North-South differences persist over “political declaration” of post-2015 agenda

The UN member states are split, mainly between developed and developing countries, as they seek to craft a document setting a global post-2015 development agenda due to be adopted in September. These divisions were in evidence during the latest round of talks in June, as Mirza Alas reports in the following two articles.

NEW YORK: Intergovernmental negotiations on the post-2015 development agenda continue to be fraught with North-South differences even as there remains just one more official session for the talks.

The sixth session of the United Nations negotiations on the outcome document of the post-2015 development agenda took place on 22-25 June at the UN headquarters in New York. Member states started deliberations on the “zero draft” of the document that will be presented at the Development Summit in September for adoption by the UN General Assembly.

The final scheduled session of the negotiations will be on 20-31 July.

The zero draft document is currently called “Transforming our world by 2030” (the title is still being negotiated) and contains a preamble, an introduction (declaration), and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Targets (agreed by the UN Open Working Group on SDGs in July 2014). There is also a proposal for a follow-up and review framework as well as three annexes: a proposed revision for 21 targets out of the 169, a possible Technology Facilitation Mechanism and the “chapeau” that was part of the report by the Open Working Group on SDGs.

At the June session, member states were encouraged to provide comments on the current draft regarding the different parts.

The developing countries, led by the Group of 77 and China, highlighted their agreement with the centrality of poverty eradication in the draft document and the strong emphasis on ensuring that “nobody will be left behind.” The G77 also praised the mention of the Rio Principle 7 on “common but differentiated responsibilities” (CBDR), policy space, condemnation of foreign occupation and the right to development. This was further supported by many other developing countries and their respective groupings such as the Arab States, the Caribbean Community, the Least Developed Countries, the African Group and the Alliance of Small Island States.

While all the member states agree on the centrality of poverty eradication in the post-2015 agenda, there are still many disagreements regarding the role of the preamble as well as the current draft of the declaration. The main disagreements concern such areas as the outlining of the principles in the declaration, particularly CBDR, and the explicit mention of the “right to development”. The European Union stressed that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights should come before the mention of the Rio agreements and that all the Rio principles are of equal importance and therefore there is no need for the singling out of the CBDR principle. A strong statement was made by India on the centrality of CBDR, in which India debunked what it called six “myths” that underpin developed countries’ rejection of this principle.

Below are the highlights of a selection of interventions by member states on the declaration at the June talks.

Multidimensional poverty

South Africa, speaking on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, welcomed the draft declaration and noted that it takes into account a number of issues of global development importance that need attention in the context of the post-2015 development agenda, in particular, the important reference to poverty eradication that is an overarching priority and a central imperative of the agenda. The G77 emphasized the need to address poverty as a multidimensional phenomenon, and therefore in accordance with SDG 1, the declaration should state that poverty should be eradicated “in all its forms and dimensions.”

The Group stressed that the mention of CBDR, policy space, condemnation of foreign occupation and the right to development should be lauded and that the principles of territorial integrity, national unity and political independence of countries should be reaffirmed in the text.

The G77 also pointed out some areas of concern in the declaration such as the distortion of CBDR in the context of climate change (paragraph 27) that calls for “historic responsibilities for all states.” It stressed that developed countries must assume their historic responsibilities and address issues of climate change mitigation and adaptation as it is the developed countries that have been disproportionately contributing to climate change and attendant challenges largely precipitated by the phenomenon. The responsibility cannot be for “all states” as developing countries are responsible for a relatively inconsiderable margin of greenhouse gas emissions. Similarly, the mention of “shared responsibility” in paragraph 29 contradicts the essence of the principle of CBDR.

The Group also noted that the issue of migration requires recalibration as it is reflected in the text as a negative phenomenon when there are mutual benefits for both sending and receiving states.

Rwanda, on behalf of the African Group, stressed the importance of the principle of CBDR in the declaration and said that currently there is a disproportionate emphasis on human rights and this should not overload the agenda. The African Group also noted that the declaration needs to reflect peace and security and requested that all SDGs and targets, as well as the chapeau and the reservations contained in the Open Working Group report, be included in the zero draft.

Algeria, on behalf of the Arab States, welcomed the declaration’s provisions on poverty eradication and global principles, primarily those enshrined in international law and human rights. It also noted that occupation is a big obstacle to sustainable development and wanted to stress the importance of sovereignty as well as the right to development and the CBDR principle. The Arab Group also wanted to include a reference to the adverse impact of violence, extremisms and terrorism and the causes of migration.  

Algeria proposed some improvements for the text that included a paragraph about the positive impact of migration in both the sending and receiving countries.  It also pointed out that the declaration should make a reference to ending unilateral sanctions against states as these violate the UN Charter.

Belize, on behalf of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), noted that the declaration should capture political will, but it requires refinement including a balanced description of the SDGs. It also asked for language clarity in paragraph 16 and clarity about the terminology used in paragraphs 8 and 39.

The Maldives, on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), said that important concerns were not addressed in the text, such as water, climate and oceans, and so it wanted added language from Rio documents in the text. The Maldives also pointed out that the concept of resilience should be included in the declaration. Furthermore, national disasters should be recognized as contributing to vulnerable situations.

It said the declaration should speak to all goals (SDGs) in their full context; it should not summarize or paraphrase because this leaves out agreed language. According to AOSIS, the declaration does not need to include the UN Secretary-General’s synthesis report.  However, the declaration needs to recognize the special needs of countries such as the small island developing states and should contain the whole SDG Open Working Group report including the chapeau and reservations.

Preferential treatment for LDCs

Benin, on behalf of the Least Developed Countries (LDCs), proposed reaffirming global partnerships for development which recognize that LDCs need enhanced global support and appropriate mechanism for achievement of SDGs. It called for recognition of LDCs’ need for preferential treatment because of lack of resources and technology.

In emphasizing the importance of differential and preferential treatment for LDCs, Benin proposed reaffirming the need for achieving sustained economic growth in LDCs at a minimum 7% per annum by structural transformation and integration into the global economy/regional economy. It also stressed that structural transformation is a means of increasing development and building resilience, and that agriculture and food security should be made stronger, with the recognition that this is vital for LDCs. It also pointed to the importance of linking LDCs to global value chains.

Benin proposed language in paragraph 36 of the declaration on recommitting to partnership with the understanding of LDCs as the most vulnerable group of countries. It also proposed language on resilience building, operationalizing crisis response and mitigation to build capacity to respond to various kinds of crisis without compromising development processes.

India made a statement that centred on debunking what it called six myths on the CBDR principle gleaned from comments made by developed countries.  The “myths” that India highlighted are the following:

l     The principle of differentiation is in contradiction to a universal agenda

l     This principle is a historical relic and has no contemporary relevance

l     This principle is only applicable to environmental action

l     This is merely a political principle and has little or no professional relevance

l     The North-South divide in international cooperation has already vanished and those who invoke this principle are flogging a dead horse

l     The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities means inaction by some on a global agenda.

India stressed that the principle of CBDR “is a call for action, it is a call for ambition, but above all it is a call for equity, a fundamental principle that underpins the UN Charter and the Millennium Declaration and a fundamental article of faith that cannot be left behind in the post-2015 development agenda”.

In addition, India also made two other key points. Firstly, it said it would be “a grave remission” not to refer to the World Summit outcome document of 2005 in the political declaration. It said that the document “was adopted at the level of our heads of state and government exactly a decade ago and is a landmark document”. It requested that the document be referenced along with other important documents and declarations. (The 2005 outcome document was adopted at the follow-up summit meeting to the UN Millennium Summit of 2000.)

Secondly, India said, it would be “remiss if through this declaration world leaders do not pronounce themselves on the urgent imperative of reform of global governance, in particular the institutions responsible for maintenance of peace and security”. It added that “especially since Peace is one of the five main themes now for this document, it is important that the important ideal of enhancing the legitimacy and representativeness of institutions of global governance, including that of the UN Security Council, be unequivocally affirmed in the declaration.”

Uganda welcomed the zero draft as a good basis to prepare for negotiations and stressed the importance of policy coherence for sustainable development as an enabler. It said that this remains as a target under SDG 17. The pledge for “leaving no one behind” should come forward by giving attention to the poorest countries which are already left behind, said Uganda.

Looking at the UN climate change conference that will take place in December in Paris, the historical responsibility of reducing greenhouse gas emissions lies with industrialized countries. The responsibility of each state should be reflected like in Rio (referring to the 1992 Rio Summit).

Peace and security are a prerequisite of sustainable development and a desired result in and of itself, said Uganda. It also said that the ambition of SDGs is too much with current methods and a mechanism should be put in place to enable the scientific and technological community to step up for the implementation of the agenda.

Uganda further said that the zero draft document lacks deliverables on leaving no one behind, stressing that means of implementation are an integral part of the agenda and an ambitious transformative agenda must depend on that.

