Brazil
Joint Session of FfD and the Post-2015 Development Agenda
21 April, 2015
Statement by Brazil
The relationship between FfD and the Post-2015 Development Agenda
Mr. Co-facilitator,
My delegation associates itself with the statement delivered by the distinguished representative of South Africa on behalf of the G77 and China and would like to add the following remarks in our national capacity.
The adoption of the SDGs was a remarkable achievement in our collective efforts towards poverty eradication and universal sustainable development. Its ambition and breadth respond to the social, environmental e economic challenges of the next 15 years. Now we need to make sure we identify and allocate the adequate means to implement such a bold and transformative agenda.
The SDG framework is balanced, integrated and indivisible. Goal 17, on the Global Partnership for Development, and the MoI-specific targets under other goals are part and parcel of the SDGs framework and must not be left behind, as happened with MDG-8.
The implementation of the SDGs and the follow-up and review under the High Level Political Forum should not only encompass Goal 17 and MoI-specific targets, but it should also acknowledge the priority of MoI commitments under FfD, whose fulfillment is crucial for the implementation of all other SDGs.
Brazil believes this can only be achieved through the effective integration of the FfD and the Post-2015 Agenda processes.
In our view, an effective MoI platform for sustainable development must be built around two main elements. The first one is a clear understanding on what means of implementation are needed in each area of the new development agenda. The second one is concrete mechanisms and policies through which such MoIs will actually be provided.
The SDGs offer a comprehensive guide for the first element of the MoI platform. The MoI-specific targets under the goals indicate the needs for each of the priority areas identified by the SDGs; Goal 17 points to the cross-cutting MoIs that will be necessary for the implementation of the whole set of goals and targets.
A great deal of the second element of this MoI platform must come from the FfD process. The outcome of the Conference in Addis must therefore respond directly to the needs identified by the SDGs and their related targets.
Even though we recognize that the Addis process is not a pledging conference, we must at least strive for an indicative commitment level so that the Addis outcome does not end up being a mere collection of good intentions with no practical effect. The best way of doing this is to ensure that the FfD outcome offers concrete MoI provisions for the 17 goals and 169 targets.
Such provisions must then be integrated into the final document of the Post-2015 process, complementing the MoI content of the SDGs.
Mr. Co-facilitator,
Both the FfD and the Post-2015 Agenda processes must complement, but not compete with pledges made in other processes. Climate change is the main case in point here. The urgency of operationalizing the Green Climate Finance Fund under UNFCCC cannot be overstated.
We renew, in this context, the call for developed countries to meet the goal of mobilizing $100 billion per year by 2020. However, we must reiterate the point just made by South Africa on behalf of G77 and China in the sense that these pledges must not count as ODA neither should them negatively affect in any sense the level of ambition in the provision of MoI for both the FfD and the Post-2015 processes.
Climate change is indeed crucial, but we cannot limit the whole environmental dimension of sustainable development to it.
Mr Co-facilitator,
MoIs go beyond financial resources. Technology development, transfer and dissemination is also crucial for promoting sustainable development. Both FfD and the Post-2015 development agenda processes need to deepen the discussions on this issue.
The Post-2015 negotiations should focus on the establishment of a technology facilitation mechanism under the United Nations Development System, identifying the scope of its mandate, its core functions and institutional arrangement. The FfD track should consider systemic and regulatory issues related to technology and innovation.
Mr Co-facilitator,
The intimate relationship between the new development agenda and the Financing for Development tracks indicate the need to develop a joint mechanism for follow-up and review of both frameworks.
The High Level Political Forum is the natural institutional locus of such mechanism. It has universal membership, innovative modalities and an ambitious mandate to serve as a responsive and legitimate political arena for oversee the implementation of sustainable development.
The main characteristic of the new agenda is the integration between the various aspects of development. Traditional areas of cooperation, such as health or education, are now enmeshed with new themes such as sustainable consumption in a comprehensive and inseparable whole.
Creating an artificial separation between the two agreements would mean taking a step backwards which would not reflect the vision of sustainable development set by Rio+20. Neither would it be consistent with conceptual breakthrough embodied in the SDGs.
