Seul le texte prononcé fait foi
Check against delivery
1
Intergovernmental Negotiations on the
Post-2015 Development Agenda
Eighth Session
New York, 29 July 2015
Follow-up and Review
Statement by Switzerland
Distinguished Co-facilitators,
We would like to thank you for this new chapter which now brings greater clarity to the follow-up
and review of the Post-2015 Agenda. We share the view others have expressed that you have
really managed to find a good balance between the different positions in the room, reflecting the
need for specificity while not being prescriptive, keeping flexibility for national ownership and
further development of the mechanism going forward.
On Principles:
We support the idea in paragraph 70a) that explicitly reflects the link between the national,
regional and global levels of review. We think this is very important so that the reviews at
regional and global level are truly grounded in country realities and relevant and useful for
representatives that will participate. We also support similar language in paragraph 73.
We welcome the inclusive and participative follow-up and review process called for in
paragraph 70d). In our view, this principle must be strengthened to specify that participation is
important “at all levels”.
On the national level:
2
We welcome the revised language on national reviews in paragraphs 74 and 75, linked with
the regional and global levels, as one of the key instruments to support and guide countries in
implementation over the next 15 years.
My next points concern the section on the global level:
[On Indicators and SDG progress reports:]
We also welcome the different elements concerning the elaboration of indicators, including the
reference to annual SDG progress reports in paragraph 79. These reports should be based
on data from the national level and could include information compiled at regional level. In order
to be more accurate, we propose to replace "regional reviews" by "information collected at
the regional level”.
[On the GSDR:]
Concerning the Global Sustainable Development Report (GSDR) in paragraph 79, we
favour getting as much clarity as we can now on this report. At the Rio+20 conference three
years ago we collectively decided to have this report, meanwhile we have had two prototypes
presented by the Secretariat and many informal discussions. We therefore call for clarity on
scope and periodicity of the report in this outcome document.
Similar to the EU we support language that calls for a “flagship GSDR” every four years, but in
addition to an annual thematic GSDR to guide discussions at the HLPF. We would also
support to specify that these reports should draw from science and academia, the SDG
progress reports and relevant thematic reviews and assessments.
However, if we cannot agree on these aspects now, let us at least clearly outline when this
decision will be taken, as Canada also stated. We would therefore support that the last
sentence of paragraph 79 states that the discussions on the scope and methodologies are to
be concluded by the end of HLPF in 2016.
[On thematic reviews:]
Concerning thematic reviews at the HLPF as reflected in paragraph 81, we welcome the
reference to the integrated nature of the thematic reviews.
[On the role of the UN development system:]
3
We support that the agenda includes a strong message from our Heads of State on the key role
of the UN Development System in supporting the implementation of the Post-2015 Agenda.
We welcome paragraph 84 in this regard.
Here, as the USA, we only question the appropriateness of referencing the SDG progress report
here, as our understanding of the nature of this report is a different one. If we wish to specify
which report should contain this information, it would be the Secretary General’s report on the
implementation of the QCPR.
[On the road ahead for more clarity in the process:]
We do support calls for a clearer indication of the road ahead to prepare for the next
meetings of the HLPF, starting in 2016. We welcome your proposal in paragraph 86 in this
regard. Given the complexity and various options available to us for reviews, we see a real and
urgent need for a report prepared by the UN Secretary General to guide us in this process. We
see merit in member states considering the report in the HLPF in 2016 as currently reflected in
this paragraph in order to allow adequate preparation and broad inclusion of stakeholders.
[On the role of the UNGA and ECOSOC]
We join Mexico and others in supporting the idea in paragraph 87. Our understanding of this
paragraph is that the General Assembly as well as the ECOSOC and their subsidiary bodies will
have to reflect on how to bring their programmes of work in line with the new Agenda. What we
wish for, is that they are also called upon to contribute in an effective, comprehensive and
timely manner to the implementation, the follow-up and the review of the Agenda.
However, in order to bring more clarity to this paragraph we can support proposals to amend the
language so that the UN General Assembly and ECOSOC are called on "to take measures to
coordinate their work to support the implementation of the Agenda".
A reference to "support national efforts" as proposed by some delegations, would in our view
dilute the purpose of the paragraph which is different from the purpose of paragraph 86.
