Post-2015 Development Agenda
Intergovernmental negotiations - VI Session
Intervention of Brazil
Sustainable Develpment Goals
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.
My delegation consistently cautioned against threatening the political
agreement and hanging the delicate balance which underpin the SDGs. As
for the preamble, we have stated our reservations in our previous
intervention yesterday. Additionally, I would like to make an addition point
that the issue of indicator would be better addressed in the follow-up and
review section.
As for the targets, any attempt to change their content opens the way for
further modifications in light of technical arguments, reservations,
particular interests and so on. This would threaten to unravel the entire
package, as we already heard from many delegations.
We are not, therefore, in a position to accept your proposal at this stage.
Furthermore, some proposed revisions can be seen as going beyond
technical amendments, as they change, without sound justification,
substantive aspects of some targets.
I can mention, for example, the proposed revision in target 6.6, which
proposed that water-related ecossystems, including mountains, forests and
other should be "fully protected". The original formulation of target 6.6
does not mention "fully protection", which is an expression that disregards
the key concepts of sustainable management or sustainable use of natural
resources. Those are the concepts applicable for biodiversity in general,
including forests and other ecosystems.
In the case of target 6.6, instead of ensuring consistency with international
agreements, in our view, the proposal for revision stands against
international agreements, such as the Convention of Biodiversity and the
Non-Legally Biding Instrument on All Types of Forests.
The same concerns apply to the proposal to revise target 15.2, which aims at
extending to 2030 the Aichi target to halt the rate of loss of all natural
habitats, including forests, and where possible bring it to close to zero
(Aichi target 5). In our view, extending such target to 2030, as proposed in
the revision, would lower the level of commitments with existing targets
agreed in the CBD.
Clearly, there is no consensus yet on the way forward on this issue.
I thank you.
