Egypt
Intervention
By Mr. Osama Abdel Khalek
Deputy Permanent Representative of Egypt to the UN
For the 2nd meeting of the Open Working Group
on Sustainable Development Goals
17th April 2013
Mr. Co-chairs,
1- At the outset, I would like to thank you, Mr. Co-Chairs, for organising this
meeting and adapting its program to accommodate members’ needs. It has
been our understanding that starting the work of the Open Working Group
with a conceptual discussion on SDGs would lead to more clarity needed to
elaborate the scope and program of work, as well as defining cross-cutting
issues and interlinkages. I would like also to associate my remarks with the
statement of G77 and China
Conceptualisation of SDGs
2- Building on the experience of the MDGs, the SDGs should serve as driver
for implementation of sustainable development and integration of its three
dimensions, with poverty eradication as its overarching objective.
Shifting from MDGs to SDGs
3- SDGs should be servicing and strengthening the MDGs, thus making sure
that MDGs are still valid, relevant and that they will not be an unfinished
business.
4- Having said that, a second generation of a revised set of current MDGs,
taking into consideration the new and emerging global challenges should
be the core SDGs. Another 2 or 3 new goals addressing the most pressing
issues could be added to them. The SDGs should be limited in numbers, so
that it can be manageable.
5- In this context, MDGs short comings should be avoided when designing the
SDGs. The SDGs should address the structural factors that give rise to the
crises, and not only set up new goals and targets.
6- The MDGs positive aspects relied on its simplicity that is engaging. There
are targets that are quantitative. There are objectives that are easy to
comprehend. But, as it turned out, the MDGs did not quite serve their
larger strategic purpose of changing the discourse on development.
7- The limitations of MDGs as a construct, in conception and in design,
provide some basis for an evaluation of the MDGs as a framework. In
terms of conception, there are some basic problems. The MDGs specify an
outcome but do not set out the process which would make it possible to
realise the objectives. The MDGs are set out in terms of aggregates or
averages which often conceal as much as they reveal because there is no
reference to distributional outcomes. An evaluation of MDGs as a
framework for monitoring progress in development highlights
shortcomings. Furthermore, means of implementation were the weakest
link in the MDGs framework.
8- Indeed, the time has come to reflect on factors of change which would
represent departures from or substantial modifications in the existing
framework. There are three imperatives that deserve to be highlighted.
First, there should be structural flexibility at the national level. It must be
made explicit that MDGs represent objectives for the world as a whole,
which are not a scale to measure progress in every country because
national goals must be formulated using global norms as a point of
reference. Second, there should be cognition of inequality in any
assessment of outcomes. This is essential because inequalities exist and
distributional outcomes matter. Third, the new framework for the MDGs
must incorporate some priors on means rather than simply focus on ends.
The message is not only about outcomes but also about process.
9- In the international context, the focus of MDGs is much too narrow. The
misplaced emphasis on concessional development assistance, attributable
to a donor-centric world view, dominates the discourse. Clearly, the
international community needs to do better at this unfinished business but
far more needs to be done. In any case, for developing countries, access to
markets in trade and access to technology for development are far more
important than foreign aid could ever be.
10- Most important, perhaps, it must be recognised that unfair rules of the
game in the contemporary world economy encroach upon policy space so
essential for development. We need a better enabling environment, as
stated by the Permanent Representative of Fiji on behalf of G77 and China.
Universality
13- The framework of the SDGs should be universal, but at the same time
adaptable to national priorities, capacities and levels of development. Since
the goals will be applied to all countries, the principle of common but
differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) must be applied in a uniform way
when formulating the goals and targets.
14- In accordance with the principle of common but differentiated
responsibilities, though the goals are universally applicable, there are
naturally differences in treatment of goals for developed and developing
countries. The developed countries should take the lead in terms of higher
commitments under each goal, particularly with relation to changing
consumption and production patterns. Moreover the developing countries
goals will require international support in terms of means of
implementation as well as international partnership in terms of enabling or
supportive international policies.
