Republic of Korea
Republic of Korea's Comments
on the Final Draft of the Post-2015 Outcome Document
24 July 2015
Follow-up and Review
Paragraph 57
We propose a reference to the development effective principles (country ownership, focus on results, inclusive partnerships, and transparency and mutual accountability). We also propose more detailed language on existing mechanisms such as the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation (GPEDC), which has its own global monitoring mechanism :
“Follow-up and review processes shall be guided by the following principles:
a. They will be voluntary and country-owned, will take into account different national realities, capacities and levels of development and will respect national policies and priorities. As national ownership is key to achieving sustainable development, outcomes from national-level processes will be the foundation for reviews at regional and global levels.
b. They will address progress in implementing the goals and targets, including the means of implementation, in a manner which respects their integrated and inter-related nature and the three dimensions of sustainable development, as well as the quality of development cooperation based on the principles of national ownership, focus on results, inclusive partnership, and transparency and accountability.
c. They will maintain a longer-term orientation, identify achievements and critical success factors, support countries in making informed policy choices, mobilize the necessary means of implementation and partnerships, supports the identification of solutions and best practices and promote coordination of the international development system.
d. They will be open, inclusive and transparent, and support the participation of all people and all stakeholders.
e. They will build on existing platforms and processes, including Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation, avoid duplication, respond to national circumstances, evolve over time and minimize the reporting burden on national administrations.
f. They will be rigorous and based on evidence, informed by data which is timely, reliable and disaggregated by characteristics relevant in national contexts including income, sex, age, race, ethnicity, migratory status, disability and geographic location, for which capacity building support to developing countries will be necessary.”
Paragraph 61
We propose reverting to the language as contained in the Zero Draft rather than using the phrase “regular reviews”, which seems to be a lowered of ambition. We also would like to highlight the role of the UN:
“We also encourage member states to conduct regular, at least once every four years, reviews of progress at the national and sub-national levels. Such reviews can benefit from should be participatory and include contributions by UN entities, civil society, the private sector and other actors in line with national circumstances, policies and priorities. National parliaments as well as other institutions can also support these processes.”
We propose retaining paragraph 11 of the Zero Draft, which called for enough time to be given to the HLPF, following paragraph 67:
“Sufficient time should also be given at the HLPF, under the auspices of ECOSOC, to review progress on implementing the means of implementation of this Agenda”
/END/
on the Final Draft of the Post-2015 Outcome Document
24 July 2015
Follow-up and Review
Paragraph 57
We propose a reference to the development effective principles (country ownership, focus on results, inclusive partnerships, and transparency and mutual accountability). We also propose more detailed language on existing mechanisms such as the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation (GPEDC), which has its own global monitoring mechanism :
“Follow-up and review processes shall be guided by the following principles:
a. They will be voluntary and country-owned, will take into account different national realities, capacities and levels of development and will respect national policies and priorities. As national ownership is key to achieving sustainable development, outcomes from national-level processes will be the foundation for reviews at regional and global levels.
b. They will address progress in implementing the goals and targets, including the means of implementation, in a manner which respects their integrated and inter-related nature and the three dimensions of sustainable development, as well as the quality of development cooperation based on the principles of national ownership, focus on results, inclusive partnership, and transparency and accountability.
c. They will maintain a longer-term orientation, identify achievements and critical success factors, support countries in making informed policy choices, mobilize the necessary means of implementation and partnerships, supports the identification of solutions and best practices and promote coordination of the international development system.
d. They will be open, inclusive and transparent, and support the participation of all people and all stakeholders.
e. They will build on existing platforms and processes, including Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation, avoid duplication, respond to national circumstances, evolve over time and minimize the reporting burden on national administrations.
f. They will be rigorous and based on evidence, informed by data which is timely, reliable and disaggregated by characteristics relevant in national contexts including income, sex, age, race, ethnicity, migratory status, disability and geographic location, for which capacity building support to developing countries will be necessary.”
Paragraph 61
We propose reverting to the language as contained in the Zero Draft rather than using the phrase “regular reviews”, which seems to be a lowered of ambition. We also would like to highlight the role of the UN:
“We also encourage member states to conduct regular, at least once every four years, reviews of progress at the national and sub-national levels. Such reviews can benefit from should be participatory and include contributions by UN entities, civil society, the private sector and other actors in line with national circumstances, policies and priorities. National parliaments as well as other institutions can also support these processes.”
We propose retaining paragraph 11 of the Zero Draft, which called for enough time to be given to the HLPF, following paragraph 67:
“Sufficient time should also be given at the HLPF, under the auspices of ECOSOC, to review progress on implementing the means of implementation of this Agenda”
/END/
Stakeholders