Earth Negotiations Bulletin
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
A Reporting Service for Environment and Development Negotiations
Download PDF version
French version
Back to IISD coverage
Volume 32 Number 13 - Tuesday, 22 July 2014
SUMMARY OF THE THIRTEENTH SESSION OF THE UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY OPEN WORKING GROUP ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS
14-19 JULY 2014

The thirteenth and final session of the UN General Assembly Open Working Group (OWG) on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) took place from 14-19 July 2014, at UN Headquarters in New York. Macharia Kamau, Permanent Representative of Kenya, and Csaba Kőrösi, Permanent Representative of Hungary, continued in their roles as Co-Chairs of the OWG, which was mandated by the UN General Assembly (UNGA) to develop a proposal for a set of sustainable development goals to present to the UNGA, as called for by the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20).

On 19 July 2014, the OWG completed its mandate following three complete readings of drafts of the proposed SDGs and associated targets. The multiple readings took place during “informal-informal” consultations three days prior to OWG-13, from 9-11 July, and during informal sessions of OWG-13 over the course of the five-day meeting. On Saturday, 19 July 2014, following an all-night session, the final formal session of OWG-13 convened at 10:30 am to adopt the “Proposal of the Open Working Group for Sustainable Development Goals.” At 1:20 pm, after nearly three hours of statements—both in support of and opposed to the final document—the OWG adopted the document by acclamation, with a standing ovation for the Co-Chairs.

While most delegations and observers were not completely satisfied with the final proposal containing 17 goals and 169 targets (including 62 targets on means of implementation), it was generally acknowledged that the proposal represented the best outcome that could be hoped for, based on the Group’s 16 months of work. But even as exhausted delegates and stakeholders left UN Headquarters on Saturday afternoon, many were already looking ahead to the next steps in the process. The OWG’s proposal on SDGs will now be submitted to the UNGA for consideration as part of the broader post-2015 development agenda that is to be adopted in late 2015. Many delegates and the Co-Chairs clearly indicated that there was still another year’s worth of negotiations before the proposed SDGs are adopted by the UNGA along with the rest of the development agenda that will supplant the Millennium Development Goals.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE OWG

During the UN Conference on Sustainable Development held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in June 2012, governments agreed to launch a process to develop a set of SDGs. They called for establishing an OWG that is transparent and open to stakeholders, and comprised of 30 representatives from the five UN regional groups, nominated by UN Member States, to elaborate a proposal for SDGs. They also called on the OWG to submit a report to the 68th session of the Assembly, containing a proposal for SDGs for consideration and appropriate action.

The Rio+20 outcome document outlines, inter alia:

•  the importance of remaining firmly committed to the full and timely achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and of respecting all Rio Principles, taking into account different national circumstances, capacities and priorities;

•  the SDGs should be action-oriented, concise and easy to communicate, limited in number, aspirational, global in nature and universally applicable to all countries, and focused on priority areas for the achievement of sustainable development;

•  the need to ensure coordination and coherence with the processes considering the post-2015 development agenda, and to receive initial input to the OWG’s work from the UN Secretary-General in consultation with national governments;

•  the need to assess progress towards the achievement of the goals, accompanied by targets and indicators, while taking into account different national circumstances, capacities and levels of development; and

•  the importance of global, integrated and scientifically-based information on sustainable development and of supporting regional economic commissions in collecting and compiling national inputs to inform this global effort.

The UNGA endorsed the outcome document, titled The Future We Want, in resolution 66/288 on 30 November 2012.

UNGA DECISION ESTABLISHING THE OWG (67/555): On 22 January 2013, the UNGA adopted a decision establishing the membership of the OWG as allocated to the five UN regional groups. According to the annex to the decision, six seats are held by single countries: Benin, Congo, Ghana, Hungary, Kenya and Tanzania. Nine seats are held by pairs of countries, as follows: Bahamas/Barbados; Belarus/Serbia; Brazil/Nicaragua; Bulgaria/Croatia; Colombia/Guatemala; Mexico/Peru; Montenegro/Slovenia; Poland/Romania; and Zambia/Zimbabwe. Fourteen seats are held by trios of countries, as follows: Argentina/Bolivia/Ecuador; Australia/Netherlands/UK; Bangladesh/Republic of Korea/Saudi Arabia; Bhutan/Thailand/Viet Nam; Canada/Israel/US; Denmark/Ireland/Norway; France/Germany/Switzerland; Italy/Spain/Turkey; China/Indonesia/Kazakhstan; Cyprus/Singapore/United Arab Emirates; Guyana/Haiti/Trinidad and Tobago; India/Pakistan/Sri Lanka; Iran/Japan/Nepal; and Nauru/Palau/Papua New Guinea. One seat is shared by four countries: Algeria/Egypt/Morocco/Tunisia.

UNGA SPECIAL EVENT TOWARDS ACHIEVING THE MDGS: The Special Event took place on 25 September 2013, at UN Headquarters in New York. The Outcome Document of the event determined that the work of the OWG will feed into international negotiations on the post-2015 development agenda, beginning in September 2014, and that a Global Summit will be held in September 2015 to adopt a new UN development agenda.

FIRST EIGHT SESSIONS OF THE OWG: The OWG held its first eight meetings, also referred to as the “input” or “stocktaking” phase, between March 2013 and February 2014 at UN Headquarters in New York. During the first meeting (14-15 March 2013), participants shared their initial views on both the process and substance of the SDG framework. During the second meeting (17-19 April 2013), delegates focused on the overarching framework of poverty eradication and sustainable development, and issues including: governance; gender equality and women’s empowerment; human rights and rights-based approaches; and means of implementation. Delegates at OWG-2 also discussed the Programme of Work for 2013-2014, and the subsequent six OWG sessions focused on the issue clusters that were identified in this document.

The issue clusters for which the OWG conducted a “stocktaking” review were as follows:

•  OWG-3 (22-24 May 2013): food security and nutrition, sustainable agriculture, desertification, land degradation and drought, and water and sanitation;

•  OWG-4 (17-19 June 2013): employment and decent work for all, social protection, youth, education and culture, and health and population dynamics;

•  OWG-5 (25-27 November 2013): sustained and inclusive economic growth, macroeconomic policy questions (including international trade, international financial system and external debt sustainability), infrastructure development and industrialization, and energy;

•  OWG-6 (9-13 December 2013): means of implementation (science and technology, knowledge-sharing and capacity building), global partnership for achieving sustainable development, needs of countries in special situations, African countries, least developed countries (LDCs), landlocked developing countries (LLDCs), and small island developing states (SIDS) as well as specific challenges facing middle-income countries, and human rights, the right to development, and global governance;

•  OWG-7 (6-10 January 2014): sustainable cities and human settlements, sustainable transport, sustainable consumption and production (including chemicals and wastes), and climate change and disaster risk reduction; and

•  OWG-8 (3-7 February 2014): oceans and seas, forests, biodiversity, promoting equality, including social equity, gender equality and women’s empowerment, and conflict prevention, post-conflict peacebuilding and the promotion of durable peace, rule of law and governance.

OWG 9 AND 10: Based on the first eight sessions of the OWG, the Co-Chairs released a “stocktaking” document on 14 February 2014, reviewing the discussions to date, and a “focus areas” document on 21 February 2014, outlining the following 19 focus areas as the basis for discussions at OWG-9 (3-5 March 2014): poverty eradication; food security and nutrition; health and population dynamics; education; gender equality and women’s empowerment; water and sanitation; energy; economic growth; industrialization; infrastructure; employment and decent work for all; promoting equality; sustainable cities and human settlements; sustainable consumption and production; climate; marine resources, oceans and seas; ecosystems and biodiversity; means of implementation; and peaceful and non-violent societies, and capable institutions.

Following OWG-9, the Co-Chairs released a revised focus areas document for consideration at OWG-10 (31 March-4 May 2014). OWG-10 featured the first extended discussion of possible targets to accompany each focus area, with over 300 targets presented by Member States and Major Groups.

Based on the OWG-10 discussions, the Co-Chairs released a further revision, which they called a “working document,” on 18 April, to guide delegates’ preparation for OWG-11. The Co-Chairs also prepared a document they titled “Encyclopedia Groupinica,” which contains all of the proposals presented during OWG-10. 

OWG 11: At OWG-11 (5-9 May 2014), delegates commented on a list of 16 “focus areas” and approximately 150 potential targets related to each focus area, contained in the working document. Following the discussion of focus areas related to the “unfinished business in the MDGs”—poverty eradication, food security, education, health, gender, and water—Co-Chair Kőrösi noted general agreement that these concepts should be included as goals in the new framework. The discussion on “newer” issues, such as climate change, ecosystems, oceans, sustainable consumption and production, energy, industrialization, infrastructure, economic growth and employment, human settlements, means of implementation, peaceful societies, and rule of law, revealed that governments had not yet settled whether and how to include such focus areas in the framework. At the close of OWG-11, Co-Chair Kamau said the next draft of the working document would include an additional focus area—equality—and would contain many more draft targets. He said “informal-informals” would convene the week before each of the two remaining OWG sessions, and delegates should be prepared to discuss the working document target by target. The new document, considered the “zero draft” of the goals and targets, was issued on 2 June, containing 17 proposed goals and 212 targets.

INFORMAL CONSULTATIONS: The Co-Chairs convened “informal-informal” consultations on 9-11 June 2014, at UN Headquarters in New York. Discussions focused on the zero draft of 2 June, and addressed the first six goals and their associated targets, as well as proposals for reducing the number of goals overall.

OWG-12: OWG-12 (16-20 June 2014), represented the first OWG meeting during which delegates worked primarily in informal sessions based on the 2 June zero draft of the SDGs. Following opening remarks during a formal session on Monday morning, delegates considered proposed goals 7-17 in informal sessions during day and evening sessions from Monday through Friday. At the end of the week, the Co-Chairs announced that there would be a revised zero draft issued on 30 June.

INFORMAL CONSULTATIONS: The Co-Chairs convened “informal-informal” consultations on 9-11 July 2014, at UN Headquarters in New York. These discussions focused on the revised zero draft of 30 June and delegates addressed the first 11 goals and associated targets during their three days of work. These discussions are incorporated in the write-ups of these goals in the OWG-13 report below.

OWG-13 REPORT

Co-Chair Macharia Kamau opened the thirteenth session of the OWG at 9:15 am, on Monday, 14 July. The Group continued to convene at 9:00 am most mornings and worked late each night during the week-long session.

Bolivia, for the Group of 77 and China (G-77/China), reiterated the developing countries’ support for the OWG and their commitment to achieving a successful outcome by Friday. He said that the process had lived up to its mandate of openness and transparency, such as through national consultations, scientific and technical input, and expertise provide by NGOs and the UN system, while webcasting formal meetings and making statements available online. The OWG had fulfilled the ambitious mandate set by Rio+20, he said, and faced the “unprecedented challenge of moving toward a global sustainable development agenda that integrates the three dimensions of sustainable development and allows for differentiation among developed and developing countries.” He added that the OWG had successfully taken into account the unfinished business of the MDGs and strengthened their economic and environmental dimensions, while focusing on priority areas for sustainable development.

The G-77/China also stressed that: means of implementation (MOI) are indispensable elements of the SDG framework; its member governments are committed to integrating the SDGs into the post-2015 development agenda in the course of intergovernmental negotiations starting at the 69th session of the UNGA; and the OWG’s outcome should be “reflected in its entirety” in the synthesis report of the UN Secretary-General.

Libya, for the African Group, stressed the importance of MOI in the final document, noting that no goal will be achieved without them. He reiterated the need to take into account principles of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) and different realities, capacities and levels of development.

The European Union (EU) stressed the need to maintain the principles of universality and balance among the three dimensions of sustainable development.

Brazil expressed the need for an in-depth “stress test” for the OWG’s outcomes, as he said there is concern from capitals with regard to the precision of language and how the targets correlate with obligations established in existing treaties, especially on oceans, fisheries, biodiversity and forests.

Argentina, also for Bolivia and Ecuador, stressed the need to move towards a “good report” that can be taken forward to the UNGA and not changed later, because it reflects agreement among Member States.

Saudi Arabia asked the Co-Chairs about their intended process for finalizing the text.

China, also for Indonesia and Kazakhstan, expressed satisfaction with the process and said the revised zero draft is balanced. However, she noted, there are certain issues that need to be further addressed, including Goal 13 (climate change), Goal 16 (peaceful and inclusive societies, access to justice for all, and effective and capable institutions), Goal 17 (the global partnership) and the fact that the report should not prejudge the outcome of the Intergovernmental Committee of Experts on Sustainable Development Financing (ICESDF).

Iran noted that countries have spent a lot of energy, human resources and financing on the OWG’s negotiations and, by the end of the week, the OWG needs a tangible, concrete report that will not be reopened by another process.

Benin, for the LDCs, called for ambitious goals and realistic targets, and stressed that the most vulnerable should not be let down.

Co-Chair Kamau said the OWG is at the end of a long and arduous journey that has not been easy, but has been exhilarating. He explained that the working methodology chosen by the Co-Chairs means that it will be almost impossible to reach a level of precision that will satisfy all countries, but he reminded delegates that the OWG’s product is not legally binding—it is a framework for development around which the international community will mobilize its collective efforts. He said the Co-Chairs do not expect governments to renegotiate any formal agreements or treaties as a result of the SDGs, and emphasized that the goals and targets are supposed to give a guiding light to multilateral organizations and countries as they work towards achieving sustainable development. He reminded civil society that the Co-Chairs have gone to great lengths to accommodate them in this process and recalled that this is not a multi-stakeholder process but an intergovernmental process, and that civil society must “respect the sanctity of this room.”

Co-Chair Kőrösi urged delegates to ensure that the SDGs and targets are understandable to everyone, cautioning that if the OWG doesn’t make the SDGs understandable, someone else will do so. He thanked civil society for their contributions, and urged them to make sure trust and cooperation remains through the September 2015 summit.

Co-Chair Kamau explained that during “informal-informal” consultations from 9-11 July, the OWG completed discussions on Goals 1-11, and he proposed shifting to an informal session and beginning with Goal 12. He adjourned the formal meeting at 10:15 am.

INFORMAL DISCUSSIONS ON THE REVISED ZERO DRAFT

On Monday morning, following the formal session, delegates began their informal discussions with Goal 12 in the revised zero draft text that was distributed on 30 June. By the end of the evening, the OWG had completed its first reading of Goals 12-15. On Tuesday morning, the Co-Chairs heard additional comments on Goal 15, before moving on to Goals 16 and 17.

On Wednesday morning, delegates reviewed a revised proposal for the 17 goal headings. Afterwards, the Co-Chairs took delegates through a second reading of the first eight goals, based on text revised following the informal-informal consultations held the previous week.

On Thursday morning, Co-Chair Kamau announced that the OWG must finish discussing all remaining goals on Thursday so that the goals could be concluded on Friday, with another full read-through of a new draft. He also announced that parallel consultations would take place throughout the day on four “difficult” issues: Goal 16 (peaceful and inclusive societies, access to justice for all, and effective and capable institutions); Goal 6’s reference to transboundary water management; Goal 7’s reference to inefficient fossil fuel subsidies; and references to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights in Goals 3 and 5. During Thursday, the Co-Chairs took the OWG through a second reading of goals 8-17, based on text revised following the informal-informal consultations held from 9-11 July and discussions in OWG-13 on Monday and Tuesday. The contact group on Goal 16 met late into the night on Thursday, but was unable to achieve consensus. The contact group on sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights also did not reach consensus.

On Friday, delegates began the day with a discussion of Goal 16. After a lengthy exchange, the contact group was asked to continue working on this goal. The contact group met throughout the day, but did not achieve consensus, so the goal returned to the plenary on Friday evening. The OWG undertook a third reading of the proposed SDGs and their targets from Goal 1 through Goal 17, as well as the Chapeau, in a session that lasted from noon Friday until 3:45 am on Saturday. The meeting was then suspended for the Co-Chairs and Secretariat to revise and edit the document so it could be presented for adoption by the Group. A formal session of the OWG convened at 10:30 am on Saturday to consider and adopt the final document.

Editor’s Note: Since these discussions took place in an informal session, the statements are not attributed to delegations. The text of the goals and targets are taken verbatim from the document adopted on 19 July.

PROPOSAL OF THE OPEN WORKING GROUP FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS: Chapeau. The OWG discussed the introductory chapeau during the “informal-informals” on 9 July and did not return to it until 2:30 am on Saturday, 19 July. Many delegates called for retaining or restoring language from The Future We Want throughout the discussion. Some said the draft was too long, and one proposed using only the final paragraph.

On the title (Introduction and Proposed Goals and Targets on Sustainable Development for the post-2015 Development Agenda), one speaker proposed calling it the introduction to the report of the OWG, noting it is not a political declaration, and the OWG does not have a mandate to propose anything for the post-2015 development agenda.

On paragraph 2, one delegation objected to beginning with “we recognize that…” and preferred to begin with “Poverty eradication is the greatest global challenge….” He noted that, since the OWG’s report is not a political declaration, such language should be removed from the beginning of all paragraphs.

On paragraph 4, several speakers wished to add future generations and youth as among the beneficiaries of governments’ sustainable development commitments. One suggested wording on benefiting everyone “without distinction of any kind, such as age, sex, disability, culture, race, ethnicity, origin, religion, economic or other status.”

On paragraph 6, some wanted to specifically reference The Future We Want as the outcome document of the UN Conference on Sustainable Development, and to reaffirm it. Numerous governments objected to a proposal to recall commitments to the review conferences of the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) and Beijing action plans. A few governments said the ICESDF and the substantive outcome of the third International Conference on Financing for Development in July 2015 (FfD) should not be referenced, since neither had concluded its work. Finally, one suggested including reference to the recently concluded draft of the outcome document for the Third UN Conference on SIDS, but it was noted this had not yet been adopted.

On paragraph 7, some wished to refer to the rights to water and sanitation.

On paragraph 8, the alternative language on climate change proposed by one group was supported, with calls to refer to CBDR. One objected to referring to CBDR in relation to climate change, noting that it was mentioned in the context of the Rio+20 outcome. It was noted that the proposed language is part of a package of agreements, including Goal 13 on climate change.

On paragraph 9, one speaker requested using Rio+20 language on “Mother Earth.” On paragraph 11, some called to highlight the need for people, governments, civil society and the private sector to work together. On paragraph 12, one proposed giving greater prominence to the FfD conference, in keeping with its universal nature, over the ICESDF.

On paragraph 14, while some governments called for references to “mutual accountability” in the implementation and review of the SDGs, others expressed discomfort with this language and insisted on consistency with Rio+20. Speakers differed on where to note the implementation role of the UN system. In addition, several governments wished to separate the references to governments from civil society, the private sector, and people, so as to indicate governments’ higher “footing.”

On paragraph 15, one speaker suggested incorporating previously agreed language on the realization of the right of self-determination of peoples living under colonial and foreign occupation.

New paragraphs were proposed on the following issues: mandate of the OWG from Rio+20; review mechanism for the SDGs; individual tools, approaches and visions of each country; targets should be met by all income and social groups; and improving the quality, coverage and availability of disaggregated data “to ensure that no one is left behind.”

Final Text: The final text of the chapeau has 18 paragraphs and can be found at HTTP://SUSTAINABLEDEVELOPMENT.UN.ORG/FOCUSSDGS.HTML

Proposed goal 1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere. Most delegates agreed that poverty eradication was at the center of the SDGs. Many delegations wanted to ensure that the multidimensional nature of poverty is reflected through use of “all its forms” in the title of this goal.

Initially, in the revised zero draft, target 1.1 (extreme poverty) was limited to reducing the number of people living in extreme poverty in low income countries. However, many argued that “low income countries” wasn’t agreed language and that the target had to be more universal, so they agreed to change this target to eradicating extreme poverty for all people everywhere.

On target 1.2 (reducing poverty), there were questions on how much to reduce the proportion of people living in poverty. Some delegations also preferred to include a gender perspective in this target by including references to “both men and women.” Another delegation later wanted to include “children.” Eventually, the OWG decided that the target should call for reducing “at least by half” the proportion of men, women and children living in poverty. Others wanted to ensure the multidimensional nature of poverty was also reflected in this target.

Some were initially concerned that target 1.3 (social protection systems and measures) was not quantifiable. Others wanted to ensure that social protection systems and measures would cover the poor and the most vulnerable or those in vulnerable situations.

Target 1.4 (equal rights to economic resources) was the most difficult target to resolve under this goal, largely because of references in the zero draft to the right to own land and property. Delegations were divided over this concept, with some arguing that property ownership was essential to ending poverty. Others called for ensuring equal “access to” rather than “rights to” such resources. One delegation called for including reference to inheritance. Several delegations said that, if the target retains the formulation with “equal rights,” they would oppose reference to inheritance. Eventually, the “right to” own land or property was removed and replaced by “control over.”

On target 1.5 (resilience), some delegations wanted to add reference to market and financial shocks, civil conflicts and pollution. Eventually, the target was streamlined to include reducing exposure and vulnerability to climate-related extreme events and other economic and environmental shocks and disasters.

Many called for moving the two MOI targets 1.a (development cooperation) and 1.b (sound policy frameworks), to Goal 17 (MOI). Others called for a new MOI target on fulfilling the commitment of 0.7% of gross national income (GNI) for official development assistance (ODA), and 0.15-0.20% of GNI for ODA for LDCs.

Final Targets:

1.1. by 2030 eradicate extreme poverty for all people everywhere, currently measured as people living on less than $1.25 a day

1.2. by 2030 reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions

1.3. implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all, including floors, and by 2030 achieve substantial coverage of the poor and the vulnerable

1.4. by 2030 ensure that all men and women, particularly the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to basic services, ownership, and control over land and other forms of property, inheritance, natural resources, appropriate new technology, and financial services including microfinance

1.5. by 2030 build the resilience of the poor and those in vulnerable situations, and reduce their exposure and vulnerability to climate-related extreme events and other economic, social and environmental shocks and disasters

1.a. ensure significant mobilization of resources from a variety of sources, including through enhanced development cooperation to provide adequate and predictable means for developing countries, in particular LDCs, to implement programmes and policies to end poverty in all its dimensions

1.b. create sound policy frameworks, at national, regional and international levels, based on pro-poor and gender-sensitive development strategies, to support accelerated investments in poverty eradication actions

Proposed goal 2. End hunger, achieve food security and adequate nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture. In the three readings on this goal, delegations paid particular attention to food security, food loss and waste, aspects of malnutrition, types of smallholders, and sustainability in increasing agricultural productivity. Food security was not part of the goal title in the revised zero draft when informal-informal consultations began, and numerous governments called for its reinstatement. On food loss and waste, despite many calls for a target under Goal 2, it became a target in Goal 12 (Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns) in the final outcome.

On target 2.1 (hunger), there was very little debate, with the exception of whether to refer to “vulnerable people” or “people in vulnerable situations.”

On target 2.2 (malnutrition), governments expressed interest in listing types of malnutrition, such as “obesity and overweight,” and highlighting the importance of breastfeeding. They also, in the listing of people whose nutritional needs should receive particular attention, considered including women, adolescent girls, older persons, and women of reproductive age.

On target 2.3 (smallholders), delegations insisted on including fishers, foresters and youth. The issue of agricultural productivity was also subject to much discussion in target 2.3 and target 2.4 (food production systems and resilient practices). Speakers called to specify that such increase must be achieved in a sustainable way.

Target 2.5 (genetic diversity) was discussed throughout the week, with some calling to delete references to it and others emphasizing its importance. One government urged that the text “promote” instead of “ensure” the desired outcome (access to and fair and equitable sharing of benefits).

Many called to move the MOI targets to Goal 17, and said some aspects should be left to World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations (target 2.b). With regard to this target, governments also debated language on export subsidies, domestic support and market access. One delegation cautioned against preempting discussions in the FfD process. Speakers objected to a reference to “net food importer countries,” preferring to focus on developing countries (target 2.a).

Final Targets:

2.1. by 2030 end hunger and ensure access by all people, in particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations including infants, to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round

2.2. by 2030 end all forms of malnutrition, including achieving by 2025 the internationally agreed targets on stunting and wasting in children under five years of age, and address the nutritional needs of adolescent girls, pregnant and lactating women, and older persons

2.3. by 2030 double the agricultural productivity and the incomes of small-scale food producers, particularly women, indigenous peoples, family farmers, pastoralists and fishers, including through secure and equal access to land, other productive resources and inputs, knowledge, financial services, markets, and opportunities for value addition and non-farm employment

2.4 by 2030 ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices that increase productivity and production, that help maintain ecosystems, that strengthen capacity for adaptation to climate change, extreme weather, drought, flooding and other disasters, and that progressively improve land and soil quality

2.5 by 2020 maintain genetic diversity of seeds, cultivated plants, farmed and domesticated animals and their related wild species, including through soundly managed and diversified seed and plant banks at national, regional and international levels, and ensure access to and fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge as internationally agreed

2.a. increase investment, including through enhanced international cooperation, in rural infrastructure, agricultural research and extension services, technology development, and plant and livestock gene banks to enhance agricultural productive capacity in developing countries, in particular in least developed countries

2.b. correct and prevent trade restrictions and distortions in world agricultural markets, including the parallel elimination of all forms of agricultural export subsidies and all export measures with equivalent effect in accordance with the mandate of the Doha Development Round

2.c. adopt measures to ensure the proper functioning of food commodity markets and their derivatives, and facilitate timely access to market information, including on food reserves, in order to help limit extreme food price volatility

Proposed goal 3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages. Many delegates affirmed the importance of this goal for inclusion in the SDGs and the post-2015 development agenda, and stressed its importance for high-impact sustainable development.One country, on behalf of 57 others from Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, Oceania, Sub-Saharan Africa and Asia, proposed a target on universal access to sexual and reproductive health and rights for all, including information, education and services that include modern methods of contraception. Other countries opposed this proposal and argued against language perceived to be “controversial” in relation to this topic.

Discussions on target 3.1 centered on whether to address maternal mortality as a stand-alone goal, and whether to address sexual and reproductive health. On target 3.2 (end preventable deaths of newborns), one delegate noted that there is no technical consensus around the notion of “infant,” and said the target should be strengthened with numbers. Others wanted to include language that ensures that all children develop to their full potential. In target 3.3 (epidemics), delegates engaged in technical discussions on appropriate terminology related to AIDS and epidemics. The final target also called to combat hepatitis, water-borne diseases, and other communicable diseases.

Several countries proposed moving target 3.5 on substance abuse and making it an indicator, and delegates considered whether to include a reference to the harmful use of alcohol. In target 3.6 (road traffic accidents), delegates considered whether this target should aspire to “halve” or “substantially reduce” the number of deaths and injuries from road traffic accidents, with one saying this target should become an indicator. On target 3.8 (universal health coverage), countries requested technical precision on terms such as premature mortality and essential medicines, and discussed quantifying aspirations. Throughout the week, one delegate reiterated her preference for a reference to anti-microbials to help fight antibiotic resistance.

On target 3.9 (deaths and illnesses from chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination), one delegate reiterated her proposal for a separate target on air pollution, with several other countries supporting this. One country supported an amendment to address promoting indigenous healthcare practices, and reintroduced language that would serve as a new target: promote indigenous healthcare practices that also reflect cultural identities of indigenous and local communities.

Throughout the week, delegates disagreed on the wording, scope and appropriate placement of the MOI targets (3.a, 3.b, 3.c, 3.d) related to this goal. Noting the capacity-building focus of some targets related to the health workforce and management of national and global health risk, some delegates proposed placing these issues under Goal 17. Some countries called for, and others opposed, language on “health financing” on the recruitment and training of the health workforce. Delegates also disagreed on the appropriate placement and language of a target related to the research and development of, and access to, vaccines and medicines (3.b), focusing especially on language relating to the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) regarding flexibilities to protect public health. One delegate recalled the proposal made to include language that supports developing countries’ use of TRIPS flexibilities, and extensive discussions were held on the appropriate language relating to this issue, with many delegates underscoring their right to use TRIPS flexibilities. Some countries said that essential medicines were well covered in the goal and do not require addressing TRIPS.

Final Targets:

3.1 by 2030 reduce the global maternal mortality ratio to less than 70 per 100,000 live births

3.2 by 2030 end preventable deaths of newborns and under-five children

3.3 by 2030 end the epidemics of AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and neglected tropical diseases and combat hepatitis, water-borne diseases, and other communicable diseases

3.4 by 2030 reduce by one-third premature mortality from non-communicable diseases (NCDs) through prevention and treatment, and promote mental health and wellbeing

3.5 strengthen prevention and treatment of substance abuse, including narcotic drug abuse and harmful use of alcohol

3.6 by 2020 halve global deaths and injuries from road traffic accidents

3.7 by 2030 ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health care services, including for family planning, information and education, and the integration of reproductive health into national strategies and programmes

3.8 achieve universal health coverage (UHC), including financial risk protection, access to quality essential health care services, and access to safe, effective, quality, and affordable essential medicines and vaccines for all

3.9 by 2030 substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water, and soil pollution and contamination

3.a. strengthen implementation of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in all countries, as appropriate

3.b. support research and development of vaccines and medicines for the communicable and non-communicable diseases that primarily affect developing countries, provide access to affordable essential medicines and vaccines, in accordance with the Doha Declaration which affirms the right of developing countries to use to the full the provisions in the TRIPS agreement regarding flexibilities to protect public health and, in particular, provide access to medicines for all

3.c. increase substantially health financing and the recruitment, development and training and retention of the health workforce in developing countries, especially in LDCs and SIDS

3.d. strengthen the capacity of all countries, particularly developing countries, for early warning, risk reduction, and management of national and global health risks

Proposed goal 4. Provide inclusive and equitable quality education and life-long learning opportunities for all. During early discussions of this goal, delegates called for adding reference to equitable and inclusive education in the goal heading, and others called for a reference to cultural rights.

On target 4.1 (primary and secondary education for boys and girls), delegates called for language to strengthen this target, for example by adding “compulsory” and “education of at least nine years,” and others called for greater measurability. Under target 4.2 (access to early childhood development, care and pre-primary education), delegates: called for greater measurability by saying “increase access to” instead of “ensure,” and many countries proposed a new formulation for merging this target with another on technical and vocational training.

On target 4.3 (technical, vocation and tertiary education), one delegation wanted to add quantifiable targets. On target 4.5 (ensuring equal access to all levels of education and vocational training), delegates proposed adding children and youth to the list of vulnerable, persons with disabilities and indigenous peoples. One called for changing reference to indigenous peoples to indigenous and local communities, but others did not support this proposal. 

On target 4.7 (knowledge and skills to promote sustainable development), many delegations wanted to reference the contribution of culture to sustainable development. Others wanted to change a reference to “sustainable lifestyles” to “sustainable development,” but not everyone supported this point. Some wanted to delete reference to “values.” One delegation was concerned that this was too prescriptive and called for either deleting the target or changing it to “by 2030, integrate in education programmes the knowledge and skills for sustainable development.” A new target was proposed during the week on achieving universal access to comprehensive sexuality education for all young people in and out of school.

Some delegations called again for moving all MOI targets to Goal 17. There were calls to split an earlier formulation of MOI target 4.b (scholarships for developing countries) in order to have one target on increasing the number of scholarships for developing countries, in particular LDCs and SIDS, to enroll in higher education and related programmes, and a separate target for improved teacher training.

Many delegates called for the deletion of a target that was introduced into a revised draft of the goals that called for the allocation of at least x% of gross domestic product (GDP) or at least y% of public expenditure to education, prioritizing groups most in need. One delegate proposed a new MOI target: “ensure that all migrants have access to education and skill development and promote the portability of the skills.”

Final Targets:

4.1. by 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and effective learning outcomes

4.2. by 2030 ensure that all girls and boys have access to quality early childhood development, care and pre-primary education so that they are ready for primary education

4.3. by 2030 ensure equal access for all women and men to affordable quality technical, vocational and tertiary education, including university

4.4. by 2030, increase by x% the number of youth and adults who have relevant skills, including technical and vocational skills, for employment, decent jobs and entrepreneurship

4.5. by 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples, and children in vulnerable situations

4.6. by 2030 ensure that all youth and at least x% of adults, both men and women, achieve literacy and numeracy

4.7. by 2030 ensure all learners acquire knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including among others through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship, and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development

4.a. build and upgrade education facilities that are child, disability and gender sensitive and provide safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all

4.b. by 2020 expand by x% globally the number of scholarships for developing countries in particular LDCs, SIDS and African countries to enroll in higher education, including vocational training, ICT, technical, engineering and scientific programmes in developed countries and other developing countries

4.c. by 2030 increase by x% the supply of qualified teachers, including through international cooperation for teacher training in developing countries, especially LDCs and SIDS 

Proposed goal 5. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls everywhere. Governments made suggestions for the heading, such as referring to human rights, and emphasized the need to address “all women.” Some delegations stressed the need for a clear timeframe for all the targets under this goal, one delegation suggested clarifying this issue in the chapeau, while one delegation said that governments cannot weaken their commitments to other international conventions by adding a timeframe here. The final negotiations on this goal were hindered by persistent disagreement over the reference to sexual and reproductive health and rights, on which a contact group had been unable to reach a consensus.

On target 5.1 (discrimination), one delegation expressed its strong support for this target, one delegation called for including “in private and public spheres,” and one delegation proposed adding “of all ages” at the end of the goal.

On target 5.2 (violence), governments proposed: a reference to women in conflict, crisis and disasters; replacing “eliminate” with “prevent and react to;” including “and boys” after girls; and adding a reference to trafficking and exploitation.

On target 5.3 (harmful practices), speakers disagreed on the term “early marriage.” Some called to delete this, which they said is defined differently in different countries, while others stressed the importance of retaining it. The Co-Chair recalled that the chapeau to the SDGs would provide a “safeguard,” in that every target will be translated to the national context, using national laws and regulations.

On target 5.4 (unpaid domestic work), many objected to the qualifier, “as nationally appropriate,” especially in light of the “safeguard” outlined by the Co-Chair with regard to target 5.3. Several others, however, said they would not accept such a change. In addition, delegations were divided over whether to refer to “family” or “household.”

On target 5.5 (participation and leadership), a few speakers supported referencing “girls” in this target, and not only “women.” Some called to give the target greater ambition by deleting “opportunities for” leadership and by removing the precursor to “take measures to” ensure women’s participation. Others called for including the role of women in peace-building, while some objected to “equal” opportunities.

On target 5.6 (sexual and reproductive health/rights), governments faced the starkest conflict of views. Many insisted that the target refer to “sexual and reproductive health and rights,” while many others could not accept “rights.” The Co-Chairs assigned this target to a contact group, but it could not reach consensus by the time of the final discussion on the goal. As a result, the Co-Chairs proposed a formulation that included a reference to reproductive rights, but not sexual rights, and a qualifier, “in accordance with the Programme of Action of the ICPD and the Beijing Platform for Action.”

There was general support for the MOI targets, although some delegations wanted them moved to Goal 17. Target 5.a (women’s rights to economic resources) was seen by some as a substantive target rather than MOI. Many preferred “right” rather than “access” to the listed resources. However, for several delegations, the reference to inheritance would be unacceptable if framed as a right. Many governments called for including financial services in the list of economic resources to which women would have access. On target 5.b (technologies for women’s empowerment), some preferred to “ensure” rather than “promote” this empowerment. Delegations had few comments on target 5.c (policies and legislation for gender equality). One said it should refer to “all levels,” and a few said it should be a substantive target. At one point in the week, several speakers called for an MOI target on the role of boys in promoting gender equality.

Final Targets:

5.1. end all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere

5.2 eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in public and private spheres, including trafficking and sexual and other types of exploitation

5.3 eliminate all harmful practices, such as child, early and forced marriage and female genital mutilations

5.4 recognize and value unpaid care and domestic work through the provision of public services, infrastructure and social protection policies, and the promotion of shared responsibility within the household and the family as nationally appropriate

5.5 ensure women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision-making in political, economic, and public life 

5.6 ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights as agreed in accordance with the Programme of Action of the ICPD and the Beijing Platform for Action and the outcome documents of their review conferences

5.a. undertake reforms to give women equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to ownership and control over land and other forms of property, financial services, inheritance, and natural resources in accordance with national laws

5.b. enhance the use of enabling technologies, in particular ICT, to promote women’s empowerment

5.c. adopt and strengthen sound policies and enforceable legislation for the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls at all levels

Proposed goal 6. Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all. Initially, in the zero draft, the headline referred to the sustainable use of water and sanitation, which was changed to “management” in later revisions. Many countries called to reinsert the target on reducing mortality and economic losses caused by water-related disasters, including floods and drought. One delegate said that water is a human rights issue, and that he would like that addressed in the heading.

In target 6.1 (access to safe and affordable drinking water), a government wanted to refer to the human right to water, with another objecting to a rights-based approach. In target 6.2 (sanitation and hygiene), delegates called for referring to: ending  open defecation, which was later reflected in the final text, and recognizing persons in vulnerable situations, children, and persons with disabilities. Delegates suggested that targets 6.1 and 6.2 should not only refer to universal and adequate access, respectively, but also equitable access, which was reflected in the final text. In target 6.3 (improve water quality by reducing pollution), some delegates called not only for eliminating the dumping of hazardous chemicals and materials, but also minimizing release. Countries also discussed language for this target’s aspiration—specifically, whether to halve or significantly reduce the proportion of untreated wastewater.

In target 6.4 on water-use efficiency and scarcity, some delegations wanted to reference energy and agriculture as the most consuming sectors. Views also diverged on whether to call for improving water-use efficiency by a certain percent or substantially. A group of countries wanted to address the number of people suffering from water scarcity, which was later reflected in the final text, and water poverty.

An earlier formulation of target 6.5 (water resource management) addressed ecosystem protection and restoration, with some delegations wanting to reference mountains and wetlands that provide water-related service, others wanting to add forests, and one suggesting lakes and rivers. Language related to protecting and restoring water-related ecosystems was later reflected in target 6.6. Extensive discussions were also held on the issue of transboundary cooperation in target 6.5, and views diverged on whether it should be included or how it should be qualified.

On MOI target 6.b (participation of local communities for water and sanitation management), a group of countries proposed adding the following language to the end of the target: assist developing countries, in particular LDCs, LLDCs, SIDS and African countries to preserve and develop water resources, manage watersheds, and enhance water productivity, including through sub-regional and regional collaborations.

Final Targets:

6.1. by 2030, achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all

6.2. by 2030, achieve access to adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene for all, and end open defecation, paying special attention to the needs of women and girls and those in vulnerable situations

6.3. by 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials, halving the proportion of untreated wastewater, and increasing recycling and safe reuse by x% globally

6.4. by 2030 substantially increase water-use efficiency across all sectors and ensure sustainable withdrawals and supply of freshwater to address water scarcity, and substantially reduce the number of people suffering from water scarcity

6.5. by 2030 implement integrated water resources management at all levels, including through transboundary cooperation as appropriate

6.6. by 2020 protect and restore water-related ecosystems, including mountains, forests, wetlands, rivers, aquifers and lakes

6.a. by 2030, expand international cooperation and capacity-building support to developing countries in water and sanitation related activities and programmes, including water harvesting, desalination, water efficiency, wastewater treatment, recycling and reuse technologies

6.b. support and strengthen the participation of local communities for improving water and sanitation management

Proposed goal 7. Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all. In the zero draft of this goal, the heading referred only to ensuring sustainable energy for all. Many delegations called for adding reference to affordable and reliable energy to the heading, with others wanting to replace sustainable with reliable, and others wanting the leave the heading as it is.

On target 7.1 (energy access), delegates disagreed on whether the target of universal access should refer to “sustainable” energy services, “modern” energy services, or both. On target 7.2 (renewable energy), views diverged on whether to “increase substantially” or “double the rate” of renewable energy in the global energy mix. Some countries supported the first formulation because it does not “set a cap on renewables,” whereas many countries preferred the second formulation because it coheres with language used in the Sustainable Energy for All (SE4ALL) initiative and is more measurable.

On target 7.3 (energy efficiency), some delegations proposed adding specific reference to buildings, industry, and agriculture, other delegations called for adding special and differential treatment for developing countries, and some developing country delegations asked to remove “global,” stressing that national circumstances need to be fully taken into account.

Delegations also expressed divergent views on a target relating to fossil fuel consumption and production subsidies, contained in the zero draft, and a contact group was convened to work on the issue. Many delegations suggested referring to “inefficient” subsidies, some to “harmful,” and a few delegations called for deleting this target altogether.

Countries also considered, inter alia:

•  making the target more clear to address the negative environmental impact of subsidies;

•  adding a reference to the special needs and conditions of developing countries;

•  addressing energy governance and transparency;

•  adding a reference to advanced cook-stoves and biomass; and

•  addressing both consumption and production aspects of subsidies. 

Language relating to this issue was later placed under Goal 12 on sustainable consumption and production patterns.

Under MOI target 7.a (cooperation to facilitate clean energy research and technologies), some countries wanted to delete a reference to “advanced and cleaner fossil fuel technologies,” arguing that fossil fuel technologies are neither advanced nor clean. Another opposed deleting language on fossil fuel technologies, noting that it is formulated the same way in the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation and The Future We Want. Some countries said the MOI target was better placed under Goal 17.

Under both MOI targets 7.a and 7.b (infrastructure and technology for energy services in developing countries), a number of concerns were expressed with regard to terminology, including the terms: modern energy services, sustainable energy services, sustainable energy infrastructure, clean energy technologies, and renewable energy technologies. One country proposed including a reference on providing support to developing countries for infrastructure development for sustainable energy, in particular LDCs. Some countries proposed moving this language to Goal 17. Many developing countries called for adding a timeframe for MOI, while one delegation underlined the need to generally decide how to treat subsidies overall—as MOI or targets.

Final Targets:

7.1 by 2030 ensure universal access to affordable, reliable, and modern energy services

7.2 increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix by 2030

7.3 double the global rate of improvement in energy efficiency by 2030

7.a by 2030 enhance international cooperation to facilitate access to clean energy research and technologies, including renewable energy, energy efficiency, and advanced and cleaner fossil fuel technologies, and promote investment in energy infrastructure and clean energy technologies

7.b by 2030 expand infrastructure and upgrade technology for supplying modern and sustainable energy services for all in developing countries, particularly LDCs and SIDS

Proposed goal 8. Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all. During the discussion of the goal heading, there were calls for “sustained” economic growth versus “sustainable” economic growth. In the end they went with both. One delegation proposed adding at the end “in harmony with nature.” During the first read of this goal, some delegations called for adding reference to green jobs and planetary boundaries, but these proposals were rejected by others.

Initially target 8.1 (per capita economic growth) was not in the revised zero draft but many developing countries argued that it was necessary, possibly as an MOI target. Many delegates supported the target but were concerned about committing to sustained per capita economic growth of at least x% per annum. It was explained that if LDCs don’t sustain a growth rate of 6-8% per annum over a prolonged period of time they can’t change their economic status and the x was trying to globalize it. In the next draft the x% was changed to 7%, which was from the Istanbul Programme of Action, but one delegation thought this was too ambitious and suggested 3-4%. The final agreement was to call for a 7% growth rate.

On target 8.2 (economic transformation), during the first two readings, some delegations called for adding reference to resource efficiency and waste reduction. Others called for reference to technology and labour intensive sectors.

Some supported dividing target 8.3 (development policies) into two targets: one on strong fiscal and monetary policies and one on creating an enabling environment for entrepreneurship, creativity and innovation, and formalization of growth of micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises. Several delegations called for adding “sustainable” to “sound macroeconomic environment” and reference to green jobs to this target, but others objected. During the final read, where the target changed from “creating a sound macroeconomic environment” for development to “promoting development-oriented policies,” one delegation argued to return to the earlier draft.

On target 8.4 (global resource efficiency), many delegates proposed moving this target to Goal 12 since it addresses sustainable consumption and production, but others argued that it should remain here. There were lengthy discussions on “decoupling economic growth from environmental degradation,” where delegates asked if this is internationally agreed terminology and should it remain in the text. Several delegations called for deleting the phrase, unless it is qualified by “where appropriate” and if developed countries take the lead. This was not acceptable to all delegations. They finally agreed to “endeavour to decouple economic growth from environmental degradation,” with developed countries taking the lead.

On target 8.5 (full and productive employment), there were proposals to delete “full and productive employment” and replace it with “equal access to productive employment.” Another suggested including “equal pay for equal work or work of equal value.” In the end, the target remained unchanged in each draft.

Target 8.6 (youth unemployment) was not originally in the revised zero draft and during the first reading a number of delegations called for a target on youth unemployment. Where the new target called for halving the number of youth not in employment, education or training, delegates wanted to know if this was agreed language. It was confirmed to be from an International Labour Organization report, except that “number” should read “proportion. Some delegations thought it better to say “substantially reduce” rather than “halve.”

In target 8.7 (child labor), there were questions about the target date (2020 or 2025) to end child labor in all its forms and calls to add in reference to eliminating forced and exploitative child labor. Another delegation wanted to add reference to “including recruitment and use of child soldiers.”

In target 8.8, on (labour rights), there was debate as to whether this target should say “in accordance with ILO norms and standards.” Not everyone agreed because not all states follow ILO norms and standards. While the text included labor rights and safe and secure working environments for migrant workers, some wanted to give particular attention to women migrant workers. Others wanted to reference “fundamental” labour rights.

Target 8.9 (sustainable tourism) was not in the revised zero draft, but several delegations called for its insertion. Some delegations thought this target would work better as an indicator, but others disagreed.

Target 8.10 (access to financial services), was proposed after the second reading and most delegations supported its inclusion in the final document.

One delegate called several times for a new target on promoting alternative development to combat the world drug problem. One group of delegates consistently opposed this proposal and it was not included in the text.

Many delegates preferred to see the MOI targets in Goal 17. There was general acceptance for target 8.a. (improve Aid for Trade), as long as it gave particular emphasis to LDCs. Target 8.b. (implement the ILO Global Jobs Pact) was not in the zero draft, but delegates wanted to reference both a global strategy for youth unemployment and the ILO Global Jobs Pact.

