Brazil

Post-2015 Development Agenda
Intergovernmental negotiations - VI Session
Intervention of Brazil
General Comments and Political Declaration
June 22nd, 2015
My delegation aligns itself with the statement delivered by South
Africa on behalf of G77 and China. We wish to add the following
remarks in our national capacity.
Mr. Co-facilitators,
Three years ago, today, June 22nd 2012, we concluded the Rio+20
Conference. Since then, we have come a long way and now we find
ourselves in the final stretch of our work. We are confident that under
your able leadership we will indeed devise the transformative and
universal agenda we need for the future we want.
We would like to thank you for circulating the zero draft well in
advance for adequate analysis and consultation with our capitals.
We consider that the proposed text is a good basis to start our
negotiations. Naturally, we see a need for adjustments on a number of
issues.
The 4-chapter structure of the zero draft makes that task easier. The
organization of the text favors ease of reading. The annexes allow for
addition of further details, as needed.
We wish to underscore, at the outset, the importance of ensuring
coherence and complementarity between the Financing for
Development process and the negotiations on the post-2015 agenda
process, particularly as regards the issue of Means of Implementation
and Follow up and Review.
In this regard, it would be helpful to hear from Ambassadors Talbot and
Pedersen at some point about the pertinent elements of the Addis
Accord, in particular the dedicated and integrated follow-up of the FfD
as a critical contribution to the follow up and review of the Post-2015
Development Agenda under the HLPF.
Mr. Co-facilitators,
One of the elements in the draft stands out in contrast with the
coherence of the whole and this is the Preamble to the Political
Declaration.
We understand that this part of the text was added for purposes of
communicability and simplification, which is laudable. The results,
however, seem to have verged on redundancy on the one hand and
further complication of our message on the other.
The reference to the 5 Ps in the first paragraph of the Preamble is
redundant with its enunciation in paragraph 7 of the Political
Declaration.
The proposed 9 bullet recluster the SDGs in an arbitrary and counterintuitive
fashion that does not reflect the three dimensions of
sustainable development, isolating all environmental themes into just
one item. This seems to repeat the silo-approach applied to MDGs.
Furthermore, the bullet points leave aside crucial aspects of the SDGs,
such as energy, water, sanitation, industrialization, infrastructure or
sustainable patterns of production and consumption.
This approach threatens to upset the political balance that we have
worked so hard to achieve in our deliberations so far.
The language used in the political declaration is already in our view
geared to conveying a strong message to the global citizenry in general
and not only specific constituencies.
We call, therefore, for the deletion of this preamble.
Mr. Co-facilitators,
We note with appreciation that poverty eradication was rightly
acknowledged as our greatest global challenge and an indispensable
requirement for sustainable development, as agreed in Rio+20.
However, consistency and coherence can be improved throughout the
text of the political declaration. In particular, the concepts of
universality and CBDR are misused in some paragraphs and even
inverted in others.
Universality is not the same as equal responsibilities. Universality
entails different responsibilities to countries that are intrinsically
different from each other. It entails that different nations will focus on
different challenges, according to their different circumstances,
resources, capabilities, levels of development and historical
responsibilities. It entails, in short, that the countries have differentiated
responsibilities, despite sharing some common ones.
The concept that speaks to the universality of the Post-2015
Development Agenda is the principle of Common But Differentiated
Responsibilities.
It is worrisome, therefore, that the text fails to address the
differentiation even in areas where there is agreed language about it,
such as climate change and sustainable patterns of consumption and
production. Paragraphs 25 and 27 need therefore to be changed so as to
adequately reflect the differentiated responsibilities of different groups
of countries in these subjects.
We also noted that there is not a single mention to developed countries
in the whole document. We fail to understand why, for instance, the
commitments of those nations in the provision of ODA is not
mentioned in paragraph 32, fully dedicated to the subject. Even when it
comes to official development aid, only groups of developing countries
- in the case of paragraph 32 SIDS and LDCs - are singled out.