Integration
15- Each goal could be multidimensional thus addressing the three dimensions
together in a pro-poor, pro-development fashion, with eradication of
poverty as an overarching objective.
Means of implementation
16- Developing countries will require external support in order to implement
the SDGs. Therefore, the issue of means of implementation must be given
due consideration, including ODA, trade, investment, technology transfer,
and capacity building.
17- We need to examine how the issue of the means of implementation will be
addressed in the framework of the open working group, and in connection
to the work of the expert group on financing sustainable development, as
well as to the track on facilitating technology transfer.
18- It is suggested in this regard, that means of implementation should be
linked to each goal, so that it would be focused on the implementation of
such goal. Meanwhile, a goal addressing systemic issues including, global
governance, trade, investment, debt and intellectual property rights, could
be envisaged.
Poverty Eradication
1- Poverty eradication is the greatest global challenge facing our world today
and an indispensable requirement for sustainable development. It is worth
noting that At a global level, a greater number of the extremely poor now
live in countries classified as middle income (MICs) rather than those
classified as low income (LICs). Poverty eradication should be the
overarching objective of sustainable development.
2- While MDG1 is addressing extreme poverty, we should be more ambitious
when formulating SDGs by eradicating poverty and not only extreme
poverty. This level of ambition has been already acknowledged and
reflected in Rio+20 outcome document. Thus in post Rio+20, we should be
addressing from now on poverty eradication.
3- We should preserve the multidimensional approach used in the MDGs to
conceptualize poverty, beyond aggregates and metrics to include health,
education, access to water and sanitation issues as part of the effort to
achieve poverty eradication.
4- The linkage between poverty and sustainable consumption and production
could be misleading, as the sustainable consumption and production
problem is mostly taking place in developed countries and not in
developing countries where poverty levels are high. Thus, it is developed
countries who should take the lead in shifting to sustainable consumption
and production patterns. Moreover, developing countries need to eradicate
poverty in order to make progress in shifting to sustainable consumption
and production patterns.
By Mr. Osama Abdel Khalek
Deputy Permanent Representative of Egypt to the UN
For the 2nd meeting of the Open Working Group
on Sustainable Development Goals
17th April 2013
Mr. Co-chairs,
1- At the outset, I would like to thank you, Mr. Co-Chairs, for organising this
meeting and adapting its program to accommodate members’ needs. It has
been our understanding that starting the work of the Open Working Group
with a conceptual discussion on SDGs would lead to more clarity needed to
elaborate the scope and program of work, as well as defining cross-cutting
issues and interlinkages. I would like also to associate my remarks with the
statement of G77 and China
Conceptualisation of SDGs
2- Building on the experience of the MDGs, the SDGs should serve as driver
for implementation of sustainable development and integration of its three
dimensions, with poverty eradication as its overarching objective.
Shifting from MDGs to SDGs
3- SDGs should be servicing and strengthening the MDGs, thus making sure
that MDGs are still valid, relevant and that they will not be an unfinished
business.
4- Having said that, a second generation of a revised set of current MDGs,
taking into consideration the new and emerging global challenges should
be the core SDGs. Another 2 or 3 new goals addressing the most pressing
issues could be added to them. The SDGs should be limited in numbers, so
that it can be manageable.
5- In this context, MDGs short comings should be avoided when designing the
SDGs. The SDGs should address the structural factors that give rise to the
crises, and not only set up new goals and targets.
6- The MDGs positive aspects relied on its simplicity that is engaging. There
are targets that are quantitative. There are objectives that are easy to
comprehend. But, as it turned out, the MDGs did not quite serve their
larger strategic purpose of changing the discourse on development.
7- The limitations of MDGs as a construct, in conception and in design,
provide some basis for an evaluation of the MDGs as a framework. In
terms of conception, there are some basic problems. The MDGs specify an
outcome but do not set out the process which would make it possible to
realise the objectives. The MDGs are set out in terms of aggregates or
averages which often conceal as much as they reveal because there is no
reference to distributional outcomes. An evaluation of MDGs as a
framework for monitoring progress in development highlights
shortcomings. Furthermore, means of implementation were the weakest
link in the MDGs framework.
