Brazil
Intergovernmental Negotiations on the Post-2015 Development Agenda
VIII Session
Means of Implementation- July 29, 2015
Delegation of Brazil
Co-facilitator,
Brazil aligns itself with the statement delivered by South Africa on behalf of G-77 and China. I would like to add the following comments in my national capacity.
The co-facilitartors language for describing the relationship between the MoIs that are an integral part of the OWG outcome document, on the one hand, and the FFD narrative contained in the Addis Action Agenda, on the other hand, is a reasonable basis for an agreement. We strongly recommend its favorable consideration as a compromise between those who wish attach Addis to Post-2015 as a substtitue for Goal 17 and the goal-specific MoIs, and those who wish to keep Addis as a totally independent process or farmework. Of course, for us and for the G77 and China, the OWG outcome document containing the 17 goals and 169 targets is indivisible and no longer on the table for negotiation, in whole or in part.
For the G-77 and China, Goal 17 and the goal-specific MoIs lie at the heart of the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development. They are bulleted, as are all the SDGs and targets, meant to be measurable through indicators, and constitute a basis for assessing progress in implementation within the follow-up and review arragements for the Post-2015 agenda. The Addis outcome, though relevant as it may be, is a long narrative type text, not fit for the purpose of establishing measurable goals and targets, and derives from a separate (Monterrey/Doha) framework, meant to tackle systemic economic and development issues within a predominantly finance-oriented setting.
From the beggining, the Addis process was expected to "constitute an important contribution to and support the implementation of the Post-2015 Development Agenda", as defined in paragraph 9 of resolution 68/279, on the modalities of the Addis Conference.
This understading was reaffirmed in the Addis Outcome itself, in paragraph 19, which states that it will support the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development within which the Post-2015 Development Agenda will be implemented.
The Addis Outcome was never agreed as an integral or fundamental component of the Post-2015 Development Agenda. Member States have always considered it as supportive and complementary.
Financing for Development is a process in itself. It is appropriate to welcome the Addis Outcome in the Post-2015 Development Agenda, but attaching it in full as an annex would not do justice either to the SDG, because it would confuse and undermine its integrity, or to Addis agreement itself, because it would diminish and dilute a process of specific relevance with its very own historical context.
The DPR of Japan made a strong case in that regard. He said that if we took this course of action “normal people” would not understand the result of our negotiations… He is right.
FFD has challenges of its own, such as the establishment of an intergovernmental tax body. It deals with financing development. It is not a "sustainable development" process per se.
Co-facilitator,
When it comes to Means of Implementation, my delegation is impressed on how quickly can some developed countries forget agreements just made.
The proposal to delete Goal 17 and MoI specific targets not only disregards the supportive nature of the Addis Outcome, but also the "integrated and indivisible nature" of the SDGs - as we affirmed in the second paragraph of the Preamble and repeated in paragraph 19 of the Declaration.
If the proposal to delete goal 17 is really considered an option, we would then be led to also delete other SDG targets which are also repeated in Addis. For example, target 1.3 on the social protection systems, an issue addressed in paragraph 12 of Addis Outcome. Within Goal 5, on Gender Equality, there are also several targets that could be deleted because they were repeated in Addis, such as target 5.5, on women participation, which is addressed in paragraph 21 of Addis Outcome. Eventually, we could delete the entire Goal 8, dedicated to Economic Growth, and Goal 9, on Infrastructure, as those issues are addressed in several paragraphs of Addis Agenda.
And for the record, we strongly disagree with those who argue that all SDGs Goals and Targets are covered by Addis. They most certainly are not.
Co-facilitators,
Having said that, we see margin for improvement in the current draft, specially by reducing duplications between the Political Declaration and the MoI Chapter.
In the MoI section of the Political Declaration, we have some specific amendments:
In paragraph 38, we should include in the last sentence the word "accountable" before "private sector". It would then read: "We acknowledge the role of a diverse and accountable private sector, ranging from (...)" - the rest of the sentence remains unaltered.
The second sentence of paragraph 39 should explicitly states the intergovornmental nature of the commitments which constitute the Global Partnership. In this regard, the second sentence of that paragraph should read: "This Partnership is based on our intergovernmental agreement to work in a spirt (...)" and the rest remains unchanged.
Both in paragraph 38 and 39, we believe the reference to civil society should come before private sector, as the sequence of the listing can provide a sense of priority.
Needless to say that civil society has been an historical partner of the United Nations development agenda. Without prejudice to the expectations we place on the private sector, we should give the due precedence to civil society throughout the Post-2015 Agenda, taking into account their active contribution to this agenda.
Still in the declaration, we reiterate that we cannot accept paragraph 44 as it stands.
Mr. Co-facilitators,
I have additional comments on chapter three.
Paragraphs 59 to 62 provide the correct logical sequence by stating upfront the overarching concept of the "revitalized and enhanced Global Partnership for Sustainable Development", followed by the reference to the MoI specific targets and SDG 17, which are supported by the Addis Outcome.
Paragraph 67 also presents an important element which shoud be preserved as it is now written and maybe can be inserted following the first sentence of paragraph 60.
Again in paragraph 62, Civil Society should be mentioned before private sector, not after it.
Regarding paragraph 64, we regret that the Draft for Adoption does not honor the agreement that allowed us to negotiate the technology facilitation mechanism in the context the Conference on Financing for Development. As we stated previously, the complete text of paragraph 123 of Addis Agenda, including its bullet points, should be inserted in the MoI section of the Post-2015 Development Agenda.
We commend the Japanese Delegation for supporting that idea thus honoring the agreement we had concerning this issue.
We have full trust in your good judgement, Co-facilitators, to keep us on the right path, as it is the only one that can lead us to a successful outcome within the short time we now have.
