Japan
Intergovernmental Negotiations on the post-2015 development agenda
Follow-up and review: Comments on “Revised Targets Document”
21 May 2015
Statement by Mr. Takeshi Osuga,
Ambassador,
Deputy Director-General for International Cooperation and Global Issues
I would like to join the previous speakers in thanking the Co-facilitators for the revised document and also in emphasizing that the exercise should remain purely technical in nature, almost like the “editing” of a text negotiated and agreed upon by the Member States’ negotiators. From this perspective, the technical review should be a process led by the Technical Support Team and the Secretariat.
Japan is flexible with most of the proposed revisions, but in respect of what I have just stated, there is some room for improvements. We will submit our suggestions in writing to the Secretariat for their consideration. Japan’s suggestions will be guided by the following two principles.
First, with regard to the consistency with the internationally agreed documents, the revision should be strictly accurate and precise. It includes keeping 2020 targets as well as the wording related to “beyond 2020” in Aichi targets. It also includes, for example, keeping the word “donors” and not replacing it with “developing countries” when seeking consistency with the Istanbul Programme of Action in the Target 17.2.
Secondly, with regard to filling of “x”s, they should, in principle, be replaced by the phrase “substantially increase” or some similar language and not by “doubling” or specific figures. We have gone through the same exercise earlier this year in Geneva, when the Member States negotiated in depth the Sendai outcome for disaster risk reduction. Our conclusion was that without credible and widely accepted baseline, it would not make much sense to establish numerical targets. The compromise language agreed was “substantially increase”.
Thank you.
Follow-up and review: Comments on “Revised Targets Document”
21 May 2015
Statement by Mr. Takeshi Osuga,
Ambassador,
Deputy Director-General for International Cooperation and Global Issues
I would like to join the previous speakers in thanking the Co-facilitators for the revised document and also in emphasizing that the exercise should remain purely technical in nature, almost like the “editing” of a text negotiated and agreed upon by the Member States’ negotiators. From this perspective, the technical review should be a process led by the Technical Support Team and the Secretariat.
Japan is flexible with most of the proposed revisions, but in respect of what I have just stated, there is some room for improvements. We will submit our suggestions in writing to the Secretariat for their consideration. Japan’s suggestions will be guided by the following two principles.
First, with regard to the consistency with the internationally agreed documents, the revision should be strictly accurate and precise. It includes keeping 2020 targets as well as the wording related to “beyond 2020” in Aichi targets. It also includes, for example, keeping the word “donors” and not replacing it with “developing countries” when seeking consistency with the Istanbul Programme of Action in the Target 17.2.
Secondly, with regard to filling of “x”s, they should, in principle, be replaced by the phrase “substantially increase” or some similar language and not by “doubling” or specific figures. We have gone through the same exercise earlier this year in Geneva, when the Member States negotiated in depth the Sendai outcome for disaster risk reduction. Our conclusion was that without credible and widely accepted baseline, it would not make much sense to establish numerical targets. The compromise language agreed was “substantially increase”.
Thank you.
Stakeholders