Ecuador hoped to have a negotiating method that will include negotiation with national institutions, which was done by the website portal. Given the 14 days of negotiations remaining for this process, it said the zero text can be put on the screen to visualize the comments, and this will make the process transparent. It stressed the need to recognize the integrality of the human person and nature, paying attention to the needs of all groups in vulnerable situations, women, children, elderly, migrants, indigenous peoples, etc.

Ecuador said that CBDR is covered, but it should also be included in paragraph 7, where mention is made of climate change. It said that migration should not be thought of only as a negative phenomenon; it is an intersectional international issue with social, economic and environmental dimensions while respecting human rights.

Transformative features

The European Union said the declaration needs more emphasis on transformative features, noting the reference to the commitment in paragraph 3 to eradicate extreme poverty and that the document reflects the three dimensions (viz., economic, environmental and social) of sustainable development.

The EU also said that the spirit of new global partnership and universality should be addressed and should be included in the introduction and vision of the document. It said the references to promotion of gender equality, human rights, non-discrimination, democracy and good governance are welcomed but need to be strengthened. It emphasized human rights of women and girls, mentioning related UN conferences on this.

It said that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) should be mentioned before the Rio agreements. CBDR should not be singled out and should not apply as an overall operational principle of the agenda, the EU said, adding that the agenda is underpinned by universality while taking into account national capacities. The EU also said that the document needs to recommit and build more clearly on the Millennium Declaration and substantive human rights content. It added that the right to development is not on equal footing with the UDHR.

The EU further noted the need to mobilize all means of implementation – financial and non-financial. It expressed concern on the selective use of the outcome of the Open Working Group on SDGs, particularly in paragraphs 23-28, stressing the need to preserve the balance that the working group represents. 

The United States was of the view that there is little more important to the success of the SDGs than a powerful political declaration – a concise, compelling central vision that can itself serve as a call to action. It recommended that the beginning of this declaration define and communicate, in practical terms, the central purpose and key elements of the agenda, adding that it sees the declaration not as an executive summary of the agenda but rather a vision for leaders to agree on.

Secondly, the US said, the text and review of trends should focus not only on the problems and challenges faced, but also on the enormous opportunities, providing a more positive treatment of the possible. It recommended a more comprehensive treatment of the positive momentum of the past 15 years and the opportunities they herald for the next 15. It said that with the “Our world today” section of the declaration, there should be acknowledgement of the enormous opportunity afforded by living in a time of unprecedented connectivity.

Thirdly, it highlighted a common commitment to universality, partnership and shared responsibility, with references to some of the US’ domestic efforts for its citizens in line with the principles contained in the agenda. It said that “the hallmark of a universal agenda, and of successful development, is that effort and implementation are tailored to national and local contexts to maximize national relevance and to evolve as conditions change.”

On CBDR, the US said “we do not see the principle … as a proxy for this nor applicable to this development agenda.”

France aligned itself with the EU, saying further that the political declaration satisfactorily reflects the ambition of the agenda. Several improvements can be made on the balance of the SDG Open Working Group and its integrated approach, it said, adding that universality and cross-cutting aspects should be put further forward. France said that the declaration should stress the linkage between different goals and human rights are an essential dimension, and should be reflected more.

On CBDR, it did not think the principle was taken up by the international community, and “we should refuse ambiguity”. It also said that the reality of climate change should be better highlighted in the declaration, and gender equality and empowerment of women better reflected.

Germany said that complexity is difficult to communicate and part of the success of the Millennium Development Goals was effective communication. It mentioned reducing to five or six goals while avoiding silo thinking. On universality, it said the North-South divide must be overcome, and welcomed language on paradigm shift, adding that this should be strengthened. Germany said it could not accept CBDR language in the text.

Australia said the political declaration is a credible basis to continue negotiations. It said eradicating poverty and gender equality should be strengthened, adding that poverty eradication is the overarching goal. Without gender equality the potential of half of the world is not fully realized, it said.

It said it did not support elevating one Rio principle over another, and did not accept that CBDR extends beyond the environmental agenda. It also did not support inclusion in the agenda of language on foreign occupation.

Japan said that universality does not mean uniformity and criticized the assumption that developed countries need to shoulder responsibility, asking why CBDR is bound by the traditional North-South divide. It expressed its belief that CBDR is a “contaminated idea” and suggested a new concept on responsibility sharing.                                                 

This article was written with inputs from the Women’s Major Group at the UN.

Third World Economics, Issue No. 596, 1-15 July 2015, pp2-5