3 December 2014: UN Member States convened for an informal plenary meeting on “the organization and modalities for intergovernmental negotiations and remaining issues related to the Summit for the adoption of the post-2015 development agenda.” Governments responded to the co-facilitators’ “food for thought” paper of 17 November 2014, which had been issued following the consultations of 4 and 10 November. Member States are expected to meet again next week to discuss a new calendar of eight negotiating dates, circulated by the co-facilitators at the end of the session.

Co-facilitator Macharia Kamau, Permanent Representative of Kenya, opened the meeting at UN Headquarters in New York, US on 3 December 2014. On the potential elements of the Summit outcome, Kamau: highlighted the need to consider means of implementation (MOI) and a new Global Partnership; said the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) will be at the core of the agenda, and that clarity and technical precision will be needed with regards with targets; observed that indicators will be “global,” and translated by countries for use in their own development processes; and called for discussing a framework for monitoring and review of implementation, suggesting the High-level Political Forum on sustainable development (HLPF) as the most suitable platform for monitoring and review of the post-2015 development agenda. On financing, Kamau said the bulk of the work will be done through the Financing for Development (FfD) process, and that the co-facilitators will ensure an interactive dialogue with “any relevant, parallel process that speaks to our work,” including FfD, technology facilitation, and global partnership processes.

Referring to the proposed schedule of ten meetings between January and July 2014, Kamau called on delegations to agree on dates before the UN General Assembly’s Fifth Committee concludes its work in December, to ensure availability of resources to cover the costs of the negotiating sessions. He also urged “front-loading” the negotiating work with more frequent meetings in the beginning, in order to avoid a heavy workload in June and July close to the sessions of the HLPF and the Third International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD), the outcomes of which will also need to be taken into account in the negotiations on the post-2015 development agenda. Co-facilitator David Donoghue, Permanent Representative of Ireland, added that proposed calendar could be fine-tuned in light of developments.

Among the Member States taking the floor, the Group of 77 and China (G77/China) said the post-2015 development agenda must be adopted through intergovernmental negotiations that are Member State-driven and underpinned by the rules of procedure of the UNGA and UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). He expressed support for a resolution on modalities for the negotiations covering working methods, scope and timeline. On the calendar or meetings, he preferred that sessions not be clustered together too closely, and for adequate time between sessions for Groups to coordinate. He called for support for participation of capital-based delegates from developing countries. On scope, G77/China: objected to any “technical proofing” of targets in the OWG report; suggested more discussion on how indicators will be developed; expressed concern about the concept of “UN Fit for Purpose,” saying Member States need more information on its implications, scope and objective; objected to linking human rights and peace and security with the post-2015 development agenda; and urged caution about “artificial linkages’ with the UNFCCC process. Finally, he called for discussion on partnership and technology facilitation.

The EU said the outcome of the negotiations should comprise: an introductory declaration; goals and targets; a new global partnership, with MOI addressed through the separate consultations on FfD; and a monitoring, review and accountability framework, including a key role for the HLPF. He called for indicators to be developed through a technical, expert-led process. He added that the UN’s development system will need to be “fit for purpose” to play its part. On the calendar, the EU preferred fewer meetings to allow for participation from capitals and reflection between meetings. He urged meaningful and broad participation for scientific, business and stakeholder representatives. Finally, he favored a “phased approach” in which thematic dialogues on key components of the Summit outcome are addressed in earlier meetings, with input from technical experts, the UN system, civil society and the private sector preparing the ground for more technical negotiations.

The Africa Group reiterated the intergovernmental nature of the process within the rules and regulations of the UNGA. He called for more detailed information on “UN Fit for Purpose,” as well as arrangements to ensure close interactions between the consultations on post-2015 development agenda and FfD. He queried how UNFCCC COP 21 and related outcomes in 2015 will fit into the post-2015 development agenda. He called for developing a framework on technology and skills transfer, and to address potential implementation gaps through data, monitoring and financing. He noted that the UN System Task Team on the post-2015 development agenda had created a working group on monitoring and indicators, which he expected would work closely with Member State and regional and national entities. On the negotiation calendar, he asked to avoid meeting in June, and emphasized the need for active participation of experts from capital.

The Pacific Small Island Developing States (PSIDS) and Timor-Leste stressed the importance of beginning the intergovernmental negotiations with a single document, which integrates the SAMOA Pathway, and of uniting the various negotiating processes into a single track, based on the OWG outcome. He expressed support for a technical proofreading of the proposed targets by the UN Statistical Division, adding that the indicators should be developed by the UN Statistical Division and reviewed by capitals before any decision is taken. He stressed that the FfD process should base its discussions on the OWG outcome and take into account the Busan Partnership – noting that that is the right track for discussing MOI – and welcomed further discussions on options for a technology facilitation mechanism.

The Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) said the post-2015 agenda should take into account CBDR, cautioned against altering the OWG outcome, and stressed the importance of creating a global enabling environment inclusive of regional realities. She also noted the need for: an effective follow up mechanism in which HLPF will have a key role; improving data collection and statistical analysis; and engaging in a discussion on how to make the UN system fit for purpose, highlighting that the SAMOA Pathway provided clear recommendations in this regard. Any agenda purporting to be universal, she added, must account for SIDS’ vulnerabilities, and she suggested that the HLPF include a day devoted to SIDS’ challenges.

The US called for a practical, ground-driven and actionable agenda, and for clear and measurable post-2015 priorities. She called for inclusiveness, and cautioned against negotiating indicators and for unnecessary duplication regarding discussions on MOI. She also requested more time between negotiating sessions, and stressed the importance of discussing the post-2015 institutional architecture.