8- Indeed, the time has come to reflect on factors of change which would
represent departures from or substantial modifications in the existing
framework. There are three imperatives that deserve to be highlighted.
First, there should be structural flexibility at the national level. It must be
made explicit that MDGs represent objectives for the world as a whole,
which are not a scale to measure progress in every country because
national goals must be formulated using global norms as a point of
reference. Second, there should be cognition of inequality in any
assessment of outcomes. This is essential because inequalities exist and
distributional outcomes matter. Third, the new framework for the MDGs
must incorporate some priors on means rather than simply focus on ends.
The message is not only about outcomes but also about process.
9- In the international context, the focus of MDGs is much too narrow. The
misplaced emphasis on concessional development assistance, attributable
to a donor-centric world view, dominates the discourse. Clearly, the
international community needs to do better at this unfinished business but
far more needs to be done. In any case, for developing countries, access to
markets in trade and access to technology for development are far more
important than foreign aid could ever be.
10- Most important, perhaps, it must be recognised that unfair rules of the
game in the contemporary world economy encroach upon policy space so
essential for development. We need a better enabling environment, as
stated by the Permanent Representative of Fiji on behalf of G77 and China.
Universality
13- The framework of the SDGs should be universal, but at the same time
adaptable to national priorities, capacities and levels of development. Since
the goals will be applied to all countries, the principle of common but
differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) must be applied in a uniform way
when formulating the goals and targets.
14- In accordance with the principle of common but differentiated
responsibilities, though the goals are universally applicable, there are
naturally differences in treatment of goals for developed and developing
countries. The developed countries should take the lead in terms of higher
commitments under each goal, particularly with relation to changing
consumption and production patterns. Moreover the developing countries
goals will require international support in terms of means of
implementation as well as international partnership in terms of enabling or
supportive international policies.
Integration
15- Each goal could be multidimensional thus addressing the three dimensions
together in a pro-poor, pro-development fashion, with eradication of
poverty as an overarching objective.
Means of implementation
16- Developing countries will require external support in order to implement
the SDGs. Therefore, the issue of means of implementation must be given
due consideration, including ODA, trade, investment, technology transfer,
and capacity building.
17- We need to examine how the issue of the means of implementation will be
addressed in the framework of the open working group, and in connection
to the work of the expert group on financing sustainable development, as
well as to the track on facilitating technology transfer.
18- It is suggested in this regard, that means of implementation should be
linked to each goal, so that it would be focused on the implementation of
such goal. Meanwhile, a goal addressing systemic issues including, global
governance, trade, investment, debt and intellectual property rights, could
be envisaged.
Poverty Eradication
1- Poverty eradication is the greatest global challenge facing our world today
and an indispensable requirement for sustainable development. It is worth
noting that At a global level, a greater number of the extremely poor now
live in countries classified as middle income (MICs) rather than those
classified as low income (LICs). Poverty eradication should be the
overarching objective of sustainable development.
2- While MDG1 is addressing extreme poverty, we should be more ambitious
when formulating SDGs by eradicating poverty and not only extreme
poverty. This level of ambition has been already acknowledged and
reflected in Rio+20 outcome document. Thus in post Rio+20, we should be
addressing from now on poverty eradication.
3- We should preserve the multidimensional approach used in the MDGs to
conceptualize poverty, beyond aggregates and metrics to include health,
education, access to water and sanitation issues as part of the effort to
achieve poverty eradication.
4- The linkage between poverty and sustainable consumption and production
could be misleading, as the sustainable consumption and production
problem is mostly taking place in developed countries and not in
developing countries where poverty levels are high. Thus, it is developed
countries who should take the lead in shifting to sustainable consumption
and production patterns. Moreover, developing countries need to eradicate
poverty in order to make progress in shifting to sustainable consumption
and production patterns.
Stakeholders