Artificially erasing the differences between developed and developing
countries does not strengthen the universal character of the agenda. It
undermines it.
Mr. Co-facilitators,
In paragraph 10, we would prefer not to mention the Synthesis Report
of the Secretary-General alongside the intergovernmentally agreed
documented mentioned therein.
As mentioned during the morning session by many delegation,
paragraph 12 lists numerous challenges we have ahead of us but fails to
offer the reasons why we firmly believe such challenges can be
overcome. Even the phenomenon of migration has a negative
connotation and is treated as a problem to be solved. Migration actually
generates benefits both for the countries or origin and for destination
nations.
We suggest that the term "growing migration challenge" be replaced
with "forced migration" and that a more positive and inspirational
language is inserted either in this paragraph or in another part of the
text.
Paragraph 28 needs to recognize the two-way relationship between
peace and sustainable development. The text affirms that "sustainable
development cannot be realized without peace, but it fails to recognize
that peace also cannot be realized and will not last without sustainable
development either.
Furthermore, we noted the lack of reference to the concept of "access to
justice", which is in our view the main component of achieving goal 16.
We suggest such aspects are also taken in consideration.
We appreciate the emphasis on human rights dimension of our goals in
the zero draft. We welcome and support the references in the zero draft
to the issues of gender equality and empowerment of women, including
the reference to gender-based discrimination and violence against
women and children in paragraph 18.
We also support the priority focus on people in vulnerable situations
and all vulnerable groups, including older people and people with
disabilities, as is the case in paragraph 17. In paragraph 29, we should
mention not only natural and cultural diversity, but also social
diversity. Those changes aim at better reflecting the core meaning of
the expression "leave no one behind".
Finally, the section "A call for action to change our world" should also
address broader on the challenges facing the United Nations.
The September Summit will celebrate 70th anniversary of the
foundation of the United Nations, 15 years after the Millennium
Summit and 10 years after the 2005 World Summit. In such a juncture,
the Post-2015 Political declaration should also mention the need for
reform in the governance structure of the United Nations, in line with
mandates contained in 2000 and 2005 outcomes, which should also be
mentioned in our declaration. The transformative agenda brought about
by the post-2015 process cannot be expected to fully bear results
without a corresponding change in the global governance structures.
In our view, it is not consistent to say that "sustainable development
cannot be realized without peace", as stated in paragraph 28, and
not address the need to reform the governance of peace and security in
the United Nations.
Mr Co-facilitators,
The section on SDGs preserves the integrity of the 17 goals and 169
targets of the Report of the Open Working Group on Sustainable
Development Goals. We have reservations however to the introduction
of a new chapeau instead of retaining the one that was adopted in July
2014. The exclusion of the reservations that underpinned the political
agreement that allowed some countries to accept the entire report must
also be reviewed.
The chapter on means of implementation brings together Goal 17 and
all MoI-related targets, which we cannot consider just as a placeholder
for the results from Addis Ababa. The MoI-related targets are
themselves the implementation pillar of the SDGs, part and parcel of
the OWG report, and are the obvious basis for the MoI section of the
text, to which the Outcome of Addis should be added.
Brazil welcomes the inclusion of the "Food for thought paper on a
possible technology facilitation mechanism" as an annex. Delegations
informally agreed to negotiate such issue in the FfD process and to
reproduce the language related to the establishment of the Technology
Facilitation Mechanism in the Post-2015 Development Agenda,
without reopening or renegotiating it. We are encouraged by the
developments on this particular issue in the FfD negotiations.
We commend the central role the text attributes to the HLPF on the
follow-up and review processes, as well as the attention dedicated to
the regional dimension of this matter. Some proposals for the national
level, however, will have to be revised in order ensure that they are not
unnecessarily prescriptive..
We will come back at each session with more detailed comments.
I thank you.