16 May 2016
Governments Exchange Views on 2030 Follow-up “Zero Draft”
story highlights

UN Member States exchanged views on the "zero draft" of a UN General Assembly (UNGA) resolution on the follow-up and review of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development at the global level.

Discussions addressed, among other topics: themes for the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF); Voluntary National Reviews (VNRs); inclusivity; and UN system coherence and efficiency.

Co-facilitators Lois Young, Permanent Representative of Belize, and Ib Petersen, Permanent Representative of Denmark, said a revised draft will be prepared for discussion during the week of 23 May 2016.

unga7012 May 2016: UN Member States exchanged views on the “zero draft” of a UN General Assembly (UNGA) resolution on the follow-up and review of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development at the global level. Discussions addressed, among other topics: themes for the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF); Voluntary National Reviews (VNRs); inclusivity; and UN system coherence and efficiency. Co-facilitators Lois Young, Permanent Representative of Belize, and Ib Petersen, Permanent Representative of Denmark, said a revised draft will be prepared for discussion during the week of 23 May 2016.

The discussion on 12 May 2016 began with Petersen highlighting the consultation process’ “mandate of transparency,” and he said stakeholders would be invited to comment on the draft text. The Russian Federation said negotiations on follow-up and review of the 2030 Agenda are “purely intergovernmental,” and if consultations with stakeholders are not specified in the resolution and modalities of work of a UNGA meeting, those consultations are not possible. She said her country will submit a written reminder about fully complying with the rules and procedures of the UNGA. Australia, Canada, the EU, Norway, Switzerland, the US and other delegations expressed support for a transparent and inclusive process. Representatives from Major Groups and other stakeholders welcomed that the meeting was webcast, noting this is a “minimum in terms of transparency.” They also stressed the importance of their contributions to the process, and asked to have more time to prepare for the future meetings.

On discussing a set of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) at each HLPF session, “with Goal 17 discussed annually,” Pakistan stressed the importance of reviewing Goal 17 every year, while the EU, Japan and Norway called for avoiding duplication with the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) forum on Financing for Development (FfD) follow-up.

On specific themes and sets of Goals for HLPF sessions taking place in 2017-2019, the EU and Norway called for more cross-cutting themes. The US, supported by Australia, Japan and the Russian Federation, asked to delete the proposed theme for the 2019 session of the HLPF under the auspices of ECOSOC, noting their objections to holding a HLPF session under ECOSOC in addition to the one under the UNGA in 2019. Switzerland noted the importance of having a theme and of reviewing a set of Goals in 2019.

Further on holding two meetings in the years HLPF takes place under UNGA auspices, Germany and Colombia called for one HLPF under ECOSOC and one under the UNGA in 2019, with two distinct ministerial declarations, while China and Pakistan supported one negotiated declaration. Switzerland observed that if there is no meeting of the HLPF under ECOSOC in 2019, there will be only three sessions during which VNRs could be held in the current cycle (2016, 2017 and 2018). Norway acknowledged the need to accommodate the organization of thematic reviews and of VNRs that year. Australia said holding two HLPF meetings in one year is unmanageable for any Permanent Mission.

On aligning ECOSOC’s annual themes with the corresponding themes of HLPF each year, Australia and Switzerland expressed support for alignment. The Republic of Korea opposed, noting the different nature and mandates of the two bodies. The Russian Federation, supported by Mexico, said ECOSOC should be the body to decide on the theme, citing UNGA resolution A/RES/68/1.

On ensuring appropriate organizational arrangements for the VNRs, the EU, supported by Switzerland and US, highlighted the role of “innovative arrangements.” On encouraging each Member States to consider participating in two VNRs in the 2030 Agenda’s 15-year period, the EU, supported by Switzerland, proposed specifying “at least” two VNRs, while Mexico, China, Pakistan and the Russian Federation objected to any mention. Maldives for the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), supported by Trinidad and Tobago and Samoa, called for language on UN system support for developing countries conducting VNRs. The US objected to including language from the 2030 Agenda on capacity building. On voluntary common reporting guidelines, which were provided by the UN Secretary-General in an annex to his report on ‘Critical Milestones Towards Coherent, Efficient and Inclusive Follow-up and Review at the Global Level’ (A/70/684), the EU supported encouraging Member States to apply the guidelines, while China opposed the entire reference.

On broad participation in the HLPF, Australia, Canada, the EU and the US supported language on “innovative arrangements” in the organization of HLPF meetings, while China opposed and Pakistan called for clarification. A representative of Major Groups and other stakeholders asked to better reflect the need to promote transparency and participation, citing UNGA resolution 67/290. He proposed a reference to a HLPF voluntary trust fund to support participation of the least developed countries (LDCs), experts, and other stakeholders.

On documentation for the HLPF, Switzerland proposed a clearer distinction between the Global Sustainable Development Report (GSDR) and the SDGs Progress Report on one hand, and other documents and reports on the other. She suggested a reference to the UN Secretary-General’s Inter-Agency Task Force (IATF), which is mandated to report annually on implementing the Addis Ababa Action Agenda (AAAA) on FfD and the means of implementation (MOI) of the 2030 Agenda. Canada and Switzerland called for strengthening and clarifying the reference to making all inputs to the HLPF available and easily accessible in a user-friendly format. Australia, the EU, Japan and the Russian Federation objected to referring to the Quadrennial Comprehensive Policy Review (QCPR) in this resolution.

Delegations also discussed language on reviewing the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) to ensure effective support to the 2030 Agenda and the HLPF. Japan and Colombia favored making concrete proposals, the US proposed calling on the UN Secretary-General to streamline DESA, and the EU said DESA’s Office for ECOSOC Support and Coordination (OESC) and the Division for Sustainable Development (DSD) could be “integrated.” Pakistan and the Republic of Korea suggested referring also to other departments in the UN Secretariat. China suggested, instead of the existing paragraph, a request to strengthen the UN Secretariat.

On sequencing of meetings related to the HLPF, Australia, the EU, Norway and the US supported merging the three-day ministerial segment of the HLPF under the auspices of ECOSOC with the high-level segment of ECOSOC, while the Republic of Korea expressed opposition. The US said once the segments are merged, only one political declaration should be produced, but the Russian Federation opposed this idea.

On the HLPF outcome, Colombia, the EU, Norway and Switzerland stressed the importance of a factual summary from the ECOSOC President, while China and Pakistan this is not necessary.

The co-facilitators expected to release the updated version of the draft resolution, taking the expressed views into account, during the week of 16 May. [IISD RS Sources] [IISD RS Story on Zero Draft Resolution] [HLPF 2016 Website] [2030 Agenda Follow-up and Review Webpage]

related posts