capacity development, economic crisis and resilience building, capacity- building, migration, floods and droughts, commodities, ocean and mountain and tourism in the programme of work. These items should be included in relevant clusters, with discussions on the inter-linkages among the different themes of a cluster. The allocation of time for the discussions on the three pillars of sustainable development should be balanced. Ghana (speaking for West Africa) said that we need to understand conceptual issues first before going to the goals. We need to understand how we are going to make them universal, simply, how to design them, how to attach means of implementation, indicators etc. It added that the OWG could ask those who crafted the MDGs to tell us how they did it. Ghana stressed that the panellists invited to the OWG session should give goals and indicators and how to structure these so that Member States can have a proper discussion. It also cited financial constraints in supporting five-day meetings every two months. Barbados (speaking for the Caribbean Community, CARICOM) noted the importance of the inclusion of a conceptual session and the need to have a better idea of how to move forward conceptually. It said that more time is needed for MDG mapping, and to ensure that the three dimensions of sustainable development are balanced, and that means of implementation are included. Barbados also called for balance in the panels - views of civil society and experts should contribute to the OWG's work, and the process should not be too laden or bereft of panels. Mexico (speaking also for Peru and Colombia) said the group does not want to see academic exercises. It agreed that discussions should be facilitated, and structured with analytical elements prepared by the UN system and the Secretariat. But it did not think it would be appropriate to abuse the presence of panellists and make it difficult for dialogue among Member States. Mexico added that we already spent a long time discussing thematic issues since Rio+20, and institutional memory is not lost. When it's necessary, there can be inputs from the UN system, but for now we do not want academic exercises. The group stressed the need for sufficient time for conceptual discussions (an entire day), and did not agree that we should shrink the conceptual discussion of SDGs and MDGs and the inter-linkages and transitions to mapping. Mexico also emphasised the issue of poverty as an overarching issue, stating that poverty is a multi- dimensional phenomenon and that it cannot just be linked to food security (as in the proposed draft programme of work under discussion on 5 April). It said that the OWG needs a conceptual discussion of poverty in all its dimensions, adding that the UN has come a long way from poverty as an indicator of income. On thematic issues, the group agreed with the G77 that there should be a balance among the three pillars and countries should be allowed to identify other themes. Mexico further said that discussion of themes does not mean we are losing sight of the global context, the macroeconomic and social context, the structural parameters - these are very broad but are challenges that should be addressed at the very first meeting. Source: Chee Yoke Ling with inputs from Bhumika Muchhala. Tags: |
SUSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER