8th session of Intergovernmental Negotiations on Post-2015 Development Agenda
Intervention by Amit Narang, Counsellor on ‘Means of Implementation/Global Partnership’
July 29, 2015
Thank you Mr. Co-Facilitator,
We wish to share some comments on the MOI/GP portion of the text in a spirit of interaction.
We of course strongly support the comments made by G77 on this issue.
We welcome the comments we have heard yesterday on this issue, several of whom were made in the interest of streamlining our text and were therefore constructive.
Three things upfront.
First, we fully endorse and strongly echo the view that the MOI goal and targets contained in the SDGs should not be left behind. This is a non-option for us and we would suggest we do not keep on this table anymore.
Second, we are happy that the outcome document of the Addis Ababa has been annexed to this draft.
Yes, that’s right. The Addis Ababa outcome has indeed been annexed to this document through para 61. In our view, in UN parlance, documents of separate conferences are annexed precisely by formally referring them in the text, thus linking them together, joining them at the hip. Annexing does not mean using a paper clip or staple to physically join the documents together. We would request that this manner of annexing the Addis document, i.e. referring to it in the section 3 of the Summit outcome be maintained and that there is no need to physically tie them together.
We cannot accept reducing the FfD outcome to an appendage.
Third, since you have decided that the MOI targets will only remain at one place, we would insist that they remain in section 2 along with the other SDGs and not moved to section 3.
Mr. Co-Facilitator,
Like others, we do not see any need for reopening or renegotiating the substance of the global partnership.
We were perplexed therefore to hear the EU calling for language relating to a ‘new’ global partnership for which some new principles were also suggested. Do we take it that it is the intention of some delegations to renegotiate the Addis outcome?
I say this because we thought this issue has long been settled, both in the SDGs and in the Addis outcome. We would appreciate a clarification.
Mr. Co-Facilitator,
Allow me to now once again address the issue of relationship of the Addis Ababa outcome with this document. At the risk of repetition, we welcome the Addis outcome as a part of the overall revitalized global partnership. It does indeed constitute a supportive part of the global partnership. It is meant to support the implementation of the goals and targets.
However, and this is important, it is and it was always meant to complement and support the MOI goal and targets of the SDGs. The two, i.e. the SDG MOIs and the FfD outcome cannot be placed at the same level as they are of different nature.
We do not support several language suggestions which imply that the FfD outcome together with the SDG MOIs together constitute the global partnership.
In any case, in our view, and as mentioned by G77 today and by Australia and Japan last evening, para 19 of the Addis outcome sufficiently addresses the relationship. We should not belabor this issue anymore and move on. Reopening this debate would amount to renegotiating the Addis outcome which we will caution against.
Mr. Co-Facilitator,
We also heard several of our friends carefully. While we are generally satisfied with the manner the MOI section is crafted at present, I think the point made by Japan, and echoed by several others including EU that the MOI section of the Declaration could be shortened, is valid and useful.
We could concur with them that there is scope for some streamlining of this section.
We feel that shortening this section and avoiding a selective iteration of substantive elements could actually be useful in making this section more direct, action oriented and purposeful.
While we may have problems with some of the exact suggestions that were made, we would support Japan’s suggestion for example that we only retain 3 straightforward paragraphs in the MOI sub-section of the Declaration. Not necessarily the first 3 paras though. We will give our language suggestions to you.
Concretely, we would suggest that para 40 which welcomes the Addis outcome be deleted.
Let me hasten to add that we are only suggesting that we welcome Addis outcome once, and that for consistency sake, we do so in para 61 in section 3.
I am aware that there is a lot of new found love for Financing for Development in the room and we don’t intend to hurt any feelings!
I must add that for a Conference that most in this room never wanted in the first place, the sudden outpouring of affection for it is quite touching!
In case a para on welcoming is retained in Declaration, this should be preceded by para 60 which should be moved to the front.
In section III, we likewise retain only about 4 paragraphs, without tampering too much with the way the paras are written, which in our view are quite balanced. We would request that para 60 and para 61 be maintained as such.
Finally, Mr. Co-Facilitator,
We want to acknowledge the statement made by Japan yesterday in which they confirmed the gentlemen’s agreement on Technology Facilitation Mechanism and that they stand by it.
We deeply appreciate this gesture of solidarity and we would likewise appeal to the sense of fair play of other delegations and count on them to honor what was agreed.
With their cooperation, we therefore once again request that the entire para 123 of the Addis outcome be reproduced in this document.
I thank you.
*****