Final Targets:

8.1. sustain per capita economic growth in accordance with national circumstances, and in particular at least 7% per annum GDP growth in the least-developed countries

8.2. achieve higher levels of productivity of economies through diversification, technological upgrading and innovation, including through a focus on high value added and labour-intensive sectors

8.3. promote development-oriented policies that support productive activities, decent job creation, entrepreneurship, creativity and innovation, and encourage formalization and growth of micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises including through access to financial services

8.4. improve progressively through 2030 global resource efficiency in consumption and production, and endeavour to decouple economic growth from environmental degradation in accordance with the 10-year framework of programmes on sustainable consumption and production with developed countries taking the lead

8.5. by 2030 achieve full and productive  employment and decent work for all women and men, including for young people and persons with disabilities, and equal pay for work of equal value

8.6. by 2020 substantially reduce the proportion of youth not in employment, education or training

8.7. take immediate and effective measures to secure the prohibition and elimination of the worst forms of child labour, eradicate forced labour, and by 2025 end child labour in all its forms including recruitment and use of child soldiers

8.8. protect labour rights and promote safe and secure working environments of all workers, including migrant workers, particularly women migrants, and those in precarious employment

8.9. by 2030 devise and implement policies to promote sustainable tourism which creates jobs, promotes local culture and products

8.10. strengthen the capacity of domestic financial institutions to encourage to expand access to banking, insurance and financial services for all

8.a.  increase Aid for Trade support for developing countries, particularly LDCs, including through the Enhanced Integrated Framework for LDCs

8.b. by 2020 develop and operationalize a global strategy for youth employment and implement the ILO Global Jobs Pact

Proposed goal 9. Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation. In the discussions on the goal title, one delegation suggested replacing “industrialization” with “structural transformation,” which many delegations opposed. Another called for adding “science, technology and” before “innovation” but this was not accepted either.

During the “informal-informal” discussions, some delegations opposed any references to new language such as “green jobs” or “circular economy,” and placed a special emphasis on adding investment, ODA and technology transfer in the targets and MOI implementation. One delegation suggested adding a reference to corporate social responsibility. In the various targets, a few delegations called for adding sanitation and waste water to a target on infrastructure. Some delegations called for moving the MOI targets to Goal 17. Some delegations called to move many of the other targets to Goal 8 or Goal 12.

Target 9.1 (infrastructure) in the final draft is the result of merging two targets from the zero draft, one on quality, reliable, sustainable and resilient infrastructure and one on regional and trans-border infrastructure. In the first reading, some delegates argued that referencing energy, water, waste management, transport, ports and ICT was too much and called for simplifying the target. Later, one delegation proposed splitting this target into two again.

Many delegations called for deletion of target 9.2 (sustainable industrialization), saying that this topic is addressed under Goal 8. Others mentioned that it could be developed as an indicator at the national level, and some delegations expressed strong support for the target. A few delegations proposed starting the target with “promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization,” one delegation suggested adding “decent” before “employment,” and a few delegations called for adding reference to green jobs, which many delegations opposed. Many delegations suggested adding “increase industrial diversification,” and some wanted to add “including through the national processing of raw materials.”

Delegates wanted to broaden target 9.3 (on access to financial services) to include small-scale industrial and other enterprises in all developing countries, not just LDCs. Some delegations proposed moving this target to Goal 17.

Initially, a number of delegations called for the deletion of target 9.4 (sustainable industrialization) or moving it to Goal 17. During subsequent readings, a number of delegations called for deleting reference to developed countries taking the lead in upgrading infrastructure and retrofitting industries to make them more sustainable.

Target 9.5 (upgrading technology) was not in the revised zero draft, but a number of delegations called for its insertion and this was supported.

On MOI target 9.a (sustainable infrastructure development in developing countries), a few delegations called for moving it to Goal 17, some delegations proposed deleting it as it duplicates target 9.1, and some delegations expressed their strong support for it. One delegation proposed replacing “sustainable” with “resilient” before infrastructure. In addition to specifying LDCs, some delegations wanted to add LLDCs, SIDS and African countries to the list, which one delegation strongly opposed.

MOI target 9.b (domestic technology development and innovation) was not in the revised zero draft and was added as “promote indigenous technology development and innovation in developing countries.” A few delegations proposed moving it to Goal 17. A number of edits were proposed to this text, which added reference to research and innovation, industrial diversification and value addition to commodities.

MOI target 9.c (ICT access) was added to the text after the 16 July reading. Initially it called for access to telecommunications services and providing 100% access to the internet in LDCs by 2020. Some thought it would be better to include reference to information and communications technology (ICT) and that 100% access might be too ambitious and called for “universal” access instead.

Final Targets:

9.1. develop quality, reliable, sustainable and resilient infrastructure, including regional and trans-border infrastructure, to support economic development and human well-being, with a focus on affordable and equitable access for all

9.2. promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization, and by 2030 raise significantly industry’s share of employment and GDP in line with national circumstances, and double its share in LDCs

9.3. increase the access of small-scale industrial and other enterprises, particularly in developing countries, to financial services including affordable credit and their integration into value chains and markets

9.4. by 2030 upgrade infrastructure and retrofit industries to make them sustainable, with increased resource use efficiency and greater adoption of clean and environmentally sound technologies and industrial processes, all countries taking action in accordance with their respective capabilities

9.5. enhance scientific research, upgrade the technological capabilities of industrial sectors in all countries, particularly developing countries, including by 2030 encouraging innovation and increasing the number of R&D workers per one million people by x% and public and private R&D spending

9.a. facilitate sustainable and resilient infrastructure development in developing countries through enhanced financial, technological and technical support to African countries, LDCs, LLDCs and SIDS

9.b. support domestic technology development, research and innovation in developing countries including by ensuring a conducive policy environment for inter alia, industrial diversification and value addition to commodities

9.c. significantly increase access to ICT and strive to provide universal and affordable access to internet in LDCs by 2020

Proposed goal 10. Reduce inequality within and among countries. Throughout the week, delegations that did not support a stand-alone goal on inequality argued for moving its targets to other goals, such as Goals 1, 16 and 17. Some called to include social inclusion in the goal heading, but others considered inequality to be a broader concept. One preferred to omit “within and among countries.”

On target 10.1 (income growth for the poorest), governments wished to signal greater urgency in the language, such as by calling for sustaining income growth “through 2030.” One called for an explicit, quantified reference to reducing inequality. Speakers differed on whether to insert a reference to “marginalized” people.

On target 10.2 (social, economic and political inclusion), many delegations wanted to add reference to persons in vulnerable situations, women, children and persons with disabilities. Speakers differed on whether to refer to sex, gender or both. Delegates also called for including reference to wage and social policies; respect for human rights; and reference to equitable representation and voice of developing countries in trade, finance and peacekeeping institutions. Discussion of this target also involved calls for greater urgency. Other suggestions included: adding to the end of this target “in accordance with international law”; adding a reference to conflict-affected states and countries in post-conflict situations; and using a more active reformulation.

Under target 10.3 (opportunity and reduce inequalities), some countries proposed language related to eliminating all kinds of unilateral economic measures against developing countries.

Some governments said target 10.5 (regulation and monitoring of financial markets and institutions) was not related to inequality, that it should be moved to Goal 17, and/or that it is more appropriate to be taken up by the Financing for Development (FfD) process. Some countries proposed adding a reference to the role of credit rating agencies and the predatory effects of vulture funds.

In target 10.6 (developing countries’ representation in global institutions), several speakers called to broaden the reference from economic and financial institutions to those addressing governance overall. A few objected to a target addressing international financial institutions. Countries also: said they cannot expand or accept the target; proposed language related to universal membership; and proposed broadening and strengthening the participation of developing countries in decision-making.

On target 10.7 (migration and mobility), concerns were expressed about measurability. Several countries called to refer to migrant workers’ human rights, their integration and empowerment, and their contributions to poverty eradication and sustainable development. One suggested calling for short-term migration, to prevent the deaths of people pursuing illicit migration out of desperation, such as while crossing the Strait of Gibraltar. One said she cannot accept any language that refers to rights. Many countries proposed addressing this issue under Goal 17.

On the MOI targets, there were numerous calls to move target 10.a (special and differential treatment of developing countries) to Goal 17, and several to move 10.b and 10.c as well.

On target 10.b (directing ODA and financial flows to states in need), some wanted to add developing countries, middle-income countries, and/or conflict-affected states to the list. On target 10.c (transaction costs of migrant remittances), many states supported a more ambitious formulation, such as by reducing transaction costs to 3% instead of 5%.

A large group of countries called repeatedly for a new MOI target on long-term debt sustainability and relief.

Final Targets:

10.1. by 2030 progressively achieve and sustain income growth of the bottom 40% of the population at a rate higher than the national average

10.2. by 2030 empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status 

10.3. ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including through eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices and promoting appropriate legislation, policies and actions in this regard

10.4. adopt policies especially fiscal, wage, and social protection policies and progressively achieve greater equality

10.5. improve regulation and monitoring of global financial markets and institutions and strengthen implementation of such regulations

10.6. ensure enhanced representation and voice of developing countries in decision making in global international economic and financial institutions in order to deliver more effective, credible, accountable and legitimate institutions

10.7. facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, including through implementation of planned and well-managed migration policies

10.a. implement the principle of special and differential treatment for developing countries, in particular least developed countries, in accordance with WTO agreements

10.b. encourage ODA and financial flows, including foreign direct investment, to states where the need is greatest, in particular LDCs, African countries, SIDS, and LLDCs, in accordance with their national plans and programmes

10.c. by 2030, reduce to less than 3% the transaction costs of migrant remittances and eliminate remittance corridors with costs higher than 5%     

Proposed goal 11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable. In target 11.1, on access to housing and basic services, countries discussed whether to reference slums in place of, or in addition to, informal settlements. Countries also considered the appropriate language preceding these terms, with some expressing a preference for the term “upgrade” and others “prevent.” Some countries also wanted to promote social integration in the target, and others safe and affordable housing. One proposed a new formulation: “ensure access to secure and affordable housing, land tenure, and basic services for all.” On target 11.2 (sustainable transport systems), a few delegations wanted to mention road safety and others wanted to address vulnerable populations. In target 11.3 (urbanization and settlement), one delegation proposed replacing urban sprawl with inclusive and sustainable urbanization, and this was later reflected in the final text. Another country proposed deleting “in all countries” and adding “involving local and regional authorities,” underscoring the importance of urban residents, including the poor, in decision-making as described in paragraph 135 of The Future We Want. Some countries called to reinstate a target on protecting and safeguarding the world’s cultural and natural heritage, which was later added to the final text as target 11.4. In this target, some delegations also suggested adding a reference to UNESCO World Heritage Sites and others proposed increasing protected sites by x%.

On target 11.5 (deaths and economic losses from disasters), many delegations called for replacing defined percentages with x% and y% relating to the reduction of deaths and economic losses, respectively. Others called for deleting “natural” before disasters, in order to make the concept more inclusive, and another wanted to delete the target altogether. Some countries proposed that target 11.6 on the environmental impact of cities also address the challenge of adaptation and mitigation to climate change, and this was also opposed by others. One country proposed focusing this target around air quality, and discussed the measurement of impacts. On target 11.7 (green and public spaces), one country said it should address youth, and another wanted to use the word “provide” rather than “ensure” access. Another proposed shortening the target by not listing certain populations.

Under MOI, countries proposed merging target 11.b (increase the number of settlements adopting integrated policies) with other targets, and others called for language related to the Hyogo Framework of Action. Some delegates called for the deletion of target 11.c (support to LDCs for buildings), others called for keeping it, and one said it is already addressed under Goal 17.

Final Targets:

11.1. by 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services, and upgrade slums

11.2. by 2030, provide access to safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport systems  for all, improving road safety, notably by expanding public transport, with special attention to the needs of those in vulnerable situations, women, children, persons with disabilities and older persons

11.3. by 2030 enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacities for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management in all countries

11.4. strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage

11.5. by 2030 significantly reduce the number of deaths and the number of affected people and decrease by y% the economic losses relative to GDP caused by disasters, including water-related disasters, with the focus on protecting the poor and people in vulnerable situations

11.6. by 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying special attention to air quality, municipal and other waste management

11.7. by 2030, provide universal access to safe, inclusive and accessible, green and public spaces, particularly for women and children, older persons and persons with disabilities

11.a. support positive economic, social and environmental links between urban, peri-urban and rural areas by strengthening national and regional development planning

11.b. by 2020, increase by x% the number of cities and human settlements adopting and implementing integrated policies and plans towards inclusion, resource efficiency, mitigation and adaptation to climate change, resilience to disasters, develop and implement in line with the forthcoming Hyogo Framework holistic disaster risk management at all levels

11.c. support least developed countries, including through financial and technical assistance, for sustainable and resilient buildings utilizing local materials

Proposed goal 12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns. Delegates discussed whether sustainable consumption and production (SCP) should be a stand-alone goal or integrated among other goals, with some noting the importance of this as a test of the agenda’s universality, and others saying that targets can be included under a number of different goals. Some suggested the title or each target include reference to developed countries taking the lead. It was noted that the outcome of Rio+20 defined SCP as one of three main objectives of, and requirements for, sustainable development.

Target 12.1 The 10-Year Framework of Programmes on sustainable consumption and production (10YFP) changed quite a bit during the week. In the revised zero draft, which called for countries to have integrated policies and measures to promote SCP, as envisioned in the 10YFP, some thought that this was more of an MOI target that could be better placed under Goal 17. Several called for including reference to awareness raising and education. Some called for a reference to LDCs or other way to reflect differentiation. This target was moved to MOI target 12.an in the 16 July draft, but many countries called for returning it to target 12.1.

Target 12.2 (sustainable management of natural resources) was not in the zero draft, but some delegations called for its addition. Some wanted reference to efficient use of natural resources and one delegation called for developed countries to take the lead. Another speaker drew attention to the carrying capacity of ecosystems.

A number of delegates thought Target 12.3 (food waste) should go under Goal 2. Several delegates noted that food loss in developing countries and food waste in developed countries are different issues and require different approaches. Some called to refer specifically to “countries with high per capita food waste.” In the second reading, some delegations suggested to “significantly reduce” food loss instead of halving, arguing that these proportions should be decided at the national level. One delegation stressed the need to include reference to post-harvest losses that had been removed from the draft.

There was general support for target 12.4 (management of chemicals and wastes), although during the first reading, some delegates requested adding a reference to impacts on human health. Others requested a reference to the lifecycle of chemicals and wastes. During the second reading, one delegation suggested 2020 as deadline instead of 2030, stressing the need to be realistic. One delegation underlined the importance of the environmental aspect of the management of chemicals, and said that all waste, not only hazardous waste, should be addressed. Several delegations called for deleting reference to “in accordance with agreed international frameworks” to avoid limiting the target.

There was general support for target 12.5 (waste reduction), although there were some questions on measurability. Some delegations proposed adding a reference to a circular economy, but others objected.

On target 12.6 (sustainable corporate practices), delegates discussed whether corporate sustainability reporting should be mandatory, with some stressing the need to set high standards for the private sector. Some proposed including publicly listed companies, including small and medium enterprises, who also aspire to be large companies. Other issues raised included problems of measurability, respect for national laws, sustainable supply chains, conformity with human rights standards, and compensation for social and environmental impacts. During the second reading, many delegations asked to keep the exact language from the paragraph 47 of The Future We Want. Many delegations proposed just encouraging companies to adopt sustainable practices, or said sustainable development principles should be introduced in business practices “when appropriate.” Some delegations underlined that integrated sustainability reporting should be captured in this target and it should be transparent. Some delegations suggested that it should be voluntary, and others thought it should be deleted.

During the 14 July reading, delegates were divided on target 12.7 (sustainable public procurement), with some advocating deletion and others supporting it, or calling for its reformulation to address differentiation and accompanied by targets on MOI. During the second reading, a few delegations called for significantly increasing sustainable public procurement practices, while others proposed promoting it. Some delegations asked to add “in accordance with national defined laws and priorities” at the end of the target.

Target 12.8 (sustainable lifestyles) was originally an MOI target in the revised zero draft. During the second reading of the text, some delegations called for ensuring that people have the relevant information “through labeling,” a suggestion to which one delegation strongly opposed. One delegation asked for a special focus on children and youth and another requested adding that sustainable development and lifestyles should be in harmony with nature.

Some delegations proposed adding a target on developing and implementing planning and monitoring tools for sustainable tourism. An MOI target on transfer and dissemination to developing countries of environmentally sound technologies that improve energy and resource efficiency was deleted since some delegations argued it was already covered in Goal 17.

In MOI target 12.a (scientific and technological capacities for SCP), a number of countries proposed moving this target to Goal 17. Initially, many delegates supported moving MOI target 12.b (sustainable tourism) to Goal 8. Others thought that this was more of an indicator than a target. One called for a specific reference to supporting LDCs with the needed resources for developing the tourism sector. Some delegations proposed adding a target on developing and implementing planning and monitoring tools for sustainable tourism.

 MOI target 12.c (fossil fuel subsidies) was moved into this goal from Goal 7 after informal consultations, which began on Thursday. (See discussions under Goal 7.)

Final Targets:

12.1. implement the 10-Year Framework of Programmes on sustainable consumption and production (10YFP), all countries taking action, with developed countries taking the lead, taking into account the development and capabilities of developing countries

12.2. by 2030 achieve sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources

12.3. by 2030 halve per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer level, and  reduce food losses along production and supply chains including post-harvest losses

12.4. by 2020 achieve environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle in accordance with agreed international frameworks and significantly reduce their release to air, water and soil to minimize their adverse impacts on human health and the environment

12.5. by 2030, substantially reduce waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling, and reuse

12.6. encourage companies, especially large and trans-national companies, to adopt sustainable practices and to integrate sustainability information into their reporting cycle

12.7. promote public procurement practices that are sustainable in accordance with national policies and priorities

12.8. by 2030 ensure that people everywhere have the relevant information and awareness for sustainable development and lifestyles in harmony with nature

12.a. support developing countries to strengthen their scientific and technological capacities to move towards more sustainable patterns of consumption and production

12.b. develop and implement tools to monitor sustainable development impacts for sustainable tourism which creates jobs, promotes local culture and products

12.c. rationalize inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption by removing market distortions, in accordance with national circumstances, including by restructuring taxation and phasing out those harmful subsidies, where they exist, to reflect their environmental impacts, taking fully into account the specific needs and conditions of developing countries and minimizing the possible adverse impacts on their development in a manner that protects the poor and the affected communities

Proposed goal 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts.*

*Acknowledging that the UNFCCC is the primary international, intergovernmental forum for negotiating the global response to climate change.

During the first reading, delegates were divided as to whether climate change should be a stand-alone goal. Some argued that climate change should be integrated across other goals. They noted that the SDGs provide an opportunity to address the drivers of climate change, and rejected the idea that without a dedicated goal, the SDGs will not address climate change. Others said that the SDGs would be incomplete without a stand-alone goal on climate change.

Many countries called for reaffirming the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) as the forum for addressing climate change and referencing its principles and provisions in the text. While some stressed that such a target would prejudge the UNFCCC negotiations, others cautioned against letting climate change be “held hostage.” The same group of countries lamented the low level of ambition in the goal.

During the second reading on 17 July, many delegates repeated the same arguments they made earlier in the week. One added that the language in this goal should align with the Istanbul Programme of Action. Others suggested that this goal use language from paragraph 191 of The Future We Want. Some argued that the sustainable development agenda should be transformative and aspirational and not be limited to what happens in the UNFCCC. Others added that the UNFCCC is weak and that not all members of the OWG are party to the Kyoto Protocol or have walked away from it.

The title of the goal underwent many changes during the week. It started as “Tackle climate change and its impacts” to “Combat climate change and its impacts” to “Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts.” Some proposed recasting the goal with new title to make it more precise and actionable to consider reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and 2030 on a pathway consistent with stabilization of global average temperatures that will guarantee the survival of humanity and the planet. There was disagreement on whether CBDR should be referenced in the title. There was much debate over referencing the principles and provisions of the UNFCCC in the goal title, in a footnote, or not at all. In the final text, the UNFCCC language remained in a footnote, over some countries objections.

On target 13.1 (resilience and adaptive capacity), one delegation proposed deleting reference to climate-related hazards, but this was rejected. On target 13.2, on integrating adaptation and mitigation into national policies, one delegation asked to add incorporating resilience and disaster risk reduction considerations into public and private investment, decision making and development planning. This was not accepted. Target 13.3 (education, awareness and capacity) was not discussed.

Some argued there was a need for a temperature target, although were divided between limiting average temperature rise to 1.5°C or 2°C above pre-industrial levels. In the 18 July draft, there was a target 13.4 on taking action to reduce global emissions so as to hold the increase in global average temperature below 2°C relative to pre-industrial levels, but this was deleted as part of a compromise and similar language was moved to paragraph 8 of the chapeau.

In MOI target 13.a (mobilizing funding), one delegate said that the MOI needs to address the pre-2020 period. Many delegations supported a new target on capitalization of the Green Climate Fund (GAFF). Some supported the existing MOI target on mobilizing US$100 billion annually from 2020 to address the needs of developing countries in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency of implementation. Some wanted to add reference to adaptation actions as well. Others wanted to move this target to Goal 17. Another asked to add in language about scaling up climate finance, as was agreed in Copenhagen in the range of US$700 billion to US$1 trillion per annum. Another delegation proposed changing this target to read “implement commitments related to finance under the UNFCCC.” Another recalled that this goal is supposed to remain in force for 15 years and said calling for the capitalization of the GCF will be outdated.

Target 13.b (capacity for climate change planning) was proposed by a group of countries who wanted to address the lack of capacity in LDCs for effective climate change-related planning and management.

Another MOI target on development of technologies to move toward a low-carbon society was proposed but not accepted. Other proposed MOI targets included: mobilizing financial and technical resources required for all countries to adapt effectively and build resilience to climate change; implementation of the Bali Action Plan and ensuring the provision of financial resources, technology transfer and capacity building; disaster preparedness; support for the LDC Fund for national adaptation programmes; and mobilizing resources for the Clean Development Mechanism and the Green Climate Fund.

Final Targets:

13.1. strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate related hazards and natural disasters in all countries

13.2. integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies, and planning

13.3. improve education, awareness raising and human and institutional capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction, and early warning

13.a. implement the commitment undertaken by developed country Parties to the UNFCCC to a goal of mobilizing jointly USD100 billion annually by 2020 from all sources to address the needs of developing countries in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation and fully operationalize the Green Climate Fund through its capitalization as soon as possible

13.b. Promote mechanisms for raising capacities for effective climate change related planning and management, in LDCs, including focusing on women, youth, local and marginalized communities

Proposed goal 14. Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development. When discussing the title of this goal, several delegates promoted the concept of sustainable management as well as sustainable use. One delegate wanted to reference “coastal” resources as well, and another called for “freshwater” resources. Delegates also proposed new targets that could be included in the goal, inter alia: measures to reduce the impact of invasive alien species in marine ecosystems; implementing regional regimes; economic benefits for SIDS, LLDCs and others; coastal degradation and management; and overfishing. Some delegations did not want a stand-alone goal on oceans.

On target 14.1 (marine pollution), delegates disagreed on terminology including whether to reference debris, pollution, or litter. There were also calls to: address both existing and new marine pollution; use 2025 instead of 2030 for the timeframe; establish baselines to make targets possible; and merge this with target 14.2 (protecting and managing marine and coastal ecosystems). On target 14.2, some delegates proposed deleting “marine” so as to address coastal ecosystems, remarked that the timeframe is unrealistic, and some wanted to move it to Goal 15 in the context of biodiversity. Delegates also called for addressing the protection of coastal ecosystems, including ocean reefs, ocean fertilization, and lakes and rivers.

On target 14.3 (impacts of ocean acidification), some countries proposed retaining the target as-is with others wanting changes, including to the ordering of the clauses or adding the words “prevent, deter and eliminate.” On target 14.4 (regulate harvesting, and end overfishing, IUU fishing, and destructive fishing practices), some questioned if the maximum sustainable yield includes the most reasonable timeframes, with some delegates wanting to shorten the timeframe from 2020 to 2015, as this reflects the timeframe agreed to in the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (JPOI) and addressed in paragraph 168 of The Future We Want, or adding to the target “by 2020 at the latest.” One said regulation of these practices does not encompass all three pillars of sustainable development, and some underscored the importance of aligning the target with language in The Future We Want. One country stressed the need to add a reference to the crucial role of fish for food and nutrition security.

On target 14.5 (conserve at least 10% of coastal and marine areas), several delegations wanted to reference “under national jurisdiction” after “coastal and marine areas.” One suggested adding “within and beyond areas of national jurisdiction.” Some delegates supported a reference to coral reefs in the target, with others emphasizing language from Aichi Biodiversity Target 11.

Target 14.6 (fisheries subsidies) was extensively discussed throughout the week, with views diverging on language related to WTO negotiations and trade. Many countries noted the complex and legal nature of the language in this target, and some felt the target represented balance on preferential treatment and ongoing WTO negotiations, while others opposed this view. Countries proposed, inter alia: referencing the need to conclude negotiations under the WTO; adjusting the target to be in line with paragraph 173 of The Future We Want; whether to use the words “eliminate,” “prohibit,” “phase out” or “reform” before subsidies; addressing the importance of the sector to development priorities, poverty reduction, and livelihood; and food security concerns. Some countries called for making this a general reference to subsidies, not just fishing subsidies, others proposed deleting a clause of the target that specifies differentiation. Some delegates said the target should address only those subsidies that cause overfishing and not those that work towards developing fishing capacities in developing countries.

On the first MOI target 14.a (scientific knowledge, research and transfer of technology), delegates addressed issues related to the transfer of marine technology, and whether to specify if this nature is voluntary. Some delegates suggested adding a reference to marine scientific research, and another proposed language on the establishment of regional oceanographic centers. One wished to stress the urgency of the target and related support to developing countries, and some said it should address financial and technical assistance, training, and scientific cooperation. Some countries said this MOI belongs in Goal 17.

On the second MOI target 14.b (access to resources and markets), some delegates said equitable access for small-scale fisheries should be dealt with under Goal 2, and some thought it should be a substantive target. Others wanted the scope of this target to cover all developing countries. Among other proposals, delegates called for: enhancing the capacity to sustainably use and manage fisheries, and referring to mineral and energy exploration.

Views also diverged and delegates discussed extensively issues related to the third MOI target 14.c (implementation of international law). Some delegates referred to this target as a “very, very, thick red line,” and wanted to delete the reference to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) or, if the reference is retained, specify “for states parties to it.” Other states underscored that the specific reference to UNCLOS is important. The zero draft formulation of this target calls for the enforcement of international law on territorial waters to stop illegal fishing and exploitation of marine resources in territorial waters, while the final text calls for the full implementation of international law, as reflected in UNCLOS for states parties to it, including, where applicable, existing regional and international regimes for the conservation and sustainable use of oceans and their resources by their parties.

One delegation called for a new MOI target providing support for research and implementation strategies for coastal zone management and ecosystem based management, including for fisheries management for developing countries, especially LDCs and SIDS.

Final Targets:

14.1. by 2025, prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, particularly from land-based activities, including marine debris and nutrient pollution

14.2. by 2020, sustainably manage, and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts, including by strengthening their resilience and take action for their restoration, to achieve healthy and productive oceans

14.3. minimize and address the impacts of ocean acidification, including through enhanced scientific cooperation at all levels

14.4. by 2020, effectively regulate harvesting, and end overfishing, illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing and destructive fishing practices and implement science-based management plans, to restore fish stocks in the shortest time feasible at least to levels that can produce maximum sustainable yield as determined by their biological characteristics

14.5. by 2020, conserve at least 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas, consistent with national and international law and based on best available scientific information

14.6. by 2020, prohibit certain forms of fisheries subsidies which contribute to overcapacity and overfishing, and eliminate subsidies that contribute to IUU fishing, and refrain from introducing new such subsidies, recognizing that appropriate and effective special and differential treatment for developing and least developed countries should be an integral part of the WTO fisheries subsidies negotiation

14.7. by 2030 increase the economic benefits to SIDS and LDCs from the sustainable use of marine resources, including through sustainable management of fisheries, aquaculture and tourism

14.a. increase scientific knowledge, develop research capacities and transfer marine technology taking into account the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission Criteria and Guidelines on the Transfer of Marine Technology, in order to improve ocean health and to enhance the contribution of marine biodiversity to the development of developing countries, in particular SIDS and LDCs

14.b. provide access of small-scale artisanal fishers to marine resources and markets

14.c. ensure the full implementation of international law, as reflected in UNCLOS for states parties to it, including, where applicable, existing regional and international regimes for the conservation and sustainable use of oceans and their resources by their parties

Proposed goal 15.  Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss. Many delegates wanted to refer to forests in the title of this goal. They debated whether to include desertification and/or land degradation in the heading. Some also requested adding “biodiversity.” On the “verbs” that would begin this title, a few preferred “maintain and restore” or “conserve.” One proposed that the heading state simply: “Protect and promote sustainable use of natural ecosystems.”

One government called for a target on the involvement of indigenous peoples and local communities in natural resource management. Several countries called for adding a target on ecosystem and biodiversity values in planning development processes.

In target 15.1 (conservation of ecosystems), some wished to refer to specific ecosystems, while others would delete the list, perhaps by referring only to “biodiversity.” Within the proposed list, delegations differed over whether to include forests. Many wanted to ensure consistent reflection of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. There were also calls to refer to ecosystem services. One proposed mentioning regeneration capabilities, and wished to add restoration.

In target 15.2 (forests), one delegation suggested numerical references on reducing deforestation and increasing reforestation. Two called for restoration, as well as conservation. Some called for reducing, rather than halting, the rate of deforestation, while others favored reversing the loss of forest cover. Some delegations said the target should address afforestation. Some preferred a 2020 timeframe.

In target 15.3 (desertification and degraded land), at least one questioned the reference to a land degradation neutral world (LDNW), expressing concern that it could lead to trade-offs with countries who continue degrading their land. Others stressed that the phrase is “not a license to degrade” and supported its inclusion, noting that it is part of The Future We Want. One suggested a reference to strengthening the capabilities of indigenous and local communities.

Target 15.4 (mountain ecosystems) was included in the final version of the document. Two governments had expressed frustration at the lack of targets on sustainable mountain development, during the second reading, and in the third and final reading, one made an even stronger plea to include such a target; this was supported by several governments.

In target 15.5 (biodiversity loss), delegations said some biodiversity loss is natural and unavoidable, and especially that it could not be reversed. Some proposed addressing all threatened species, not just those that are “known,” and also protected and endangered species. Delegates discussed alignment with the Aichi Targets, including by applying the 2020 timeframe to the entire target. By the final reading of Goal 15, governments had no comments on this target.

Target 15.6 (genetic resources) heard a suggestion to reformulate the text in line with the Nagoya Protocol, to put fair and equitable sharing of benefits—the main objective of this target—first in the sentence.

In target 15.7 (poaching and trafficking), one suggested setting the timeline at 2020 instead of 2030. One suggested deleting “supply” so as to focus on demand. Delegations proposed strengthening the wording from “address” to “reduce,” and by calling for “urgent action” to end the practices. Others thought this goal was too ambitious.

In target 15.8 (invasive alien species), two governments suggested that the target include marine ecosystems, and one proposed adding eradication and containment of the species, as well as control. In response to an objection to the reference to “eliminating” priority species, to which Co-Chair Kamau responded that the draft text is aligned with the Aichi Targets.

The discussion of MOI targets for Goal 15 heard numerous calls to move targets 15.a and 15.b to Goal 17. On target 15.a (resources to implement the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020), the Group considered how to account for the ongoing negotiations under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) on financial resources, including through alternative wording to avoid referring to the Strategic Plan. One government called to link 15.a and target 15.b (financing for sustainable forest management) to the substantive targets. On target 15.c (support for combatting poaching and trafficking), countries discussed potential wording on doubling biodiversity financial resources flows, a form of which was agreed at the 11th Conference of the Parties (COP) to the CBD.

New MOI targets were proposed on: increasing certified sustainable commodities; research and monitoring to identify and eliminate potential invasive alien species; international financial resource flows to support developing countries to achieve land degradation neutrality; and incentives to developing countries on forests.

Final Targets:

15.1. by 2020 ensure conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services, in particular forests, wetlands, mountains and drylands, in line with obligations under international agreements 

15.2. by 2020, promote the implementation of sustainable management of all types of forests, halt deforestation, restore degraded forests, and increase afforestation and reforestation by x% globally

15.3. by 2020, combat desertification, and restore degraded land and soil, including land affected by desertification, drought and floods, and strive to achieve a land-degradation neutral world

15.4. by 2030 ensure the conservation of mountain ecosystems, including their biodiversity, to enhance their capacity to provide benefits which are essential for sustainable development

15.5. take urgent and significant action to reduce degradation of natural habitat, halt the loss of biodiversity, and by 2020 protect and prevent the extinction of threatened species

15.6 ensure fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources, and promote appropriate access to genetic resources

15.7. take urgent action to end poaching and trafficking of protected species of flora and fauna, and address both demand and supply of illegal wildlife products

15.8. by 2020 introduce measures to prevent the introduction and significantly reduce the impact of invasive alien species on land and water ecosystems, and control or eradicate the priority species

15.9 by 2020, integrate ecosystems and biodiversity values into national and local planning, development processes and poverty reduction strategies, and accounts

15.a. mobilize and significantly increase from all sources financial resources to conserve and sustainably use biodiversity and ecosystems

15.b. mobilize significantly resources from all sources and at all levels to finance sustainable forest management, and provide adequate incentives to developing countries to advance sustainable forest management, including for conservation and reforestation

15.c. enhance global support to efforts to combat poaching and trafficking of protected species, including by increasing the capacity of  local  communities  to  pursue sustainable livelihood opportunities

Proposed goal 16. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels. With this goal dividing OWG delegations from many different angles, the Co-Chairs established a contact group on Thursday morning, which met for two days without reaching consensus. Many said the group had been close to achieving consensus, and that concessions had been made “on all sides.” The Co-Chairs then led the Group through a consideration of two possible goal titles and a set of targets prepared in the contact group.

Some governments said that while they support the concepts addressed in this goal, they are not part of the sustainable development agenda as defined in The Future We Want. Some proposed moving many of these targets under Goal 10 on reducing inequality or other goals, or in the chapeau. Some wanted to reduce the scope of the goal to strengthened institutions. Some expressed openness to a Goal 16 that is framed in “developmental terms.”

Others who supported Goal 16 wanted to divide it into multiple goals and proposed various formulations, inter alia, one on peaceful and inclusive societies, and one on rule of law and effective and capable institutions. One suggested structuring targets along three blocks, per the zero draft: reducing violence, strengthening security institutions and fighting organized crime; democratic citizen participation; and access to justice.

Some delegations called for language on ending colonial occupation and foreign occupation and address root causes of terrorism to achieve sustainable development. Another delegation called for an end to unilateral economic sanctions and other coercive economic measures.

Some delegations called for adding new targets on or references to: good governance; nuclear-weapon free zones; the role of civil society; education for a culture of non-violence; the right to development; refugees and internally displaced persons; non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development and equitable access to protection of human rights; and women’s participation in conflict prevention, peacebuilding and post-conflict reconstruction.

In response to delegations objecting to rule of law in the text, one said rule of law means that anyone who desires protection of law will be given protection, everyone will be treated equally under the law, and no one is above the law. He said there is nothing to fear from rule of law since it is a well-established concept, applicable and not judgmental. Many delegations supported this definition.

The question of whether to include “rule of law” in the title divided governments throughout OWG-13. Early in the week, the Group of Friends of the Rule of Law, including 58 countries from all regions, called for reinstating the rule of law at the goal level into the draft document. Among their arguments was that “access to justice” is a part of rule of law but not broad enough. One noted that UN Charter Article 65 requires cooperation between the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and the UN Security Council. While some said there is no intergovernmentally-agreed definition of “rule of law,” some who objected to many components of Goal 16 expressed openness to a goal on rule of law and access to justice. Some proposed formulations for the goal title framed the issues as enablers of sustainable development, in order to limit the goal’s scope, although many noted that all of the goals are about sustainable development.

On target 16.1 (violence and related death rates), there was a proposal to change “death rates” to “crime rates,” and one to add “injury rates.” One said the target wrongly conflates violence with conflict. Some called to highlight people living under colonial or foreign occupation. One suggested a reference to ending sexual and other gender-based violence in conflict settings, at least at indicator level in this target. Speakers raised questions on: defining violence, ensuring rule of law, defining “related death,” and measurability.

On target 16.2 (exploitation and trafficking), many delegates wanted to add reference to women and other vulnerable groups in addition to children, whereas other delegates wanted to delete reference to children. Some wanted to add “by 2030” and others wanted to add a reference to ending human trafficking. There was a call to move the target to Goal 5.

In target 16.3 (rule of law), delegates disagreed on whether to include the reference to the rule of law and its placement in the target. One said it is more pertinent at the international level. One wanted this target to reference equal access to legal aid and due process rights. Another wanted to specify women and men, and one wanted to move this to Goal 10, while others suggested that “access to justice” belongs in Goal 17. A number of delegations supported including ending all forms of foreign occupation and colonial domination. Others objected. Some delegates suggested dividing this target into two, one on rule of law and one on equal access to justice for all. One said this target must work in accordance with national legislation and international laws. Some discussed language related to formal and informal dispute mechanisms.

On target 16.4 (illicit flows, stolen assets, and organized crime), some thought the target was overloaded. Proposals included to move this to Goal 10, 11, or 17, or to split it into two targets, with formulations including: one target on corruption and another on human trafficking and/or illicit flows and organized crime; and one target on organized crime, illicit arms trade and human trafficking, and stolen assets; and another on illicit financial flows, corruption, and bribery. Others wanted to specify elimination of trafficking and gender based violence, and illicit trade in arms, drugs and antiquities. Some expressed concern with regard to measurability of illicit financial flows, organized crime and corruption, and one wanted to reinstate a target on enhancing security.

On target 16.5 (corruption and bribery), one delegate thought this was weakened and wanted to return to previous text that calls for ending corruption and bribery or substantially reducing corruption and bribery in all its forms.

Some thought target 16.7 (decision-making) could go in Goal 1, 10 or 15. Others said this was an essential element for rule of law and governance. One called for the target to refer to “good governance.” One suggested referring to “due process rights and access to legal aid.”

Target 16.8 (developing country participation) was among those targets suggested as an MOI or part of Goal 10. One delegation suggested including “by 2018 achieve the reform of the UN Security Council.” There were multiple suggestions to broaden the target to all institutions of global governance, not only those in the economic or financing sectors.

Most supported target 16.9 (legal identity), although one wanted to move it to Goal 10. Speakers debated whether the provision of legal identity should be “irrespective of their status” or based on citizenship. One suggested that registration should be with “particular attention to girl children and other vulnerable groups.”

Some called to delete target 10 (access to information, fundamental freedoms). Many proposed reintroducing freedom of media, a few delegations suggested adding “in accordance to national laws,” one delegation said that financial information, including public procurement, should be included. Others suggested adding references to enhanced citizen participation, and human rights protection particularly for children. Some delegates did not think it necessary to mention “in accordance with national legislation and international agreements” when talking about ensuring public access to information.

A number of delegations called for reinserting reference to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly.

On target 16.a (national institutions), some thought it belonged under Goal 10 or was covered already by Goal 3. Some wanted to refer to corruption and human trafficking. Some countries proposed language related to, inter alia: internally displaced persons; end of foreign occupation; humanitarian and security personnel that have been trained on gender issues; and adherence to international law.

On target 16.b (non-discriminatory laws and policies), one called for adding protection for human rights and, in particular, economic rights, with another underscoring cultural rights. Some proposed language at the end of this target on the elimination of all unilateral coercive measures. One delegate said this target should also call to eliminate discriminatory laws and policies related to development.

Final Targets:

16.1. significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere

16.2. end abuse, exploitation, trafficking and all forms of violence and torture against children

16.3. promote the rule of law at the national and international levels, and ensure equal access to justice for all

16.4. by 2030 significantly reduce illicit financial and arms flows, strengthen recovery and return of stolen assets, and combat all forms of organized crime

16.5. substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all its forms

16.6. develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels

16.7. ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels

16.8. broaden and strengthen the participation of developing countries in the institutions of global governance

16.9. by 2030 provide legal identity for all including birth registration

16.10. ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements

16.a.  strengthen relevant national institutions, including through international cooperation, for building capacities at all levels, in particular in developing countries, for preventing violence and combating terrorism and crime

16.b. promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development

Proposed goal 17. Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development. Delegates generally supported the seven categories under the goal, although the order of the categories—and the order of the targets within each category—changed during the week. A number of delegations said that they still prefer to have general MOI targets in Goal 17 and specific MOI targets in each of the other goals, noting that the MOI targets were essential to the implementation of the SDGs. Many countries underscored the importance of this goal, and some noted the importance that developed countries “take lead and show the way.” Delegates also discussed whether to keep, and the appropriate language of, a footnote attached the goal headline on aligning the Goal 17 with the outcomes of the ICESDF and the third International Conference on FfD in July 2015. Other governments: cautioned against prejudging the outcomes of the ICESDF and FfD; recalled the need for a balanced approach and shared commitments, avoiding “artificial divisions” between countries; and expressed concern about fragmenting the MOI framework by putting MOI targets under individual goals.

Finance: Target 17.1 (domestic resource mobilization) originally covered all resource mobilization and some delegations asked to split the original target on into two: one on effective use of development finance and one on mobilizing domestic resources from all sources, public and private, domestic and international, including support for efforts of developing countries. Another suggested dividing this target with one on domestic mobilization and one on international mobilization. Some countries wanted to include reference to efficiency of public spending after revenue collection, but one group could not support this addition.

On target 17.2 (ODA commitments), some delegations asked to add in reference to increasing the share of ODA to LDCs to 1% of ODA on an agreed timeline of 2015, which others opposed. Some wanted to note that developed countries should implement fully their “agreed” ODA commitments, but others disagreed.

Target 17.3 (resource mobilization), this target was a result of splitting target 17.1 into two, with this target focusing on resource mobilization for developing countries from multiple sources.

In target 17.4 (debt sustainability), one group wanted to include reference to the establishment of a transparent and independent debt mechanism, but others could not accept this. Some delegations supported merging this target with a separate one on addressing the external debt of highly indebted poor countries to reduce debt distress, which was supported. Another underscored that debt relief is a last-resort, and should not be in this target.

During the penultimate reading, one group of countries expressed surprise that there was no language on foreign direct investment and proposed target 17.5, which focuses on adopting and implementing investment promotion regimes for LDCs.

Delegations proposed adding a number of targets to this section on: reducing international tax evasion, canceling debt of highly indebted poor countries, reform of international financial institutions, and reducing illicit financial flows. It was also proposed to move MOI targets from numerous other goals to this section. One country proposed, with others opposed, adding a target to cancel external debt of highly indebted poor countries to reduce distress.

Technology: During the first reading, one group proposed that the transfer of technologies to developing countries should be on favorable terms, including on preferential and concessional terms. Another suggested adding incentives for public-private partnerships for the transfer of environmentally sound technologies on mutually agreed terms. One delegation called for a new target on reform of the WTO’s TRIPS Agreement to bridge the technology divide and achieve the SDGs. One group of delegates proposed moving numerous MOI targets from other goals into this section.

On target 17.6 (cooperation and technology facilitation), one group of countries called to specify that the possible global technology facilitation mechanism would be “made operational by 2016.” However, another large grouping preferred to delete the reference to the mechanism.

On target 17.7 (development, transfer and diffusion of environmentally sound technologies), a large group supported greater emphasis on developing countries’ full use of TRIPS flexibilities, while one government wanted to delete TRIPS references. Several governments said development and technology transfer should be on mutually agreed—not favorable”—terms. One responded that favorable and concessional terms are necessary to achieve sustainable development. In addition, some expressed concern about a “paradigm in which technology transfer is a commercial issue.”

On target 17.8 (Technology Bank and STI mechanism), some wanted to avoid “prejudging” the Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) mechanism’s operationalization. Others, by contrast, wanted to strengthen the reference to its operationalization by 2017. Many delegations did not want to pre-empt decisions on the Technology Bank and Science, Technology and Innovation Capacity Building Mechanism for LDCs. Some called for the deletion of this target. One delegation said that operationalization of the Technology Bank should be pursuant to a successful feasibility study, but another responded that the study is not to say whether to establish the Bank but how to establish it.

Capacity building: Many expressed support for target 17.9 (capacity building). One group wanted to add to the beginning “enhance international support for developing and implementing effective and targeted capacity building.” One called to focus this target on LDCs, and another suggested adding a reference to South-South cooperation. Some delegations stressed the need to add reference to supporting “national plans” to implement the SDGs. During the final reading, many delegations called for deleting the part that speaks about international support and start with “implement,” while also deleting the part that refers to national plans, suggestions to which many delegations opposed. Some delegations proposed adding “and as appropriate” before the reference to South-South cooperation. One delegation expressed its discomfort with singling out “developing countries” in this target, arguing that the agenda is universal and it should have universal means of implementation.

Trade: Many delegates supported target 17.10 (multilateral trading system), but some wanted reference to the successful conclusion of the WTO negotiations under the Doha Development Agenda. One troika suggested deleting reference to “successful conclusion.” One group proposed adding reference to the Doha Development Agenda’s agricultural mandate, but others did not want to highlight one part of the Doha agenda.

Target 17.11 (developing country exports) initially called for improved market access for exports of developing countries, especially LDCs, African countries, LLDCs and SIDS, with a view to significantly increasing their share in global exports, including doubling the LDC share by 2020. Some wanted reference to LDCs in line with the Istanbul Programme of Action. During the second reading, one group said this target as redrafted was not clear (increase the volume of exports of developing countries by x% and the volume of exports of  LDCs, African countries, LLDCs and SIDS by (x+y)%, in particular with a view to doubling the LDC share of global exports by 2020). One group proposed “improve market access with a view to increase the volume of exports.” One delegation supported deleting the percentages and replacing them with “significantly.” One suggested just saying “increase exports.” During the third reading, some delegations complained that the target no longer referred to improved market access at all in the new simplified target.

Many thought that target 17.12 (duty-free, quota-free market access) duplicated what was in 17.10 and 17.11. One group wanted to add reference to dismantling tariff and non-tariff barriers. One wanted to add that this would be consistent with WTO decisions. Others could accept the text as is.

A number of delegations called for target 8.a on Aid for Trade support for developing countries to be moved to this section.

Systemic Issues—Policy and institutional coherence: Some thought the goals in this section were too vague and unmeasurable, and some thought this section could cover policy coherence at the national and international levels, as well as an enabling environment for the private sector. One speaker wanted to integrate policy and science in this section. One group wanted to move a number of MOI targets from other goals into this section. One delegation proposed adding a target on strengthening existing partnerships and referencing the Busan Partnership for Effective Development, suggestion that was supported by some other delegations.

Some delegations wanted to split target 17.13’s (global macroeconomic stability) sections on policy coordination and policy coherence into two separate goals, which was accepted. One delegation called for replacing this target with a target on the reform of the governance structures of the international financial institutions in order to increase the effective participation of developing countries. Some delegations underlined the need to include here the issue of policy coherence, one delegation expressed its support for the target as it is, and one delegation suggested deleting the part on strengthening the science-policy interface for sustainable development.

Target 17.14 (enhance policy coherence) was added into the final draft as a result of splitting target 17.13.

On target 17.15 (respect for policy space), some delegations proposed replacing “policy space” with “leadership,” some delegations stressed the need to retain “policy space,” and one delegation suggested addressing the issue of illicit flows and assets recovery here. Another wanted to reference respect for international human rights standards.

Systemic Issues—Multi-stakeholder partnerships: Some delegations proposed renaming the title of this section “The Global Partnership for Sustainable Development.” During the first read, some delegations wanted to include explicit reference to civil society, the private sector, academia and other sectors. There was some concern that only certain partnerships were listed here; some proposed expanding the list and some supported deleting the specific examples. Some were concerned that these targets were not measurable. Others wanted to delete this section.

Target 17.16 (enhancing the global partnership for sustainable development) initially focused on support for broad-based multi-stakeholder partnerships to support the achievement of the SDGs. One delegation expressed its support for the way in which it was framed, and another expressed its discomfort with singling out “developing countries” in this target, arguing that the agenda is universal, thus it should have universal means of implementation. Some delegations called for replacing “support” with “enhance the global partnership for sustainable development guided by intergovernmental cooperation and complimented by a multi-stakeholders partnership,” while some delegations underlined that they want to keep “multi-stakeholder partnerships” (in plural), which should be effective. Some delegations proposed an amendment that shows the national ownership: “led by States in accordance with their national development policies.” The final text called for enhancing the global partnership for sustainable development complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships.

Target 17.17 (public, public-private, and civil society partnerships) initially included reference to private special funds and foundations, building on the experience and resources strategies of partnerships such as “GFATM, GEF, GAVI, BMGF, SE4ALL, EWEC.” One delegation called for including civil society. Some delegations proposed deleting “private special funds and foundations” as they are already captured by “public-private partnerships” and some delegations stressed the need to underline “effective” partnerships. Many supported deleting the list of specific partnerships.

Systemic Issues—Data, monitoring and accountability: A number of delegations wanted to include reference to the High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF) to play a key role in monitoring, as stated in resolution 67/290. One proposed adding reference to “research” in the title. A group wanted to add some new targets on research support for implementation, monitoring and evaluation and one on ensuring countries have the means to assess and report on progress towards the goal of sustainable development. Some said there is no need to reference capacity building in this section since it is already covered in other MOI targets. One group wanted to delete this section in its entirety; one called for deleting the target on regular voluntary monitoring and reporting of progress on the SDGs. Some delegations expressed support for this section as is.

Under target 17.18 (increasing data availability), one delegate called for sexual orientation to be added to the list of recommended disaggregated data. Delegates proposed: enhancing capacity building support for SIDS, not just LDCs and merging this with target 17.19. Some delegations proposed starting the target with the part on “enhance capacity building support to developing countries including LDCs,” and some delegations said that in that case the target should be deleted as it would duplicate target 17.11. This language was included.

On target 17.19 (measures of progress on sustainable development to complement GDP), delegates said the target does not read as an MOI target, and should be in line with paragraph 38 in The Future We Want. Some delegations proposed “including human, social and capital accounting” after GDP. One delegation proposed rephrasing the target to read: “By 2030, build on exiting initiatives at the UN for developing broader measures of progress to complement GDP and in this regard, strengthen capacity building support to developing countries.”

A target on monitoring and reporting of progress on the SDGs in the revised zero draft was discussed but eventually deleted from the final text. Delegates said this target reflects an important dimension of global partnership; proposed adding a reference to the key role for the HLPF, with one adding that the last section of this proposal should also reference other UN bodies, such as ECOSOC. Some delegates suggested deleting the target altogether, noting that it was premature to address, and there were ambiguities for reporting progress and monitoring. In a revised draft that included the role of the HLPF, some delegations argued that this specific detail is beyond the mandate of the OWG.

Final Targets:

Finance

17.1. strengthen domestic resource mobilization, including through international support to developing countries to improve domestic capacity for tax and other revenue collection

17.2. developed countries to implement fully their ODA commitments, including to provide 0.7% of GNI in ODA to developing countries of which 0.15-0.20% to least-developed countries

17.3. mobilize additional financial resources for developing countries from multiple sources

17.4. assist developing countries in attaining long-term debt sustainability through coordinated policies aimed at fostering debt financing, debt relief and debt restructuring, as appropriate, and address the external debt of highly indebted poor countries (HIPC) to reduce debt distress

17.5. adopt and implement investment promotion regimes for LDCs

Technology

17.6. enhance North-South, South-South and triangular regional and international cooperation on and access to science, technology and innovation, and enhance knowledge sharing on mutually agreed terms, including through improved coordination among existing mechanisms, particularly at UN level, and through a global technology facilitation mechanism when agreed

17.7. promote development, transfer, dissemination and diffusion of environmentally sound technologies to developing countries on favourable terms, including on concessional and preferential terms, as mutually agreed

17.8. fully operationalize the Technology Bank and STI (Science, Technology and Innovation) capacity building mechanism for LDCs by 2017, and enhance the use of enabling technologies in particular ICT

Capacity building

17.9. enhance international support for implementing effective and targeted capacity building in developing countries to support national plans to implement all sustainable development goals, including through North-South, South-South, and triangular cooperation

Trade

17.10. promote a universal, rules-based, open, non-discriminatory and equitable multilateral trading system under the WTO including through the conclusion of negotiations within its Doha Development Agenda

17.11. increase significantly the exports of developing countries, in particular with a view to doubling the LDC share of global exports by 2020

17.12. realize timely implementation of duty-free, quota-free market access on a lasting basis for all least developed countries consistent with WTO decisions, including through ensuring that preferential rules of origin applicable to imports from LDCs are transparent and simple, and contribute to facilitating market access

Systemic issues: Policy and institutional coherence

17.13. enhance global macroeconomic stability including through policy coordination and policy coherence

17.14. enhance policy coherence for sustainable development

17.15. respect each country’s policy space and leadership to establish and implement policies for poverty eradication and sustainable development

Multi-stakeholder partnerships

17.16. enhance the global partnership for sustainable development complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships that mobilize and share knowledge, expertise, technologies and financial resources to support the achievement of sustainable development goals in all countries, particularly developing countries

17.17. encourage and promote effective public, public-private, and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of  partnerships

Data, monitoring and accountability

17.18. by 2020, enhance capacity building support to developing countries, including for LDCs and SIDS, to increase significantly the availability of high-quality, timely and reliable data  disaggregated by income, gender, age, race, ethnicity, migratory status, disability, geographic location and other characteristics relevant in national contexts

17.19. by 2030, build on existing initiatives to develop measurements of progress on sustainable development that complement GDP, and support statistical capacity building in developing countries

CLOSING PLENARY

The second formal meeting of OWG-13 convened at 10:30 am, Saturday, 19 July, to formally adopt the “Proposal of the Open Working Group for Sustainable Development Goals” to send to the UN General Assembly. Co-Chair Kamau said the Co-Chairs are proud of their effort but recognize that it is not flawless. He added that, after 13 meetings, the work of the OWG is done. On behalf of the Co-Chairs, he asked the OWG to formally adopt the proposal to send to the UNGA. Co-Chair Kamau then opened the floor for comments. Many delegates expressed their gratitude to the Co-Chairs and the Secretariat for their hard work and commitment.

Nigeria said the rules of procedure call for adopting the OWG’s report by consensus. He argued to delete the reference to the review conferences of ICPD and Beijing in target 5.6. Co-Chair Kamau responded that the text had been presented for adoption, not reopening, and represents “a delicate balance that could very easily unravel.”

Iran said he could not accept target 5.6 on sexual and reproductive rights, suggesting a country could not report on the implementation of a concept it does not recognize. Syria said the text was not balanced. He expressed disappointment that reference to foreign occupation was not in the action-oriented part of the text, and stressed the need to address unilateral economic measures against developing countries. Uganda said the OWG’s methods of work allows for “reflecting different options if necessary.” Honduras highlighted her delegation’s disappointment with target 5.6.

Switzerland, also for France and Germany, was not satisfied with all parts of the text, but could accept it as a whole. The Russian Federation lamented that the final report ignored a proposal relating to unilateral coercive economic measures, and said he did not accept the text. Denmark recommended submitting the report for adoption and not reopening it for revision.

Venezuela expressed a reservation with the inclusion of modern energy in Goal 7, and removal of fossil fuel subsidies in 12.c. She also underscored the document cannot be interpreted as a change in her delegation’s position with regard to UNCLOS. Chad expressed concern with the process, especially on target 5.6 and the contact group that ended without consensus. Saudi Arabia asked Co-Chair Kamau for further consultations to find a solution, in order to have a report accepted by acclamation.

Iceland expressed concern about targets 1.4 and 5.a, which depart from Rio+20 language, and the reference to national laws in target 5.4. She added that Iceland could not accept language inconsistent with UNCLOS. Co-Chair Kamau reiterated that target 5.a represents a very delicate balance, and that the goals and targets are global. Regarding 14.c, he said it was presented to the Co-Chairs as consensus text.

Egypt said the language in target 5.6 goes far beyond the Rio+20 agreement.

The EU supported the Co-Chairs’ suggestion to forward the outcome for adoption to Member States. He added that if some governments want to open up the text, the EU would want to do the same. Sudan raised reservations about target 5.6, and disassociated her delegation from the term “reproductive rights.”  She also regretted that Goal 16 did not include proposed text on ending foreign occupation and illegal economic sanctions.

Pakistan said that the process itself was very important in contributing to the discourse on sustainable development: “We knew all along that the outcome had to be a compromise between north and south and east and west.” While hoping for a target on peaceful societies and people under foreign occupation, he noted its inclusion in the chapeau. He entertained a “slim hope that some last minute flexibility” would enable consensus adoption of the document.

Spain, also for Italy and Turkey, said the outcome is the best compromise. The UK, also for Australia and the Netherlands, reminded delegates that their role was not to agree on the SDGs but to develop a proposal. He shared concerns about the reference to CBDR in the chapeau, as well as inadequate language on a women’s right to own property, unpaid domestic work, open defecation, rule of law and illicit arms. He said that MOI in all of the goals are unbalanced. Yet, he feared that if the text were reopened, the delicate balance would unravel. The United Arab Emirates associated itself with the statement made by Egypt, on behalf of the Arab Group, calling for those delegations that want to work together on improving the text, especially on common ground for Goal 16. The United States said the text reflects the cumulative stage of discussion and in this light is a valuable starting point. She welcomed areas of progress in the text, including as it relates to poverty eradication and a strong target on maternal mortality, and noted areas of concern, including on areas related to trade measures and language on a land degradation neutral world (15.3). She proposed sending the document forward to the General Assembly as is.

Bolivia, for the G-77/China, underscored the need to strengthen MOI for each goal, and expressed regret that, inter alia, foreign occupation is not reflected as a target under Goal 16, and language on unilateral economic measures has been removed. He said the report should be viewed as a contribution to the final phase of intergovernmental work, which will end in a Summit in September 2015 for adoption of the post-2015 development agenda.

Cuba lamented procedural matters that prevented a stand-alone goal on cultural diversity and cultural rights for all, and a stand-alone goal on the integration of population and its dynamics into the development process. He said Goal 16 provides grounds to introduce another pillar in the development agenda. Ecuador, also for Bolivia, said he disagreed with target 7.4 (clean energy).

Canada said foreign occupation does not belong in the document. Japan said that the OWG had not produced a set of goals and targets that are concise, easy to communicate and “tweetable.” He expressed concern with paragraphs 5 and 8 in the chapeau, Goals 13 and 16, MOI and target 14.6 on fisheries. He supported the intention of the Co-Chairs to move forward. He noted that while he does not have coordination of policies with his troika members, Nepal and Iran, “we have cooperation and friendship.”

China noted this is not a perfect document, but agreed it was a good proposal for the way forward. She noted that the delegates understand each other more, learned a lot and developed trust for the way forward. Sweden said her delegation had hoped to have a strong and ambitious proposal that could lead to transformative change. While she wanted stronger language on Goals 5 and 16, they made concessions in the interest in coming together and to continue to work together to achieve a post-2015 development agenda for poverty eradication and sustainable development.

Mexico, also for Peru, said the work of the Group comprised a good base for the post-2015 development agenda. He said the post-2015 agenda should advance social inclusion and human rights, calling to put the person at the center of development. In his national capacity he expressed a reservation about the UNCLOS reference in target 14.c.

Tanzania said the process had been truly inclusive and was grateful for civil society’s presence and support. He expressed concern about: the use of “gender” rather than “sex” in the chapeau; and the division in the Group about targets 5.6 and 13.a. He said the report will be subject to further negotiation in the upcoming session of the UNGA, and he would not prevent its adoption, “knowing full well that the end of this journey is the beginning of the next.” Iran suggested transferring the report to the UNGA with target 5.6 in brackets. The Republic of Korea said monitoring and accountability was missing from the final text, but could be discussed in a broader manner in the course of the post-2015 discourse. He said the document should be adopted as a whole, as proposed by the Co-Chairs.

Liechtenstein said: in the area of gender, the document was “certainly not a step forward” and in some respects a step back; it does not reflect rule of law properly; and the HLPF and its review mechanism did not have their proper place. He also expressed concern about the repeated references to national circumstances. However, he agreed that the document should be forwarded to the UNGA, with OWG members cutting their losses, putting their reservations on the record, and focusing on a strong text on the post-2015 development agenda.

Djibouti called for delegates to work toward consensus on the empowerment of women, gender equality, and other parts of the text. Indonesia said many parts of document do not live up to expectation but looked forward to its adoption. Brazil, also for Nicaragua, called for a frank discussion on process leading up to the post-2015 development agenda, and noted the concessions his country had made on climate change, which he hoped would help build trust for UNFCCC COP 20 and COP 21.

Timor-Leste, also for Sierra Leone and Liberia, said the OWG had been truly inclusive, highlighting the “big voice” of small missions, as well as SIDS and micro-states. She expressed concern about the rule of law, but joined “the many voices in the room” supporting the document. Trinidad and Tobago, also for CARICOM, said she could not support a reopening of this “painstakingly developed document,” as that would “guarantee” that that the hard work of the OWG was for naught. She said the final document was a good basis on which to proceed to elaborating the post-2015 development agenda.

Benin, for the LDCs, said the OWG had been ambitious, although “changing paradigms always meets with resistance.” The outcome comprised an “integrated and balanced consideration” of the three dimensions of sustainable development, he said, also expressing gratitude to the scientists, panelists and academics that helped delegates understand the issues and ensure the OWG’s work meets the test of reality. He said the number of goals allows for highlighting the major challenges facing the global community. The Group had upheld the Spirit of Rio, he added.

Montenegro, also for Slovenia, said this result is not perfect but the OWG should deliver this product to the UNGA. Palau thanked colleagues and civil society and supported moving the report forward, saying the glass is 3/4 full not 1/4 empty. Ethiopia said they were not completely satisfied, but could support the proposal of the Co-Chairs.

India said the structure of the product shall be the basis for integrating SDGs into the post-2015 development agenda. Smiling, he also proposed a new MOI target: “improve the working methods of the OWG by encouraging, where appropriate, delegates to shorten their interventions and restrain their statements, and in this regard provide enhanced capacity building to developing countries.” His “proposal” was met with a round of applause.

Uruguay said they wanted, inter alia: a goal on non-discrimination; sexual rights; stronger language on middle income countries; stronger language on 3.1, 5.6 and 5a; and stronger language on migrants and decent work, but accepted the outcome because they invested a lot in this process. Colombia said this was a package deal worthy of approval. Argentina, also for Ecuador and Bolivia, said she didn’t like the method of work that led to circular discussions. She supported sending the document to the UNGA to be considered, but she expressed a reservation on target 14.c on oceans because the language is incompatible with UNCLOS. She said this has to be reconsidered. Romania said she would have preferred stronger language in Goals 16, 13 and more, but supported the document’s adoption.

Co-Chair Kamau, noting about 20 remaining requests for the floor, said the Co-Chairs already had a sense of the room. “As we are exhausted and will not be able to continue,” he requested governments to submit the proposal of the OWG to the UNGA for its consideration. 