Thank you.
21 April, 2015
Statement by Brazil
The relationship between FfD and the Post-2015 Development Agenda
Mr. Co-facilitator,
My delegation associates itself with the statement delivered by the distinguished representative of South Africa on behalf of the G77 and China and would like to add the following remarks in our national capacity.
The adoption of the SDGs was a remarkable achievement in our collective efforts towards poverty eradication and universal sustainable development. Its ambition and breadth respond to the social, environmental e economic challenges of the next 15 years. Now we need to make sure we identify and allocate the adequate means to implement such a bold and transformative agenda.
The SDG framework is balanced, integrated and indivisible. Goal 17, on the Global Partnership for Development, and the MoI-specific targets under other goals are part and parcel of the SDGs framework and must not be left behind, as happened with MDG-8.
The implementation of the SDGs and the follow-up and review under the High Level Political Forum should not only encompass Goal 17 and MoI-specific targets, but it should also acknowledge the priority of MoI commitments under FfD, whose fulfillment is crucial for the implementation of all other SDGs.
Brazil believes this can only be achieved through the effective integration of the FfD and the Post-2015 Agenda processes.
In our view, an effective MoI platform for sustainable development must be built around two main elements. The first one is a clear understanding on what means of implementation are needed in each area of the new development agenda. The second one is concrete mechanisms and policies through which such MoIs will actually be provided.
The SDGs offer a comprehensive guide for the first element of the MoI platform. The MoI-specific targets under the goals indicate the needs for each of the priority areas identified by the SDGs; Goal 17 points to the cross-cutting MoIs that will be necessary for the implementation of the whole set of goals and targets.
A great deal of the second element of this MoI platform must come from the FfD process. The outcome of the Conference in Addis must therefore respond directly to the needs identified by the SDGs and their related targets.
Even though we recognize that the Addis process is not a pledging conference, we must at least strive for an indicative commitment level so that the Addis outcome does not end up being a mere collection of good intentions with no practical effect. The best way of doing this is to ensure that the FfD outcome offers concrete MoI provisions for the 17 goals and 169 targets.
Such provisions must then be integrated into the final document of the Post-2015 process, complementing the MoI content of the SDGs.
Mr. Co-facilitator,
Both the FfD and the Post-2015 Agenda processes must complement, but not compete with pledges made in other processes. Climate change is the main case in point here. The urgency of operationalizing the Green Climate Finance Fund under UNFCCC cannot be overstated.
We renew, in this context, the call for developed countries to meet the goal of mobilizing $100 billion per year by 2020. However, we must reiterate the point just made by South Africa on behalf of G77 and China in the sense that these pledges must not count as ODA neither should them negatively affect in any sense the level of ambition in the provision of MoI for both the FfD and the Post-2015 processes.
Climate change is indeed crucial, but we cannot limit the whole environmental dimension of sustainable development to it.
Mr Co-facilitator,
MoIs go beyond financial resources. Technology development, transfer and dissemination is also crucial for promoting sustainable development. Both FfD and the Post-2015 development agenda processes need to deepen the discussions on this issue.
The Post-2015 negotiations should focus on the establishment of a technology facilitation mechanism under the United Nations Development System, identifying the scope of its mandate, its core functions and institutional arrangement. The FfD track should consider systemic and regulatory issues related to technology and innovation.
Mr Co-facilitator,
The intimate relationship between the new development agenda and the Financing for Development tracks indicate the need to develop a joint mechanism for follow-up and review of both frameworks.
The High Level Political Forum is the natural institutional locus of such mechanism. It has universal membership, innovative modalities and an ambitious mandate to serve as a responsive and legitimate political arena for oversee the implementation of sustainable development.
The main characteristic of the new agenda is the integration between the various aspects of development. Traditional areas of cooperation, such as health or education, are now enmeshed with new themes such as sustainable consumption in a comprehensive and inseparable whole.
Creating an artificial separation between the two agreements would mean taking a step backwards which would not reflect the vision of sustainable development set by Rio+20. Neither would it be consistent with conceptual breakthrough embodied in the SDGs.
Thank you.
Stakeholders