Members divided over means of implementation

by Mirza Alas

COSTA RICA: The June negotiating round on the outcome document for the post-2015 development agenda ended without resolution of the means-of- implementation issue.

Means of implementation (MoI) had been the subject of many disagreements during the 2013-14 negotiations on the Sustainable Development Goals in the SDGs Open Working Group, when many developing countries wanted to have MoI under each specific goal while developed countries wanted to keep MoI only under Goal 17. Now the discussions are about how MoI should be integrated into the post-2015 development agenda as well as how the outcome of the Financing for Development (FfD) track should be incorporated into the final outcome document. The current disagreements show a clear North-South divide.

(The Third International Conference on Financing for Development will take place in Addis Ababa on 13-16 July.)

In the June negotiations, the developing countries, represented by the Group of 77 and China, emphasized the important role that MoI have in the post-2015 agenda and their fundamental position in ensuring that the SDGs can be attainable. The G77 further stressed that the MoI currently in the text should not be replaced by the outcome of the Addis Ababa FfD conference but that the projected Addis Accord will be a complementary input to the process.

This view was supported by many other developing countries and their respective groupings such as the Arab States, the Least Developed Countries and the Alliance of Small Island States. Many other developing countries offered their views on the different ways in which the outcome from Addis could be integrated, but all of them agreed that the MoI text currently present in the zero draft of the outcome document was not there as a placeholder but a fundamental part of the document.

On the other hand, developed countries wanted the FfD process to be fully integrated into the zero draft and become the MoI pillar of the post-2015 agenda, which will effectively replace the current MoI language in the zero draft. The European Union reiterated its position that the Addis outcome should constitute the overarching MoI pillar of the post-2015 agreement, and that the current MoI language is a placeholder text until the outcome of the FfD process is agreed upon. For this reason they did not want to engage on the zero draft at the June session. 

With only one more scheduled round of negotiations left on 20-31 July, there is urgency in having a completed outcome document by 31 July. The co-facilitators of the process, Ambassadors Macharia Kamau (Kenya) and David Donoghue (Ireland), in their closing remarks in the June session noted that there was not much consensus on the zero draft, but both expressed their confidence that the differences could be resolved and that an agreeable outcome will be ready on 31 July.

A new version of the zero draft will be ready in the next couple of weeks.

Below are highlights of selected country and group statements.

Integral part

South Africa, on behalf of the G77 and China, said that MoI constitute an integral part of the agenda. This agenda will not be realizable without MoI. South Africa welcomed the inclusion of the MoI targets and said that the outcome of the conference in Addis should not replace the MoI from the report of the SDGs Open Working Group but should be complementary. It cautioned against preempting the outcome of the conference. The MoI should not be seen as a mere placeholder and cannot be a reverse of what has been achieved, particularly Goal 17 (of the SDGs), said South Africa. It added that the language on partnerships should be about the global partnership. (The G77 has been emphasizing that the global partnership for development is about state responsibility and thus intergovernmental partnership is primary, while developed countries actively promote public-private partnerships, seen by many as a dilution of state responsibility.)

On the Technology Facilitation Mechanism paper, the G77 said that this should be an annex included in the text, as it is a relevant input for the negotiations. The Group said that the negotiations on this mechanism took place in the FfD negotiations and only minor editing is needed to take the agreement in Addis on this. It added that member states should consider the establishment of the technology mechanism for technology transfer for the developing world as a key element of MoI.

Algeria, on behalf of the Arab States, noted that the MoI section is the most important part of the post-2015 agenda. Lacking effective MoI, developing countries will not be able to achieve the wish for development and therefore the post-2015 agenda, it said, adding that the Addis Accord should be complementary to the agenda and not substitute it. It is too early to welcome the Addis outcome because the negotiations are ongoing, said Algeria, which also called on developed countries to increase official development assistance and fulfil their current commitments on ODA.

Benin, on behalf of the Least Developed Countries (LDC), agreed on a new deal in the area of FfD. The Addis outcome will be an important complement of Goal 17. Goal 17 does not contain a package of MoI that can transform the agenda. Benin noted that it has participated in the FfD process and hoped that a document will be produced that will lead the implementation of the SDGs. A critical review on FfD will be needed and if there is a substantial mismatch with the Addis document, then there will be a need to come back to Goal 17 to make it ambitious. The international community needs to go beyond the approach of reiterating unmet commitments. There need to be actions and genuine partnership for LDCs.

Benin outlined several key points for the LDCs as follows:

1.  A global consensus on specific measures and 0.25% of gross national income (GNI) as ODA to LDCs to be used in a catalytic way for national resource mobilization; ensure aid for trade, cancellation of debt and a debt moratorium; duty-free, quota-free market access for LDCs in accordance with the Bali package for LDCs; 1% of ODA for a technology bank established in accordance with the Istanbul Programme of Action.

2.  Specific initiatives and mechanism to build LDC capacity for development; investment in infrastructure for LDCs and the operationalization of a technology bank for LDCs by 2017 and crisis mitigation and resilience building for LDCs; tailormade and targeted support for LDCs; enhancing participation of LDCs in norm-setting bodies; eradication of poverty and achieving prosperity in LDCs as a public good.

The Maldives, on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), stressed maintaining MoI as an integral part of the agenda. It welcomed the inclusion of Goal 17 in its entirety in the zero draft. It further said that it recognized the linkages between the post-2015 and FfD processes but that these are separate in scope, and the FfD process will complement but not supplement the post-2015 track.

China observed that MoI are an important part of the post-2015 agenda and whether this agenda will be ambitious enough depends on the MoI part. The MoI, as outlined in the SDGs, are part of the report and therefore not a placeholder, it said. Relations between FfD and post-2015 MoI goals and targets are the basis of the post-2015 agenda and the FfD outcome will be complementary and a contribution to the agenda, China also said.

In the text there is no language that speaks to the global partnership and this should be based on Millennium Development Goal 8 with North-South cooperation as the basis and South-South cooperation as complementary, China added further. It also said the follow-up and review of MoI is equally important so language on this is needed to make sure that this will also be delivered.

China also spoke about the importance of the CBDR principle in the agenda. It underlined the need to reaffirm this principle that has been agreed on by many processes and said that it should not be something for debate anymore.

Policy framework

Brazil emphasized that the MoI are an integral part of the SDGs and a requirement for their achievement. It said the Addis Accord complements Goal 17 and the MoI specific targets, providing the policy framework for the goal and the targets contained in the SDGs Open Working Group’s proposal. Brazil also said the Addis Accord should be integrated into the post-2015 agenda in its entirety as an addendum to Goal 17 and the MoI specific targets.

It further said that the global partnership constitutes a cross-cutting aspect of the post-2015 agenda, and Goal 17 and the MoI specific targets will be monitored on the basis of global indicative indicators to be developed by the Inter-Agency Expert Group on SDGs. Brazil recalled that the mandate of the High-Level Political Forum (HLPF), as established in the Rio+20 summit and UN General Assembly Resolution 67/290, includes monitoring the MoI of the new agenda.

The FfD outcome document is supposed to articulate a narrative and set out a global policy framework to achieve the SDGs, it said, adding that the follow-up and review section of the post-2015 agenda should clearly reflect the integration of the follow-up and review of FfD into the overall arrangement under the HLPF.

Brazil stressed that the global partnership underpins the endeavour; while the Addis outcome may provide the framework, it does not exhaust all the tools and mechanisms to implement, monitor and review the revitalized partnership.

It noted that the current FfD draft has a number of shortfalls and limitations, pointing to the question of the upgrade of the tax committee to an intergovernmental body as a case in point. It also said that arrangements for FfD follow-up and review still seem insufficient to meet the needs of the post-2015 agenda. The Technology Facilitation Mechanism, on the other hand, is a positive development, said Brazil.

