8th Session of Intergovernmental Negotiations on Post-2015 Development Agenda
Intervention by Amit Narang, Counsellor on July 30 Draft of Outcome Document
July 31, 2015
Thank you Mr. Co-Facilitator,
When I heard the EU listing the issue of CBDR in its list of ‘improvements’ and not ‘problems’, I knew we are close!
We do believe we are in sniffing distance and would not want our desire for endless re-drafting to unravel our progress. We of course thank the EU for their constructive engagement.
While we have made progress, my delegation has several areas of concern in your current version. We counted about 19 areas in which we must have changes.
We however, realize that this is not about any one delegation, but about all of us.
We have reached a time in our negotiations where we need to look beyond our individual problems and try to help you in finding solutions.
In the spirit of moving forward therefore, my delegation will make some concrete proposals on issues that are of core interest to us.
We prefer the shorter version of the Preamble.
In the longer version, which we do not support anyway, there is a reference to economic growth that is decoupled with environmental degradation. We do not support this concept which we believe is an incomplete and partial interpretation of sustainable development. We do not support a similar reference to this in para 32.
In para 12, we would once again request you to unshackle common but differentiated responsibilities from the restrictive embrace of principle 7. It is an unfair restriction which harkens back to the age where environment was a silo in development. We hope we have transitioned away from that thinking.
We would also request the deletion of para 13. We fully support what was agreed to in the Millennium Declaration, but some of the principles and values referred to in it speak to a partial vision of development that we are seeking to graduate out of.
We are happy with the strong and forward looking formulations on poverty eradication, in the Preamble, in para 2. These must be retained.
However, we would once again urge you and also the other member states to reconsider the inclusion of the phrase ‘including extreme poverty’. We feel it is morally indefensible to say there are two kinds of poverty, and that one of them is more acceptable than the other.
Our leaders should endorse an unequivocal high political vision for ending poverty. We should leave the specifics of this endeavor to the SDGs, where targets 1.1 and 1.2 are clear on this.
We can go along with the MOI sub-section of the Declaration. But the paras in this sub-section which have been deleted, must be restored either here or in Chapter 3.
We feel that the relationship of Addis outcome with this document is now adequately covered in paras 40, 56, and 57. We will not support any modification and any new language in this regard.
We can support some streamlining of the substantive portion of Section 3 without of course losing its core meaning.
We would request that para 123 of Addis be included in its entirety. This is not a matter of negotiation, but keeping promises.
Finally, we remain opposed to including Addis outcome as an Annex.
I thank you.
*****