Brazil said the modalities resolution should ensure the UN Regional Economic Commissions will be part of preparations for the Summit, including on FfD, technology facilitation, and accountability frameworks. He said the OWG proposal should not be reopened, and noted that its outcome already includes a “reasonable balance” with human rights and peace and security. He cautioned against duplicating the OWG chapeau in the political declaration of the post-2015 development agenda. He strongly called for finalizing or endorsing the proposed goals and targets as soon as possible, so all other actions can follow. Leaving this to the end will risk the goal set’s “erosion,” he said, and “paralyze” progress on MOI and other issues. On thematic dialogues within the negotiation process, he suggested that they focus on the accountability framework, monitoring and reporting, MOI, technology facilitation mechanism, and indicators, among others. He added that “UN fit for purpose” could be one thematic area for discussion.

Switzerland welcomed flexible and innovative modalities of work, inclusive of stakeholders. She called for the indicators to be elaborated by statisticians, not negotiated, and for the negotiation schedule to consist of four meetings limited to one week, held every six weeks. She also requested to make “the best use of the HLPF,” including for discussing monitoring and review options as well as the global sustainable development report (GSDR).

Iran said that, because the mandated outcome of this process is an outcome document to be adopted by Heads of State and Government, unlike in the OWG, full control of the negotiating text should be with Member States. Regarding a potential declaration on the 70th anniversary of the UN, he said the existing mandate is not for an “omnibus declaration.” On indicators, Iran said that while they will have a global approach, the “factual benchmark” should be set by each national government based on its circumstances. On “fit for purpose,” he expressed concern that its consideration could slow negotiations.

The UK supported a “phased approach” to negotiations beginning with taking stock of inputs and evidence. He said the bulk of the activity to define MOI for the new agenda will take place in the FfD process. On the negotiation calendar, he said participation and “buy-in” from capitals will be important for the agenda’s implementation, also urging time for reflection between meetings. The UK also offered a suggestion of a ministerial or other high-level gathering in July, to ensure an ambitious, workable outcome for heads of state to sign in September.

India outlined the need to: obey UNGA rules of procedure; have a Member States-owned process; include discussions on a technology facilitation mechanism; strengthen synergies between the post-2015 development agenda and the FfD processes (by holding joint meetings, for example); and conclude discussions on modalities on 16 December.

The Russian Federation highlighted the need for the post-2015 development agenda to be development-focused, taking into account human rights and accountability. She supported the dates of the meetings as proposed in the food for thought paper.

Other Member States added their views to the discussions of working methods, scope and elements of the outcome, and calendar of meetings. On working methods, many welcomed stakeholder participants in the process, including on the basis of the Open Working Group’s format. Others stressed the difference between the OWG modalities and those of intergovernmental negotiations, citing UNGA rules of procedure are more suitable. Governments also commented on the need for a resolution on modalities, with some supporting it as providing “clarity and discipline” in the negotiations, and others saying there is no need for such a resolution.

On the potential “introductory declaration” to be included in the outcome, some suggested that it should not be limited to sustainable development but encompass strengthening of the UN’s pillars of work. South Africa, however, said the focus of the summit must be on the UN’s development agenda, and its mandate should not be diluted with the other pillars of the UN (human rights, and peace and security). On the targets, while some supported the co-facilitators’ suggestion of “technical proofing” and their review by experts, others said they should not be changed. On indicators, some said these should not be negotiated, but left to experts, and noted the lack of a Rio+20 mandate for indicators, with some supporting the role of the UN Statistical Commission in developing the indicators. Some added the process should be transparency to ensure Member States’ buy-in to the indicators.

On MOI, governments exchanged views on the role of the FfD conference. While Venezuela noted that not all aspects of MoI will be covered by the conference, Australia said FfD will not be limited to the financial MoI, and Japan objected to any duplication between the post-2015 and FfD processes. Several called for joint meetings between the post-2015 negotiations and FfD processes.

On a framework for monitoring and review of implementation, several highlighted the HLPF as having a key role to play. Liechtenstein said the HLPF should conduct regular reviews starting in 2016. Canada stressed the need to build on existing mechanisms.

Governments also discussed the possibility of thematic discussions as part of the negotiation process, with suggested topics including: monitoring and review, role of the UN system, disabilities and vulnerable people, combating climate change; sustainable management and development of oceans and seas; sustainable energy; integrate women and girls and marginalized groups. Mexico cited a need to clarify the meaning of universality and equity.

On the “UN Fit for Purpose” process, governments said this is not an agreed concept, and does not have the consensus of Member States. Japan said it should not be discussed in intergovernmental negotiations.

After hearing from Member States, the co-facilitators circulated a proposal for a new calendar of eight negotiating sessions: 19-21 January 2015; 17-20 February 2015; 23-27 March 2015; 20-24 April 2015; 18-22 May 2015; 22-25 June 2015; 20-24 July 2015 and 27-31 July 2015). The EU agreed on the suggested dates, while G-77/China suggested further consultations and possibly replacing dates by a number of days per session.

Kamau suggested holding informal-informal consultations during the week of 8 December to agree on dates. He said that the food for thought paper will be revised based on discussions in the meeting and will incorporate a road map. He indicated that the four elements of the Summit outcome likely will be unchanged, since most Member States had found them acceptable. He proposed to engage with the FfD process and to schedule joint meetings early next year. He also suggested to leave out the ‘fit-for-purpose’ reference, noting that this item will be discussed in the context of ECOSOC in December and January. [IISD Sources] [Food for Thought Paper] [IISD Story on Initial Consultations on Modalities]