On the CBDR principle, it said that this has been one of the foundations of the international sustainable development agenda since 1992; the principle will also be key in the discussions for the post-2015 development agenda, as indicated in the outcome document of the Special Event on the Millennium Development Goals and the proposal of the Open Working Group on SDGs. Developed countries still question the validity of the principle on the basis that it does not reflect the changes of the last 20 years – an argument, said Brazil, that is not applied in other UN fora such as the Security Council, to say nothing of the international financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank.

It stressed that CBDR will still provide the conceptual basis for the global partnership for sustainable development beyond 2015, balancing needs and responsibilities according to historical responsibilities and respective capabilities of developed and developing countries. Brazil said the principle embodies the premise that justice should be a compulsory part of the international sustainable development agenda.

Differentiation serves the purpose of “substantive equality” at the international level, questioning the formal argument of equality between different state parties in international agreements, it said further. Many international agreements, including trade-related ones, embody differentiation in their provisions even though the principle of CBDR is not spelled out. In many cases, according to Brazil, differentiation is used to address special needs of “countries prone to natural disasters” (as in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change), or “African country parties, in light of the particular situation prevailing in that region” (UN Convention to Combat Desertification). In other cases, such as in the multilateral trading system, differentiation takes the shape of the principle of “less than full reciprocity” and, more broadly, the provisions on “special and differential treatment” for developing countries contained in practically all the agreements of the World Trade Organization. 

Brazil then provided a reference to the legal definition of equality: treating differently those that are differently situated or in different circumstances, and treating equally those that are similarly situated or that are in like circumstances.

India welcomed the placement of the MoI targets of SDGs including Goal 17 in the MoI section and emphasized that these targets belong in the current document and not merely as a placeholder. The targets will form the core of this section going forward, it said, adding that it expects the FfD outcome to supplement and add to these targets.

India said that the draft FfD outcome document speaks of “interlinkages” between the MoI and the FfD outcome, which is a helpful way to frame this relationship, rather than saying that one is the pillar of another or will replace it.

It also said this section will eventually be comprised of the SDG MoI targets together with the FfD outcome, and also the decision on the Technology Facilitation Mechanism.

India expressed flexibility regarding how to integrate the FfD outcome into the post-2015 outcome document. It said that integrating the full Addis outcome may make this document overly cumbersome, while renegotiating the FfD outcome into a “lite version” would also be difficult. “We could therefore simply refer to the Addis Ababa outcome in the form of a single paragraph, which also speaks to its interlinkages with the SDG MoI component,” India said, adding that the full Addis document can then be annexed to the post-2015 outcome document. This would also preserve its interlinked but independent status as a document agreed to by ministers, according to India.

Cuba said the Addis conference is one of the MoI, and therefore it cannot substitute but only complement, adding that the current FfD document is not enough for all the targets in the agenda.

(Other MoI for sustainable development include technology transfer to, and capacity building of, developing countries.)

Cuba also said it is clear that the MoI need to be proportionate to the ambition and commitments that countries, particularly developing countries, are undertaking. There has to be a balance between the commitments and the MoI to achieve them, it said, adding that FfD and Goal 17 as in the draft are not enough to satisfy this criterion. With a few exceptions, the majority of the MoI are a political declaration of good intentions but today they have not become a reality, stressed Cuba, which underscored the need to consider the lessons of the Millennium Development Goals. To think that developing countries will be able to achieve 17 goals and 168 indicators (in the SDGs) is a utopian dream without the resources to pursue this.

Pakistan said that this is a highly ambitious and transformative agenda, and an ambitious FfD outcome will be very important, stressing that both processes are important but separate and the FfD outcome cannot replace current MoI but only complement it. The new framework will transform the new global partnership and not only ODA, said Pakistan.

It also said that climate financing is being counted as ODA and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change says that it needs to be new and additional. Pakistan also noted the importance of maintaining CBDR as an important principle.

