Follow-up and review
• Consolidate a single section on follow-up and review.
• Paragraph 49. We reiterate our request to remove the last sentence added in this version of the text, since it does not reflect all elements of the follow-up and review architecture and it redefine the HLPF mandates.
• Paragraph 72. We want to include the role of civil society organizations and academia in the cooperation for to exploit the contribution to be made by a wide range of data.
• Paragraph 78. We request to delete the first sentence, since it does not adequately reflect existing mandates.
• As other delegations have reiterated throughout this process, it is essential to include an introductory paragraph of the global follow-up section, in which we describe the existing UN architecture, which is a fundamental part and the basis for the follow-up and review mechanism of the post-2015 agenda at a global level. We reiterate our previous proposal for a 78pre:
78pre. The follow-up and review framework is cemented on a robust architecture already in place at the global level. It comprises the ECOSOC system, the General Assembly and the HLPF at its apex.
• Paragraph 79 should be more explicit about the general characteristics of the GSDR. However, in the benefit of time, we could accept the last line of paragraph 79 in the understanding that the outcome of this discussion will be part of the ministerial declaration of the HLPF in 2016.
• Paragraph 81 addresses the thematic reviews on the ECOSOC functional commissions and other forums, and requests to align them with the cycle of the HLPF. Nevertheless, the cycle to which we usually refer to on the discussions on institutional arrangements is the ECOSOC cycle, which coordinates the work of such subsidiary bodies and will be the foundation of the review and follow up framework.
• Paragraph 82 consolidates the broad vision of the architecture of the follow-up framework by recognizing an intergovernmental forum as an integral part of the follow up of the post 2015 agenda. We reiterate the importance of maintaining the agreed language from Addis.
• Paragraph 83. We insist that even though we must ensure consistency with the Quadrennial Comprehensive Policy Review, we must reflect whether 2019 and later dates of the HLPF cycle under the General Assembly, are the most conducive dates for the HLPF to become the regular summit for the follow-up of the post-2015 agenda.
• Paragraph 86. We request to delete language after "Secretary General" to "global level". The paragraph should be amended to request the Secretary-General recommendations on the pending topics, namely: organizational arrangements for state-led reviews at the HLPF under the auspices of ECOSOC; on ideas for the thematic annual focus of the ECOSOC cycle and the HLPF theme in accordance with relevant mandates contained in resolutions 68/1 and 67/290; as well as proposals on the sequence of the thematic reviews of the HLPF.
86. We request the Secretary General to prepare recomendations a report, for consideration by the 2016 meeting of the HLPF, which outlines critical milestones towards coherent and efficient follow-up and review at the global level. This report should include a proposal on the organizational arrangements for state-led reviews at the HLPF under the auspices of ECOSOC, including recommendations on a voluntary common reporting format. on the annual It should clarify institutional responsibilities and provide guidance on the annual thematic focus of the ECOSOC cycle and the HLPF in accordance with relevant mandates of resolutions 68/1 and 67/290 themes and on a sequence of thematic reviews for the HLPF.
With these proposals, we seek to reaffirm the collective work we’ve being conducting for the past years –started in Rio+20 and continued in subsequent processes- to define the form and general mandates of the UN global architecture for the follow-up and review of the new development agenda. It’s time to provide final guidance based on existing mandates, to ensure that this architecture start its work in its full capacity from the moment this document is adopted in September.
This system will only be effective with the active and permanent participation of the civil society organizations, in particular the Major Groups. We request therefore to reinforce the reference to participation of CSO and Major Groups throughout the relevant paragraphs such as 75, in the national and regional sections.
Parliamentarians should also be part of the follow-up and review framework.
