Negotiations on the Post-2015 Development Agenda
Sustainable Development Goals
March 23th-27th
Statement by Ambassador Guilherme de Aguiar Patriota, Deputy Permanent
Representative of Brazil to the United Nations
Mr. Co-facilitator,
Seven months have gone by, and The 17 Sustainable Development
Goals and 169 targets have so far passed the test of spontaneous
political and technical proofing.
A clear majority of stakeholders, within the UN and outside of it, has
come to appreciate the breath and the depth of this new agenda.
In particular, there is perceived value in universality with
differentiation as a new paradigm for international development
cooperation.
And huge transformational potential has been recognized in integrating
environmental sustainability, social inclusion and economic growth
into a single umbrella concept.
Crosscutting integration of issues is also a groundbreaking achievement
that should help bring all development actors in the UN System, and at
the regional and national levels, into better alignment and closer
coordination.
In September 2014, the General Assembly endorsed by consensus the
Open Working Group proposal as the main basis for the Post-2015
Development Agenda.
Governmental Agencies, NGOs, UN Agencies, Academia, Think
thanks and development experts have discussed, assessed and
commented on the SDGs. Opinions are overall very positive.
The OWG proposal has been considered a participatory and bottom-up
process compared with the MDGs.
Reducing the number of goals and targets or simplifying language
would not be possible at this point without loss of critical content, and
without seriously affecting the views and priorities of 193 Members
States, and many more stakeholders.
The same must be said of proposals for clustering or packaging the
SDGs under a smaller number of so-called "elements". It is very
difficult to do this without reinterpreting the position of Member States.
When you no longer can change such a complex text without running
the risk of unraveling it, this is a clear sign that we have achieved the
best possible outcome under the circumstances. Even "technical
refinement" can be politically unwarranted and disruptive.
The SDGs speak for themselves. We don't really need a reductionist
over layer.
Should some members believe we do, than we would insist that the
neutral way to do it would be to respect the three dimensions of
sustainable development set-out by our Heads of State and Government
in Rio+20, adding to it a fourth dimension on the Means of
Implementation. This is the idea behind the four P's proposal: People,
Prosperity, Planet and Partnership.
Brazil supports the statement by South Africa on behalf of G-77/China,
as well as the statement delivered by Ecuador on behalf of CELAC.
Mr. Co-facilitators,
Brazil commends the Statistical Commission for trying to meet your
request regarding the elaboration of indicators.
The first technical report from the Statistical Commission illustrates the
complexity of the mission. It also confirms we need more time.
Indicators, when ready, will still need to undergo regional and national
scrutiny, or proofing. We should not rush to have them ready for
adoption by September, firstly because this not formally required, and
secondly because the task is daunting and the Commission itself has
planned for at least until March of 2016.
The UN Statistical Commission needs time to fully grasp the intended
nature of the SDGs. This will require the capacity of National
Statistical Offices to move beyond their existing formal mandates and
program of work.
We are concerned that the Commission's rating of indicators translates
into an assessment of the quality, feasibility and relevance of targets,
when all that is required is measurability from a statistical standpoint.
Goals from 10 to 16 received most of the lowest rating , whereas the
first 8 SDGs received the best rating. There is an unbalance there.
These preliminary results can be attributed to several possible causes,
such as: i) lack of time for statistical offices to consult with other areas
of government, especially regarding environmental statistics; ii) greater
capacity of Statistical Agencies, especially in developing countries, to
deal with MDG-like indicators, and their lack of capacity to work with
the three integrated dimensions of sustainable development, which
make it more complex.
Developed and developing countries should be accorded differentiated
treatment regarding their capacity to collect data and produce
indicators, in line with the principle of Common But Differentiated
Responsibilities.
We have agreed that Developed countries should take the lead in
moving toward sustainable patterns of consumption and production,
and this has to be reflected in the way indicators are elaborated and
applied. Many developing countries are still to formulate the policies
and monitoring frameworks for SCP-related targets, and will need more
time to respond to these challenges.
Countries in special situation should also be taken into account, as
several targets cater to specific demands of LDCs, SIDs and LLDCs.
Mr. Co-facilitator,
We believe the Statistical Commission is in need of guidance.
The priority should be to define a high-quality set of indicators that
reflect the breadth and depth of the SDGs and their related targets.
All goals and targets must be treated on equal footing.
We consider all targets measurable, even if in different ways.
The Means of Implementation must also be measured and monitored,
and cannot be disregarded.
Development of indicators should not undermine, re-open or even
second-guess the agreed outcome of the OWG.
The Commission should also avoid introducing contentious notions that
do not enjoy wide acceptance or that disturb the delicate political
balance of the SDGs.
Global indicators must use official, public data produced by national
statistical offices or other governmental agencies.
Data used to measure the indicators must be free, in principle, and
respect confidentiality standards. They should comply with the 10
Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics, according to General
Assembly Resolution 68/261.
Capacity deficit is a central issue when it comes to data collection,
development and monitoring of indicators. The importance of
enhancing the capacity of developing countries to increase significantly
the availability of high-quality, timely, reliable and disaggregated
data cannot be overstated.
Disaggregation of data is critical to make vulnerable groups visible.
Though we do recognize that poverty has multiple dimensions, we
believe we should not adopt many multidimensional indicators.
They are complex and compound several issues, instead of disagreeing
them. Multidimensional indicators can make specific need less visible,
instead of increasing their visibility.
The United Nations Regional Commissions should play an important
role in all aspects of indicators. They should define their own
framework for follow-up and review of the SDGs, while also
supporting countries to formulate indicators in light of their specific
national and regional realities.
The High Level Group to be established under the auspices of the
Statistical Commission should consider those issues carefully in
guiding the work of the Intergovernmental Expert Group on SDGs
Indicators. We emphasize the intergovernmental nature of the expert
group, which will be supported by UN Agencies and international
organizations as observers.
The UN Statistical Commission has established a timeline that points to
the definition of a final framework of indicators by its next session, in
March 2016.
When ready, the Statistical Commission will need to submit its
proposal to the consideration of Member States for their political
assessment, further guidance and recommendations.
Thank you, Mr. Co-facilitator.
