Social Watch E-Newsletter - Special Issue 222 - July 7, 2015

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.


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
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



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
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


[1]      You can download a pdf version of this table by clicking here

Source: Global Policy Watch.



Social Watch >>
Social Watch E-Newsletter
For comments, sugestions, collaborations contact us at:
To stop receiving this newsletter send a message with the subject "unsubscribe" to: