United NationsDepartment of Economic and Social Affairs Sustainable Development

Major Group: NGOs

Interactive Dialogue with Major Groups and other Stakeholders in the context of the 3rd
Session of the Post ‐2015 Development Agenda Intergovernmental Negotiations: Goals and Targets
New York, 25 March 2015 ‐ UNHQ, New York
Statement of the NGOs Major Stakeholder Group Delivered by the Institute for Advanced
Sustainability Studies (IASS), Potsdam
Check against delivery
Mr. Co‐facilitator,
I am speaking on behalf of the NGO major group and my own organization, the Institute for
Advanced Sustainability Studies.
We commend the inclusiveness of this process and have a comment on indicators and on
On indicators:
We welcome the report of the Statistical Commission. Indicators should be selected in a
transparent and participatory process that includes the participation of civil society experts at
all levels. At the global level, we request that civil society representatives be included in the work
of the Interagency and Expert Group on SDG Indicators and that contact information for all
expert group members be made available. Moreover, we need robust indicators to protect civic
freedoms to ensure active civil society engagement at the national level.
We support selecting indicators that monitor multiple goals and targets. For example, land and
soil indicators will underpin the achievement of several of the SDGs and should therefore be
monitored in a cross‐cutting way. This would imply measuring changes in land use/cover,
productivity and soil organic carbon as these indicators support the measurement of proposed
SDGs 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 13 and 15.
On targets:
We thank the co‐facilitators for the effort to review the targets. We believe most of your
proposals are improvements as is the case for target 6.3 on water quality.
We would however also respectfully ask the co‐facilitators to withdraw the amendments made
for 4 of the targets as they are not consistent with international agreements and diminish their
ambition. We would like to thank Mexico for its acknowledgment of the need to maintain
ambition in this regard.
Targets 6.6., 15.1 and 15.3. have all had deadlines moved from 2020 to 2030. The 2020 deadline
is in line with the Aichi Targets and therefore should not be changed.
For Target 15.2: we agree that the ambition for restoration of degraded lands to 15% should be
clarified but as written the deadline no longer relates to halting deforestation. This should not
be the case.
Alternatively, the 2020 deadlines contained in these targets could be recognized as interim and
defined at multiple intervals between 2015 and 2030 to ensure that progress remains on track.
We regret the proposed change or addition to the language of target 3.2 that appears to
change the target to a less inclusive one. This proposed revision does not appear to be
consistent with the human right to health.
To conclude: we support civil society participation in the interagency expert group on indicators
and suggest withdrawing the changes proposed to targets 6.6. and 15.1, .2 and .3.
We are pleased to be able to share the results of our analysis with you today.
I thank you Mr. Co‐facilitator.