The OWG adopted the proposal by acclamation, with a standing ovation for the Co-Chairs. Co-Chair Kamau gaveled the meeting to a close at 1:20 pm on Saturday, 19 July 2014.

A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF OWG-13

THE SDG PUZZLE

Just over two years ago, the UN Conference on Sustainable Development, which met in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, called for the UN General Assembly to establish an Open Working Group to develop a set of sustainable development goals. These goals were supposed to: be limited in number, aspirational and easy to communicate; address all three dimensions of sustainable development in a balanced way; and be coherent with and integrated into the UN’s post-2015 development agenda. It was never going to be an easy task, to say the least, and the OWG spent 16 months of work over 13 sessions trying to achieve just that.

The OWG’s efforts to piece together the SDGs and targets have resembled putting together a jigsaw puzzle. After OWG-3 in May 2013, the Earth Negotiations Bulletin noted that, while several participants were cautiously optimistic that the process had the potential to finally define and operationalize sustainable development, others warned that success was far from certain, and that participants must continue to examine and organize the puzzle pieces before they can be put together. Now that the work of the OWG is complete and it is has fulfilled its mandate to propose a set of goals and targets to the UN General Assembly, this brief analysis will look back at the process and the OWG’s contributions to solving the SDG puzzle.

SORTING THE PIECES

For its first eleven months (March 2013-February 2014), which comprised the OWG’s “stocktaking sessions,” governments (sometimes reluctantly) abided by the Co-Chairs’ advice to avoid negotiation until they had spent time in mutual learning and discussion. It was during this stocktaking phase that governments, in essence, opened the sustainable development puzzle, analyzed its pieces and sorted them into possible SDG categories. At times, governments set various pieces off to the side (such as climate change, as well as peaceful and non-violent societies, rule of law and governance), to determine if they belonged in this puzzle. Other issues related to other autonomous institutions, such as the WTO and its TRIPS agreement or the UNFCCC climate change negotiations, and the OWG had to consider how to handle these overlapping issues. In the end, the eight stocktaking sessions involved formal discussion of over 58 issues, including presentations from 80 experts, and participation of government representatives, members of the UN system, civil society and other stakeholders. The year amounted to an extraordinary collaborative learning experience, leaving participants better informed about the challenges that the SDGs must address and the approaches they might want to take when they turned to constructing a set of goals and targets.

DISCERNING THE OUTLINE

OWG-9 in March 2014 marked a turning point, as delegates shifted gears from stocktaking to decision-making mode. At this point, the OWG identified areas of convergence and divergence and debated the “borders” or outline of the SDGs, and the puzzle began to take shape. As they discussed 19 proposed Focus Areas and considered which issues, goals and targets could be included in the final list of SDGs, delegates realized both the possibilities and challenges of the task. Reflecting on this meeting, the Earth Negotiations Bulletin said 80% of the proposals for goals and targets seemed to enjoy broad consensus—especially those related to the unfinished work of the MDGs (the social dimension of sustainable development), but the remaining 20% “represent some of the most challenging issues, including means of implementation and broader financing issues, common but differentiated responsibilities, and universality.”

The outline started to come together at OWG-10, where Co-Chairs Macharia Kamau and Csaba Kőrösi reviewed the scope, purpose and design of the SDGs and targets, stressing that the Group’s outcome should integrate the unfinished business of the MDGs, address the three dimensions of sustainable development as framed by the Rio+20 outcome document, and contribute to the global response to emerging issues related to sustainable development. Co-Chair Kamau challenged delegates to see beyond the usual boundary of the sustainable development dialogue and  prioritize “twenty-first century challenges” such as climate change, cities, ecosystems, governance and inequality, “no matter how politically difficult.”

PUTTING THE PIECES TOGETHER

The list of goals and targets came into sharper focus as the 11th, 12th and 13th sessions of the OWG proceeded.  These sessions also represented the closest thing to full intergovernmental negotiations that the Group conducted. Delegates and observers alike questioned the working methods of the Co-Chairs throughout the process. Argentina and other delegations repeatedly asked when they would begin word-by-word negotiations; they expressed frustration that the Co-Chairs continued to issue new versions of the working document, even if they afforded the Group the chance to “ventilate” the text before moving on. However, the Co-Chairs’ long, determined avoidance of word-by-word negotiations had a positive result, in that discussions largely stayed focused on the substance of governments’ differences and the motivations behind them. Discussions on changes to proposed SDGs were strikingly substantive, as delegates explained their positions and sought to persuade others. The careful shepherding of the process by Co-Chairs Kőrösi and Kamau was ultimately applauded on Saturday morning, when Member States expressed their gratitude to the Co-Chairs for ensuring that the OWG fulfilled its mandate.

Nonetheless, delegates faced several hurdles during the final three sessions as they tried to connect all of the pieces. Almost from the beginning, it was possible to identify which sections of the puzzle might be the most difficult to finish, including: climate change and the principle of CBDR; sexual and reproductive health and rights; rule of law and peaceful societies; and means of implementation. On the issue of climate change, many delegates expressed concern about the possibility that the language in the proposed SDGs could prejudge the outcome of the current round of UNFCCC negotiations, especially on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. Several delegates feared that this might impact the post-2020 climate change framework, which is supposed to be designed for application to all parties. If the SDGs emphasize and pronounce issues of differentiation, one delegate warned that it would be “exactly prejudging” the outcome of COP21 in December 2015.

References to sexual and reproductive health and rights have been a divisive issue throughout the UN system for decades. Many delegates threatened to reject the final text because target 5.6 calls for ensuring “universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights,” although qualified by “as agreed in accordance with the Programme of Action of the ICPD and the Beijing Platform for Action and the outcome documents of their review conferences.” Yet proponents were still disappointed, noting this was a weak target, and opponents did not really want to accept the language at all.

Issues on rule of law and governance posed another test. Transparent governance, a fair judiciary, land tenure, and the self-determination of peoples under foreign occupation were all listed as examples of precursors to sustainable development throughout the week, but up to the final day, delegates disagreed on whether to expand the three dimensions of sustainable development to take on a fourth dimension that crosses the boundaries into sensitive political issues. In the end, delegates included language in both the chapeau and Goal 16 on peaceful societies, but only after extensive and protracted debate, and reducing the scope of the references.

Discussions on the means of implementation for the goals also created tension between donor and recipient countries. Countries agreed that means of implementation are crucial for the success of the goals, but disagreed on the balance of responsibility. Developed countries stressed the need to maintain principles of universality and balance across the three pillars of sustainable development while developing countries called for greater financial and technical assistance. Developing countries pushed for MOI targets throughout the goals (rather than only in Goal 17, which the developed countries preferred), citing the failure to sufficiently implement MDG 8 on the global partnership for development. In the end, MOI targets appeared in every goal, but they were more limited than what developing countries initially called for.

MOVING ONTO THE NEXT PUZZLE: WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR THE POST-2015 DEVELOPMENT AGENDA?

Even as exhausted delegates and other stakeholders left the UN on Saturday afternoon, many were already looking ahead to the next steps in the process. The OWG’s proposal on SDGs will be submitted to the UN General Assembly in September, where the next steps will be determined. Comments during the closing plenary reinforced the fact that the SDGs’ output is only a “proposal” to the UN General Assembly. Many delegates and the Co-Chairs indicated a number of times that there is likely still another year’s worth of deliberations before the SDGs are formally adopted by the UN General Assembly along with other components of the post-2015 development agenda that will succeed the MDGs. Indeed, the SDGs are not the only puzzle in the room.

Numerous other parallel processes are trying to complete their own part of the larger post-2015 development puzzle: the Intergovernmental Committee of Experts on Sustainable Development Financing (ICESDF), the Financing for Development Conference (FfD), the UNFCCC negotiations, the third UN Conference on Small Island Developing States, and the post-2015 Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. Collectively, all of these pieces will have to fit together…somehow.

With this in mind, participants wondered throughout the week, both privately and in their interventions, about the ultimate standing of the proposed goals in the broader agenda. Regardless of the answer, most agreed that the OWG process amounted to a discussion that needed to happen: what definition of sustainable development could the international community come together to support, and to what concrete goals could it collectively commit? Of the many accomplishments of the OWG over the past 16 months, perhaps the greatest was that it took the discourse on sustainable development to the next level.

Ultimately, the list of goals and targets may not be as clear, concise or “crispy” as some may have wanted. However, it was developed by an intergovernmental process that was open to input from all stakeholders—a truly open working group. In fact, the cross-disciplinary learning process that the OWG started may just create a new way of approaching sustainable development. The OWG—including the Co-Chairs, Member States, representatives of Major Groups, the UN system and other stakeholders—can all take pride that it has taken the first giant step and completed a set of proposed SDGs and targets. While the puzzle of sustainable development may not be complete, the pieces are in place to make the post-2015 development agenda, a post-2015 sustainable development agenda.

UPCOMING MEETINGS

UNGA Dialogue 4 on Technology Transfer Mechanism: In General Assembly Resolution 68/210, UN Member States decided to hold a series of four, one-day structured dialogues to consider possible arrangements for a facilitation mechanism to promote the development, transfer and dissemination of clean and environmentally sound technologies. date: 23 July 2014   location: UN Headquarters, New York  contact: UN Division for Sustainable Development  email: dsd@un.org  www: http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&nr=702&type=13&menu=1822

Fifth Session of Intergovernmental Committee of Experts on Sustainable Development Financing: The fifth session of the Intergovernmental Committee of Experts on Sustainable Development Financing is scheduled in August 2014. dates: 4-8 August 2014  location: UN Headquarters, New York  contact: UN Division for Sustainable Development  fax: +1-212-963-4260  email: dsd@un.org  www: http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?menu=1688

Major Groups and Stakeholders Forum for Third International Conference on SIDS: The Division of Sustainable Development (DSD) of the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) is organizing this Forum in collaboration with an 18-member steering committee representing the nine Major Groups, and the Caribbean, Pacific and AIMS (Africa, Indian Ocean, Mediterranean and South China Sea) regions. date: 28 August 2014  location: Apia, Samoa  contact: Hiroko Morita-Lou, SIDS Unit, UN Division for Sustainable Development  email: morita-lou@un.org  www: http://www.sids2014.org/index.php?menu=1545 and http://www.sids2014.org/index.php?menu=14

Third UN Conference on Small Island Developing States: The Third UN Conference on SIDS will focus on the theme “Sustainable Development of SIDS through Genuine and Durable Partnerships.” dates: 1-4 September 2014  location: Apia, Samoa  contact: Hiroko Morita-Lou, SIDS Unit, UN Division for Sustainable Development  email: morita-lou@un.org www: http://www.sids2014.org/

UNGA Stock-Taking Exercise on the Post-2015 Development Agenda: The President of the UN General Assembly, John Ashe, will convene this stock-taking exercise to pull together events on the post-2015 development agenda. dates: 10-11 September 2014  location: UN Headquarters, New York  contact: Office of the President of the UNGA  www: http://www.un.org/en/ga/info/meetings/68schedule.shtml

69th Session of the United Nations General Assembly: The 69th session of the UN General Assembly (UNGA 69) will convene at UN Headquarters on Tuesday, 16 September 2014. The General Debate will open on Wednesday, 24 September 2014. dates: 16 September – December 2014  location: UN Headquarters, New York www: http://www.un.org/en/ga/

World Conference on Indigenous Peoples: The World Conference on Indigenous Peoples 2014 will be organized as a high-level plenary meeting of the 69th session of the UNGA and supported by the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, to share perspectives and best practices on the realization of the rights of indigenous peoples and to pursue the objectives of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. dates: 22-23 September 2014  location: UN Headquarters, New York  contact: Nilla Bernardi  phone: +1 212-963-8379  email: bernardi@un.org  www: http://wcip2014.org/

Special Session of the General Assembly on the follow-up to the Programme of Action of the ICPD: An eight-hour Special Session to Follow Up on the Programme of Action from the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) is being organized to coincide with the high-level segment of the general debate at the UNGA. date: 22 September 2014  location: UN Headquarters, New York  contact: Mandy Kibel, UNFPA  phone: +1-212-297-5293 email: kibel@unfpa.org www: http://icpdbeyond2014.org/

UN Climate Summit: UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon will convene the Summit with the aim of mobilizing political will for a universal and legally-binding comprehensive climate agreement in 2015. date: 23 September 2014  location: UN Headquarters, New York  www: http://www.un.org/climatechange/summit2014/

World Conference on Education for Sustainable Development: The 2014 Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) World Conference will address, inter alia, how ESD can help move sustainable development policy and action forward to meet different global, regional, national, and local needs. dates: 10-12 November 2014  location: Nagoya, Aichi, Japan  contact: Secretariat of the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development, UNESCO  phone: +33-1-45-68-15-89  fax: +33-1-45-68-56-26  email: esddecade@unesco.org  www: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/unesco-world-conference-on-esd-2014/

Third International Conference on Financing for Development: The third International Conference on Financing for Development will be held in July 2015. dates: 13-16 July 2015  location: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia  contact: UN Financing for Development Office  phone: +1-212-963-8379  fax: +1-212-963-0443  email: ffdoffice@un.org  www: www.un.org/esa/ffd

UN Summit to adopt the post-2015 Development Agenda: The United Nations Summit for the adoption of the post-2015 development agenda was mandated by the UN General Assembly on 25 September 2013 (Resolution 68/6).  dates: 21-23 September 2015 (tentative)  location: UN Headquarters, New York  www: http://bit.ly/1lplEtr

For additional meetings, see http://sd.iisd.org/

GLOSSARY
CBDR
COP       
ECOSOC
FfD
GDP
GNI        
HLPF     
ICESDF
ICPD     
ICT
LDCs     
LDNW
LLDCs
MDGs
MOI       
ODA      
OWG     
Rio+20
SCP        
SDGs     
SIDS      
STI         
10YFP
TRIPS
UNCLOS
UNFCCC
UNGA
WTO

Common but differentiated responsibilities
Conference of the Parties
Economic and Social Council
Financing for Development
Gross domestic product     
Gross National Income
High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development
Intergovernmental Committee of Experts on Sustainable Development Financing
International Conference on Population and          Development
Information and communications technology
Least developed countries
Land degradation neutral world
Land-locked developing countries
Millennium Development Goals
Means of Implementation
Official development assistance
Open Working Group
United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development
Sustainable consumption and production
Sustainable Development Goals
Small island developing states
Science, Technology and Innovation
10-Year Framework of Programmes on Sustainable Consumption and Production
Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights
UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
United Nations General Assembly
World Trade Organization

^ up to top
Back to IISD coverage
This issue of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin © <enb@iisd.org> is written and edited by Pamela Chasek, Ph.D. <pam@iisd.org>, Joanna Dafoe, Ana Maria Lebada, and Faye Leone. The Editor is Lynn Wagner, Ph.D. The Director of IISD Reporting Services is Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI <kimo@iisd.org>. The Sustaining Donor of the Bulletin is the European Commission (DG-ENV). General Support for the Bulletin during 2014 is provided by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB), the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, SWAN International, the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), the Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, the Japanese Ministry of Environment (through the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies - IGES), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the International Development Research Centre (IDRC). Specific funding for the coverage of this meeting has been provided by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC). Funding for translation of the Bulletin into French has been provided by the Government of France, the Wallonia, Québec, and the International Organization of La Francophonie/Institute for Sustainable Development of La Francophonie (IOF/IFDD). The opinions expressed in the Bulletin are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of IISD or other donors. Excerpts from the Bulletin may be used in non-commercial publications with appropriate academic citation. For information on the Bulletin, including requests to provide reporting services, contact the Director of IISD Reporting Services at <kimo@iisd.org>, +1-646-536-7556 or 300 East 56th St., 11D, New York, NY 10022 USA.
| Back to IISD RS "Linkages" | Visit IISDnet | Send e-mail to IISD RS |
© 2014, IISD. All rights reserved.