I thank you, Co-facilitator.
VIII Session
Means of Implementation- July 29, 2015
Delegation of Brazil
Co-facilitator,
Brazil aligns itself with the statement delivered by South Africa on behalf of G-77 and China. I would like to add the following comments in my national capacity.
The co-facilitartors language for describing the relationship between the MoIs that are an integral part of the OWG outcome document, on the one hand, and the FFD narrative contained in the Addis Action Agenda, on the other hand, is a reasonable basis for an agreement. We strongly recommend its favorable consideration as a compromise between those who wish attach Addis to Post-2015 as a substtitue for Goal 17 and the goal-specific MoIs, and those who wish to keep Addis as a totally independent process or farmework. Of course, for us and for the G77 and China, the OWG outcome document containing the 17 goals and 169 targets is indivisible and no longer on the table for negotiation, in whole or in part.
For the G-77 and China, Goal 17 and the goal-specific MoIs lie at the heart of the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development. They are bulleted, as are all the SDGs and targets, meant to be measurable through indicators, and constitute a basis for assessing progress in implementation within the follow-up and review arragements for the Post-2015 agenda. The Addis outcome, though relevant as it may be, is a long narrative type text, not fit for the purpose of establishing measurable goals and targets, and derives from a separate (Monterrey/Doha) framework, meant to tackle systemic economic and development issues within a predominantly finance-oriented setting.
From the beggining, the Addis process was expected to "constitute an important contribution to and support the implementation of the Post-2015 Development Agenda", as defined in paragraph 9 of resolution 68/279, on the modalities of the Addis Conference.
This understading was reaffirmed in the Addis Outcome itself, in paragraph 19, which states that it will support the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development within which the Post-2015 Development Agenda will be implemented.
The Addis Outcome was never agreed as an integral or fundamental component of the Post-2015 Development Agenda. Member States have always considered it as supportive and complementary.
Financing for Development is a process in itself. It is appropriate to welcome the Addis Outcome in the Post-2015 Development Agenda, but attaching it in full as an annex would not do justice either to the SDG, because it would confuse and undermine its integrity, or to Addis agreement itself, because it would diminish and dilute a process of specific relevance with its very own historical context.
The DPR of Japan made a strong case in that regard. He said that if we took this course of action “normal people” would not understand the result of our negotiations… He is right.
FFD has challenges of its own, such as the establishment of an intergovernmental tax body. It deals with financing development. It is not a "sustainable development" process per se.
Co-facilitator,
When it comes to Means of Implementation, my delegation is impressed on how quickly can some developed countries forget agreements just made.
The proposal to delete Goal 17 and MoI specific targets not only disregards the supportive nature of the Addis Outcome, but also the "integrated and indivisible nature" of the SDGs - as we affirmed in the second paragraph of the Preamble and repeated in paragraph 19 of the Declaration.
If the proposal to delete goal 17 is really considered an option, we would then be led to also delete other SDG targets which are also repeated in Addis. For example, target 1.3 on the social protection systems, an issue addressed in paragraph 12 of Addis Outcome. Within Goal 5, on Gender Equality, there are also several targets that could be deleted because they were repeated in Addis, such as target 5.5, on women participation, which is addressed in paragraph 21 of Addis Outcome. Eventually, we could delete the entire Goal 8, dedicated to Economic Growth, and Goal 9, on Infrastructure, as those issues are addressed in several paragraphs of Addis Agenda.
And for the record, we strongly disagree with those who argue that all SDGs Goals and Targets are covered by Addis. They most certainly are not.
Co-facilitators,
Having said that, we see margin for improvement in the current draft, specially by reducing duplications between the Political Declaration and the MoI Chapter.
In the MoI section of the Political Declaration, we have some specific amendments:
In paragraph 38, we should include in the last sentence the word "accountable" before "private sector". It would then read: "We acknowledge the role of a diverse and accountable private sector, ranging from (...)" - the rest of the sentence remains unaltered.
The second sentence of paragraph 39 should explicitly states the intergovornmental nature of the commitments which constitute the Global Partnership. In this regard, the second sentence of that paragraph should read: "This Partnership is based on our intergovernmental agreement to work in a spirt (...)" and the rest remains unchanged.
Both in paragraph 38 and 39, we believe the reference to civil society should come before private sector, as the sequence of the listing can provide a sense of priority.
Needless to say that civil society has been an historical partner of the United Nations development agenda. Without prejudice to the expectations we place on the private sector, we should give the due precedence to civil society throughout the Post-2015 Agenda, taking into account their active contribution to this agenda.
Still in the declaration, we reiterate that we cannot accept paragraph 44 as it stands.
Mr. Co-facilitators,
I have additional comments on chapter three.
Paragraphs 59 to 62 provide the correct logical sequence by stating upfront the overarching concept of the "revitalized and enhanced Global Partnership for Sustainable Development", followed by the reference to the MoI specific targets and SDG 17, which are supported by the Addis Outcome.
Paragraph 67 also presents an important element which shoud be preserved as it is now written and maybe can be inserted following the first sentence of paragraph 60.
Again in paragraph 62, Civil Society should be mentioned before private sector, not after it.
Regarding paragraph 64, we regret that the Draft for Adoption does not honor the agreement that allowed us to negotiate the technology facilitation mechanism in the context the Conference on Financing for Development. As we stated previously, the complete text of paragraph 123 of Addis Agenda, including its bullet points, should be inserted in the MoI section of the Post-2015 Development Agenda.
We commend the Japanese Delegation for supporting that idea thus honoring the agreement we had concerning this issue.
We have full trust in your good judgement, Co-facilitators, to keep us on the right path, as it is the only one that can lead us to a successful outcome within the short time we now have.
I thank you, Co-facilitator.
Stakeholders