Overarching pillar

The European Union said its position is that the Addis outcome should constitute the overarching MoI pillar of the post-2015 agreement. In this context the zero draft language is really a placeholder text, as clearly indicated in a footnote, it said, adding that it did not intend to engage on the text at this stage.

The EU emphasized that in order to secure a high level of ambition, the best possible outcome in Addis should be secured and then fully integrated into the post-2015 agenda. This is the best way to ensure that the agenda is effectively supported and implemented across the board without unnecessary duplication or inconsistency, it said. The EU further noted that integration is a precondition for maximum effectiveness, efficiency and impact.

It argued that “Addis is fully capable of being the MoI pillar” for the post-2015 agenda, and that “Monterrey and Doha [the two FfD conferences prior to Addis] have left us an excellent legacy. We need to build on their comprehensive approach by recognizing changes underway in the world.” The EU also said that Addis, framed in terms of a balanced approach to the three pillars of sustainable development with financial and non-financial means of implementation, and with a multistakeholder approach, is broad enough to support the effective implementation of the post-2015 agenda.

The EU said a single, robust monitoring, accountability and review framework would lead to much stronger implementation and follow-up for both post-Addis and post-2015, leading to better outcomes for all.

Japan stated that MoI and the global partnership in the zero draft is a placeholder right now and member states should wait for the FfD outcome, adding that FfD supports the implementation of the post-2015 agenda.  It said that it is important to endorse the outcome document of FfD in its entirety in this section of the post-2015 outcome document, suggesting a simple chapeau for this endorsement. It added that the FfD outcome should not be reopened in the post-2015 agenda.

Japan said there should be paragraphs for the Technology Facilitation Mechanism, and also proposed deleting the MoI section in the SDGs to avoid duplication with FfD.

The United Kingdom restated its view that the section on MoI is a placeholder and that the Addis outcome plus the MoI agreed in the SDGs Open Working Group together constitute the MoI for the post-2015 development agenda. It recalled that “the rationale put forward for holding the Addis conference … prior to the SDG summit in the first place was to agree on a finance and policy package to support delivery of the SDGs … therefore … the outcome from Addis should be incorporated into Section 3 [on MoI]”.

The UK noted that the text currently in Section 3 includes the Open Working Group’s MoI targets, including goal-by-goal MoI. It could see how this gives the MoI greater visibility and could therefore result in greater prominence and traction, and invited the co-facilitators to “presentationally … consider how to avoid duplication across the sections in the final version of the document.”

Joining other developed countries in promoting a wider notion of MoI, the UK said that “to be truly transformational, they must cover financial and non-financial policies and actions at domestic and international levels by all stakeholders, including public and private, government and non-governmental actors.”

 (Developing countries and many civil society groups are concerned that a broad approach to MoI would dilute or even negate the long-established MoI commitments of developed countries to provide finance, technology and capacity building to achieve sustainable development.)

The Netherlands observed that it is necessary that a strong package of MoI actions come out of the Addis track, to strengthen and build on the MoI that were agreed in the SDGs Open Working Group. It also provided a few comments on Section III of the zero draft on monitoring and accountability and review.

On accountability, it said the “what” is progress on the development outcomes that have been defined through goals and targets, and the “how”, the means, financial and non-financial resources and policy actions enabling such progress. The monitoring and accountability framework is where the “what” and the “how” come together, with the goals and targets providing a benchmark in terms of outcomes for the inputs needed. It referred to some existing monitoring mechanisms in the UN and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and highlighted that the OECD Guidelines on Multinational Enterprises for private sector accountability “could helpfully be linked to the SDGs”.

The United States spoke on mobilizing and galvanizing action for resources with a focus on domestic resource mobilization, referring to the private sector, civil society and academia, among others. It noted that the current chapters are placeholders and that it was premature to come to a conclusion of the Addis conference and therefore it looked forward to the discussion on MoI after the Addis conference.                                            

Third World Economics, Issue No. 596, 1-15 July 2015, pp5-7, 10