UNF Alert 7

June OWG session

The OWG’s June session operated primarily in informal sessions, which allowed member states to have more of a dialogue, commenting on goal and target proposals one-by-one, and consulting with UN technical experts on specific targets and their feasibility, rather than making political statements as they had been. At the end of the session, the co-chairs remarked that “excellent progress” had been made in the informals, leading them to schedule an additional round of informals, July 9-11, ahead of the final OWG session, July 14-18.  The co-chairs encouraged delegates from capital to attend the informals for this session. On June 30, the co-chairs released their revised document, which still consists of 17 goals​but with condensed language, fewer targets, and means of implementation (MOI) targets included under goal areas, in addition to the standalone goal on MOI and the Global Partnership. The most recent draft also revised Goal 17’s reference to “rule of law” to “access to justice for all” – which is seen as less controversial (more on this below).
Difficult decisions ahead

Overall, observers noted a more positive spirit of cooperation in the informals, with delegates willing to show flexibility on some key issues; however, several issues remain controversial and lack clear resolution. These include the means of implementation (MOI) and global partnership; “common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR)”; sexual and reproductive health and rights; and whether or not issues such as climate change; inequality; and peaceful societies, rule of law, and effective institutions merit standalone goals. Any proposals to merge goals – poverty with inequality; climate change with sustainable consumption and production or energy; industrialization with jobs and growth – were not agreed.  While many countries recognized peace as a key enabler for development, others cited challenges with a peaceful societies/ rule of law goal, including issues with sovereignty, measurability, possible “securitization” of the development agenda, and whether or not it falls outside the scope of Rio +20’s mandate. Several countries, particularly some middle income countries, challenged the inclusion of rule of law, as they saw it as impeding on national sovereignty. Instead, they proposed a focus on international rule of law – reforming international governance institutions such as the UN and IMF.

Difficult decisions remain in terms of striking the delicate balance between universality vs. national differentiation; simplicity vs. comprehensiveness; and high ambition vs. political and technical feasibility, all of which surfaced throughout the June session. Observers noted that there remains a wide variation among mission delegates in their levels of knowledge and understanding of how to select or design targets that are technically feasible and will be transformative. At the last OWG, for example, while most expressed a desire for technically sound and measurable targets, one delegation stated that targets do not necessarily have to be measurable if they are making a political statement. This led to questions over whether the purpose of the goals is to be clear and actionable, as with the MDGs, or to make a political statement, which is what some would consider the inclusion of a climate goal to be, since it already has its own process in the UNFCCC negotiations.

As in previous sessions, there was mixed support for either a standalone goal on climate or mainstreaming climate targets throughout the agenda; however there was strong resistance to proposals to merge climate change either with the sustainable consumption and production (SCP) goal or the energy goal. Some questioned how an SDG framework could be relevant in 2030 without a goal on climate, while others did not want to include a goal on climate without referencing CBDR explicitly.

Underlying this resistance is a deeper tension over the notion of differentiation– many developing and middle income countries want to ensure that their differing national capacities and starting points are taken into account, and stipulate that if there is a climate goal, there needs to be reference to CBDR. Similarly, on discussions of SCP and energy, developing countries want assurances that “developed countries will take the lead” on actions related to clean energy and sustainable consumption, that efforts to promote SCP will not constrain developing countries’ economic growth, and that donors are ready to provide both technical and financial assistance to developing countries to transition accordingly.

This is precisely why many observers consider the MOI and Global Partnership to be the ‘make or break” set of issues for the entire agenda: much of the tension underlying differing responsibilities hinges on the global partnership, what donor countries are ready to commit to in terms of financing, technology transfer, and other MOI, and whether or not this will truly be a universal agenda with shared responsibilities for all.

The recent agreement to hold the Financing for Development Conference in July 2015 (in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia), before the final agreement, may further delay member states’ dealing with this set of issues. Another key input on financing will be the report of the Intergovernmental Committee of Experts on Financing for Sustainable Development, (ICESDF), due in August 2014.

 

Process going forward

The co-chairs were confident that the OWG would have a set of goals and targets agreed by the end of the July session, after which the co-chairs would only fine-tune the report. Co-chair Kamau noted that at some point, “We have to stand as a group of 193 nations to say this is the best we could have done” – a reminder that the goals and targets from the OWG are not the final word on this agenda.  In light of this, some say the OWG will settle on a longer list of goals and targets, leaving the more difficult political decisions for the full-fledged intergovernmental negotiations ahead, and that member States will still have time to whittle down and refine the goals and targets, particularly on the MOI and Global Partnership, between Fall 2014 and the high-level summit in September 2015. However, others would like to see the OWG goals and targets as final, given all of the effort involved so far and the desire not to reopen a Pandora’s box of negotiations.

 

Look Ahead for July

• July 1-9: High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development: Defining the monitoring and accountability mechanism for the post-2015 agenda.
• July 8-9: Annual Ministerial Review: theme is “Addressing on-going and emerging challenges for meeting the MDGs in 2015 and for sustaining development gains in the future”.
• July 10-11: Development Cooperation Forum: to advance a unified agenda accounting for trends and progress in development cooperation, considering the changing landscape.
• 14-18: Final Session of the OWG. Report of OWG soon after this session. 

 

Must Reads for July

• The Chronic Poverty Advisory Network and Overseas Development Institute (ODI) have released their Chronic Poverty Report for 2014-2015, The Road to Zero Extreme Poverty. This year’s report provides three key policy objectives for getting to zero, accompanied by a set of illustrative indicators for a post-2015 goal to eradicate extreme poverty.
• Southern Voice’s blog post Latin America’s agenda post-2015: reduce inequality examines why inequality features strongly in the Latin American position and how it connects to sustainability.
• UNCTAD’s 2014 edition of the World Investment Report: Investing in the SDGs focuses on an action plan for financing the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly by galvanizing the role of the private sector and identifying the financing gap in vulnerable economies.
• The Institute for Development Studies’ policy brief Designing Inclusive Targets for a Post-2015 Agenda discusses addressing extreme poverty and marginalization alongside rising inequalities.
• The Center for American Progress’ SPARC report proposes a new financial instrument to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, SPARC bonds, which would provide the financial leverage needed to overcome political obstacles to reform.
• Post2015.org’s blog The High-Level Political Forum and Climate Change, written by Alvin Leong, highlights the potential of the HLPF to play a leadership role in addressing climate change.