Statement by
the Republic of Maldives
on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS)
at the Session on Review and Followup of the Post2015 Development Agenda
21 May 2015
Co-Facilitators,
I have the honour to speak on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS). We align ourselves with the statement delivered by the distinguished delegate of South Africa on behalf of G77 and China.
Thank you, for circulating the revised targets document ahead of this session, and for outlining your rationale for the proposals. We note that you addressed our request to be clearer on your rationale for the “tweaks”, but we still remain unclear of the modalities going forward for addressing the X and Y, as we had asked then.
We still remain cautious of engaging in this exercise. As you would recall, in March, we spoke about the sensible political equilibrium that these 17 goals and 169 targets represent. It was through intense yet constructive negotiations, that we managed to achieve this balance. This is why we continue to have reservations, to re-open the discussion on these goals and targets. We are concerned that any attempt to re-open or re-negotiate the SDGs would upset the delicate political balance. This is why we have also cautioned against tweaking or technically proofing the targets.
Having said the above, let me express some thoughts on your proposed rationale for the revisions of targets.
- The question of alignment with international agreements is a noble one. Ofcourse, we want our agenda to take stock of other agreements we have had. But international agreements are being negotiated and agreed all the time, and will continue to happen after we adopt our Agenda. Does that imply that we will be revising targets on a rolling basis? Or should we address this issue in another manner, perhaps, as was suggested by several delegations during March, adding in the outcome document, a caveat that suggests that targets under the Post2015 Development Agenda, do not undermine or negate commitments under other international agreements.
- On the question of specificity and measurability in relation to X and Y that remain in the text, we recognise that these are remnants of the OWG process. In this regard, as we had indicated before, the modalities for addressing the X percentages must be clear. All must then agree to these modalities. The modalities could, among others, outline how we reach agreement, how we would resolve disagreement, establish a floor, and act in cases where an agreement is not possible or foreseeable. Any process that is devised for this exercise must be inter-governmental in nature to ensure transparency and inclusivity.
May we also take this opportunity to pose some questions to you co-facilitators
- It is our understanding that the Inter Agency and Expert Group on SDG indicators has now been constituted, and we note with satisfaction that at least 3 SIDS are members. We would welcome an indication from you on when we could be briefed on the progress of their work. It is our understanding that the first meeting of the group is scheduled in early June.
I thank you.
