Intergovernmental Negotiations on the Post-2015 Development Agenda
6th Session, NY, 22-25/6.
Global Partnership and Means of Implmentation
Intervention by Brazil
Mr. Co-facilitators,
My delegation aligns itself with the statement delivered by South Africa on behalf
of G-77 and China. I would like to present additional comments in my national
capacity.
Means of implementation are an integral part of the SDGs and an requirement for
their achievement. The Addis Accord complements SDG 17 and the MoI specific
targets, providing the policy framework for the goal and the targets contained in
OWG proposal.
The Addis Accord should be integrated it into our Agenda in its entirety as an
addendum to SDG 17 and the MoI-specific targets.
The Global Partnership constitutes a cross-cutting aspect of the Post-2015
Development Agenda. Goal 17 and the MoI-specific targets will be monitored on
the basis of global indicative indicators to be developed by the Inter-Agency
Expert Group on SDGs (IAEG-SDGs). Furthermore, we recall that the mandate of
the HLPF, as established in Rio+20 and the Resolution 67/290, includes
monitoring the MoI of the new agenda.
The FfD outcome document is supposed to articulate a narrative and set out a
global policy framework to achieve the SDGs. Furthermore, the follow-up and
review section of the Post-2015 should clearly reflect the integration of the followup
and review of FFD into the overall arrangement under the HLPF.
The Global partnership underpins our endeavor. While the Addis Outcome may
provide the framework, it does not exhaust all the tools and mechanisms to
implement, monitor and review the revitalized partnership.
As negotiations on the Addis Accord are still to define some fundamental pending
issues, it would be premature to make an overall assessment of its contribution to
the implementation of our Agenda.
We congratulate the work done by FfD co-facilitators, Ambassadors George
Talbot, from Guyana, and Geir Pedersen, from Norway, for their leadership in
moving the process forward.
We underscore, however, a number of shortfalls and limitations of the latest FfD
draft. The question of the upgrade of the tax committee to an intergovernmental
body is a case in point. This is a measure that would greatly contribute to the
mobilization of resources for development.
The arrangements for follow up and review of Financing for Development still
seem insufficient to meet the needs of the Post-2015 Development Agenda.
The Technology Facilitation Mechanism, on the other hand, was a positive
development. The Mechanism resulted from a compromise text which was made
possible because of the flexibility shown by negotiators and the open mindedness
of all sides, allowing us to achieve a meaningful outcome in such a complex and
politically sensitive topic.
[CBDR]
Allow me to say a few words on the question of CBDR in response to comments
made by some delegations over the last few days.
As one of the foundations of sustainable development international agenda since
1992, the principle of CBDR will also be key in the discussions for the Post-2015
Development Agenda, as indicated in the outcome document of the Special Events
on MDGs and the proposal of the Open Working Group on SDGs.
Developed countries still question the validity of the principle on the basis that it
does not reflect the changes of the last 20 years – an argument, I must say, not
applied in other “fora” of the United Nations, such as the Security Council, to say
nothing of the International Financial Institutions such as the IMF and the World
Bank.
In our view, CBDR will still provide the conceptual basis for the global partnership
for sustainable development beyond 2015, balancing needs and responsibilities,
according to historical responsibilities and respective capabilities of developed and
developing countries.
The principle of CBDR embodies the premise that justice should be a compulsory
part of international sustainable development agenda. Differentiation serves to the
purpose of “substantive equality” at the international level, questioning the
formal argument of equality between different States parties in international
agreements.
Many international agreements, including trade-related ones, embody
differentiation in their provisions even though the principle of CBDR is not spelled
out. In many cases, differentiation is used to address special needs of “countries
prone to natural disasters” (UNFCCC), or “African country parties, in light of the
particular situation prevailing in that region” (Convention on Desertification).
In other cases, such as in the Multilateral Trading System, differentiation takes the
shape of the principle of less than full reciprocity and, more broadly, the provisions
on Special and Differential Treatment for Developing Countries (S&D) contained
in practically all the agreements of the World Trade Organization.
I wish to conclude by making a reference to the legal definition of the concept of
equality, widely accepted in many legal systems around the world and incorporated
in numerous international agreements: Equality means treating differently those
that are differently situated or in different circumstances, and treating equally those
that are similarly situated or that are in like circumstances.
Thank you.
