Statement by Ms Fleur Davies Counsellor, Permanent Mission of Australia on behalf of Canada, Australia and New Zealand to the United Nations informal meeting on the preparation of the 2010 high-level plenary meeting of the General Assembly on the MDGs. As delivered on 11 May 2010.
(as delivered)
I have the honour to speak today on behalf of Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
We wish to express our thanks again to the co-facilitators for their efforts, including in preparing the draft structure we are discussing today. This outline is a very useful starting point.
As CANZ emphasised during our last meeting, the Outcome needs to be a concise, action-oriented political declaration, aimed at galvanizing our leaders and the broader international community to commit to renewed efforts to achieve the MDGs by 2015.
If we want this outcome document to have real impact in driving international efforts over the next five years, it needs to be short, inspiring, and accessible.
We are concerned that the structure proposed would too easily lead to a lengthy and more technical document that would be of limited value in leveraging the renewed political will that we are seeking through the Summit.
CANZ encourages the co-facilitators to consider whether some sections of this structure could be combined, reduced, or deleted to promote greater clarity of the key messages.
In this regard, we see the need for the outcome document to be primarily forward-looking, focused on renewed commitments to action. It should not have lengthy descriptive sections reviewing the past.
In particular, we note the issues in the “Review” section in I. B of the structure are already thoroughly documented in the Secretary-General’s report “Keeping the Promise” and in other key MDG review reports. The outcome document should reference the assessments in these reports, focusing on the gaps, but need not repeat these assessments in any level of detail.
We also propose that the document needs to begin with a clear reaffirmation of commitment to the MDGs. We suggest that I.A.(f) should be brought forward to the very start of the document – that is, we need to start by re-committing to the values and principles of the Millennium Declaration and World Summit Outcome, and in particular re-commit to achieving the MDGs by 2015.
In considering Section II of the document on “The way forward: an action agenda for the poor”, there is potentially considerable overlap between the parts on “elements” and “targeted actions”. We would want to avoid duplication to ensure that the message conveyed is clear.
We also have some uncertainties about the level of detail the document might get into in relation to particular MDGs. There are hundreds of pages of action plans already documented for specific MDGs, and we cannot hope to capture the richness of detail included in these other documents.
We would be keen to hear initial views from the co-facilitators on this point. Are we thinking about one paragraph per MDG, or ten? How will we determine what are the most important points to include in the document? Do we risk over-simplifying complex problems and being too prescriptive, in seeking to set out agreed actions for each MDG? How can we reconcile the variety of country contexts and the need to align our commitments to the principle of country ownership?
Assuming we can agree on the right balance between too much detail and over-simplification, we would suggest starting Section II with “Principles” which could include interconnectedness of the MDGs; the importance of holistic strategies; and the need for a nationally-led, country-specific approach, taking account of best practices and lessons learned. The SG report does contain useful text in this regard.
We could then treat each MDG or cluster of MDGs in turn, up to MDG7, setting out agreed actions at a strategic level. Following MDG7, we suggest inserting the key elements of successful strategies which are currently at the front end of Section II in the draft outline. These elements, i.e. the policies, institutions, and financial resources issues, together with partnerships issues, constitute the key elements that are required for a successful national MDG agenda.
The document should conclude with a strong re-affirmation of support for the Global Partnership for Development, based on the realisation of MDG8. This should acknowledge that the landscape of development has dramatically changed since 2000; we need to recognize the importance of a variety of resource flows and urge all partners to commit to achieving the MDGs by 2015.
In closing, we would raise a point of procedure. We all realize that time will be limited for all delegations in the coming months and that we all need to manage multiple processes and meetings. In this context, we would request that the co-facilitators present us as soon as possible with a schedule of meetings so we can make suitable arrangements to guarantee our full participation in this important process.
One further point. We know many member states and organisations are planning events in the margins of the MDGs Summit. We suggest it would be useful for the Secretariat to establish a mechanism for sharing information and coordinating planning for such events.
The CANZ countries commit to continue to work constructively towards a strong, balanced, and concise outcome document that will spur collective action by the international community over the next five years.