Turkey
Statement by Turkey
Intergovernmental Negotiations on Post 2015 Development Agenda
(22 July 2015)
Goals and Targets
• As we have stated in previous sessions, we are pleased that 17 goals and 169 targets proposed by the Open Working Group are fully incorporated into the final draft.
• We support the ambition level of SDGs. Having said that, we want to reiterate that we are not against in principle to “tweaking” of the targets, as long as the process is transparent, sufficient clarification, reasoning and convincing arguments are provided for proposed revisions. We also support adressing the issue of X's and Y's.
• We think we don't need the introduction part of the chapter on goals and targets as it repeats elements in the Declaration.
• We have shared our views on some of the proposed tweaking in previous sessions. Taking into account the unwillingness of several groups and countries to reopen the package, we believe that we should limit the number of targets to be tweaked. We can also put forward additional proposals to tweak some more targets. However in the name of facilitating the consensus, we are exercising restraint. We will confine ourselves with sharing our response to some of the proposed tweakings in targets.
• Regarding target 1.5 and 11.5. It is a fact that humanitarian emergencies erode the well-being of societies and undermine development efforts of countries. That is why we see value in bringing focus to the needs of people affected by complex humanitarian emergencies, including those fleeing conflicts and host communities in neighbouring countries, affected by massive influx of displaced persons. We also support highlighting the importance of humanitarian assistance in disaster response. In this respect we note the references to humanitarian crises and to complex humanitarian emergencies in the Declaration and also support the proposed changes on the targets 1.5 and 11.5.
• Targets 4.4 and 4.b on ensuring inclusive and quality education for qualified human resources are vitally important. We find the proposed changes acceptable.
• On target 6.6, the proposed change stems from the desire to make the target stronger than the Aichi Target 14 to justify the extended timeframe. We believe that this approach is not compatible with other targets where changes are proposed to ensure rather conformity with the Aichi targets. Hence, for a more appropriate, realistic and consistent approach, we believe, if there will be a change in this target, we should use the word `substantially` to replace the word `fully.`
• Mr Co-facilitators, We welcome that you have asked interested member states to engage in informal consultations to facilitate consensus on proposed tweaking on target 14.c, Even though we participate in that exercise, we find it useful to reiterate our position here. The proposed change is to delete the phrase “for States parties thereto” when referring to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). It is important to have a language that all of us, including states not Party to this Convention, can agree with. Therefore, we think that the existing language in target 14.c needs to be preserved.
• Lastly, we welcome the proposed change on target 17.2 regarding ODA commitments to the LDCs.
Thank you.
Intergovernmental Negotiations on Post 2015 Development Agenda
(22 July 2015)
Goals and Targets
• As we have stated in previous sessions, we are pleased that 17 goals and 169 targets proposed by the Open Working Group are fully incorporated into the final draft.
• We support the ambition level of SDGs. Having said that, we want to reiterate that we are not against in principle to “tweaking” of the targets, as long as the process is transparent, sufficient clarification, reasoning and convincing arguments are provided for proposed revisions. We also support adressing the issue of X's and Y's.
• We think we don't need the introduction part of the chapter on goals and targets as it repeats elements in the Declaration.
• We have shared our views on some of the proposed tweaking in previous sessions. Taking into account the unwillingness of several groups and countries to reopen the package, we believe that we should limit the number of targets to be tweaked. We can also put forward additional proposals to tweak some more targets. However in the name of facilitating the consensus, we are exercising restraint. We will confine ourselves with sharing our response to some of the proposed tweakings in targets.
• Regarding target 1.5 and 11.5. It is a fact that humanitarian emergencies erode the well-being of societies and undermine development efforts of countries. That is why we see value in bringing focus to the needs of people affected by complex humanitarian emergencies, including those fleeing conflicts and host communities in neighbouring countries, affected by massive influx of displaced persons. We also support highlighting the importance of humanitarian assistance in disaster response. In this respect we note the references to humanitarian crises and to complex humanitarian emergencies in the Declaration and also support the proposed changes on the targets 1.5 and 11.5.
• Targets 4.4 and 4.b on ensuring inclusive and quality education for qualified human resources are vitally important. We find the proposed changes acceptable.
• On target 6.6, the proposed change stems from the desire to make the target stronger than the Aichi Target 14 to justify the extended timeframe. We believe that this approach is not compatible with other targets where changes are proposed to ensure rather conformity with the Aichi targets. Hence, for a more appropriate, realistic and consistent approach, we believe, if there will be a change in this target, we should use the word `substantially` to replace the word `fully.`
• Mr Co-facilitators, We welcome that you have asked interested member states to engage in informal consultations to facilitate consensus on proposed tweaking on target 14.c, Even though we participate in that exercise, we find it useful to reiterate our position here. The proposed change is to delete the phrase “for States parties thereto” when referring to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). It is important to have a language that all of us, including states not Party to this Convention, can agree with. Therefore, we think that the existing language in target 14.c needs to be preserved.
• Lastly, we welcome the proposed change on target 17.2 regarding ODA commitments to the LDCs.
Thank you.
Stakeholders