European Union
Speaking points Goals and Targets
Co-Facilitators,
We have come a long way in our discussion on the goals and targets, and in our view it is time to end the discussions. Therefore, as we have said many times before, the EU is be ready to accept as a package the set of 20 target revisions that was proposed as a result of the technical proofing process for the first zero draft. This is an expression of the trust we put in this proofing process and in the co-facilitators and it would be our strong preference to stick to this package approach.
We understand that some member states have concerns with this package approach and we can also engage in a more detailed discussion so long as it remains clear that the scope of discussion remains limited to the targets covered by the co facilitators’ proposals.
On target 14c we can accept the alternative language proposal stemming from the constructive informal discussions held last week.
We could support the revision proposed for 8.7.
With regard to target 17.2, we note that the EU has already undertaken to meet collectively 0,2% of ODA for LDCs within the time frame of this Agenda.
We do not support the proposed revision on target 6.6 as it would reduce the ambition of Aichi target 14 and have also some concerns about the proposed revision for 15.2.
You have in the new draft also suggested further targets revisions with regard to the inclusion of references to LLDCs. We do not support going beyond the 20 targets initially proposed for proofing as we consider that going further will take us beyond the agreed scope for technical proofing. However, we would be ready to assess if some can be justified and accepted as part of a package, and provided there are no further requests for new revisions.
Finally, we support the short introduction to this section as it stands in paras 56 to 58. As we noted several times, we see no value added in including the chapeau of the OWG in the Outcome Document. In our view, virtually all issues are now covered in the draft text and repetition would only lead to confusion. But if there is a point of substance that countries do not see covered, we are ready to discuss language. For us, one substantial issue contained in the chapeau which is not addressed in the current draft is the reference to democratic societies included in para 7 of the chapeau.
Thank you.
Co-Facilitators,
We have come a long way in our discussion on the goals and targets, and in our view it is time to end the discussions. Therefore, as we have said many times before, the EU is be ready to accept as a package the set of 20 target revisions that was proposed as a result of the technical proofing process for the first zero draft. This is an expression of the trust we put in this proofing process and in the co-facilitators and it would be our strong preference to stick to this package approach.
We understand that some member states have concerns with this package approach and we can also engage in a more detailed discussion so long as it remains clear that the scope of discussion remains limited to the targets covered by the co facilitators’ proposals.
On target 14c we can accept the alternative language proposal stemming from the constructive informal discussions held last week.
We could support the revision proposed for 8.7.
With regard to target 17.2, we note that the EU has already undertaken to meet collectively 0,2% of ODA for LDCs within the time frame of this Agenda.
We do not support the proposed revision on target 6.6 as it would reduce the ambition of Aichi target 14 and have also some concerns about the proposed revision for 15.2.
You have in the new draft also suggested further targets revisions with regard to the inclusion of references to LLDCs. We do not support going beyond the 20 targets initially proposed for proofing as we consider that going further will take us beyond the agreed scope for technical proofing. However, we would be ready to assess if some can be justified and accepted as part of a package, and provided there are no further requests for new revisions.
Finally, we support the short introduction to this section as it stands in paras 56 to 58. As we noted several times, we see no value added in including the chapeau of the OWG in the Outcome Document. In our view, virtually all issues are now covered in the draft text and repetition would only lead to confusion. But if there is a point of substance that countries do not see covered, we are ready to discuss language. For us, one substantial issue contained in the chapeau which is not addressed in the current draft is the reference to democratic societies included in para 7 of the chapeau.
Thank you.
Stakeholders