人权理事会开展关于教育和国际团结问题的互动对话（部分翻译）

人权理事会
下午

2015年6月18日

与2015年后发展议程政府间磋商共同主持人进行对话

人权理事会今天下午与教育权问题特别报告员基肖尔·辛格（Kishore Singh）和人权与国际团结问题独立专家弗吉利亚·丹丹（Virginia Dandan）开展集体互动对话。在这一天结束的时候，理事会与爱尔兰常驻联合国纽约代表兼2015年后发展议程政府间磋商共同主持人大卫·多诺哥（David Donoghue）进行了对话。

辛格先生在介绍其报告时重点关注了保护教育避免商业化问题，并强调有必要维护教育的公益性。私有化会滋生排斥，被边缘化的人就会变得更加弱势，这将有损作为一种权利的受教育权。各国仍然肩负着落实受教育权的首要责任。

丹丹女士在介绍时表示，国际团结应被理解为各族人民、个人、国家及其国际组织利益、宗旨和行动的汇合点，以实现需要国家合作和集体行动来推动和平和安全以及发展和人权的共同目标。

在之后的对话中，发言人强调称，落实受教育权的责任落在了国家而非私立教育机构身上。发言人注意到了规范化私立教育机构的积极影响，但坚持称要维护教育的公益性。他们强调了人人享有免费优质教育的重要性。

一些发言人对国际团结既不是法律概念也不是一种人权表示了关切，另一些发言人对开展关于国际团结宣言草案的磋商表示欢迎。发言人介绍了其与国际合作和团结相关的一些倡议。

发言的有代表非洲集团的阿尔及利亚、代表伊斯兰合作组织的巴基斯坦、代表拉丁美洲和加勒比地区的厄瓜多尔、欧盟、代表阿拉伯集团的突尼斯、巴拉圭、美国、葡萄牙、智利、卡塔尔、爱沙尼亚、印度、沙特阿拉伯、以色列、澳大利亚、中国、韩国、塞拉利昂、阿拉伯联合酋长国、萨尔瓦多、埃及、马里、孟加拉国、摩洛哥、厄瓜多尔、委内瑞拉、伊朗、英国、印度尼西亚、贝宁、突尼斯、希腊、格鲁吉亚、俄罗斯联邦、安哥拉、吉布提、巴西、法国、科特迪瓦、古巴、联合国教育、科学及文化组织和斯里兰卡。

阿尔及利亚和不丹作为当事国发言。

安哥拉、中国和马来西亚作了答辩发言。

在这一天结束的时候，理事会与2015年后发展议程政府间磋商共同主持人大卫·多诺哥（David Donoghue）进行了对话。多诺哥先生向理事会汇报了2015年后发展议程磋商的最新情况，包括与总体目标和具体目标、指标和落实相关的磋商。人权贯穿整个框架；一些独立的总体目标涉及十分明确的人权层面，但它们在整个议程中都有强烈的呼应。

发言人对共同主持人的工作和领导表示感谢，并强调了2015年后议程对消除贫穷和可持续发展的重要性。大多数发言人都坚持称人权应是议程的核心，包括在指标层面。一些发言人强调称，普遍定期审议可以作为对发展议程人权层面落实情况的监督和跟进机制。

多诺哥先生在总结发言中证实了不单单要将人权纳入总体目标，还要包括在落实层面的重要性。他强调了民间社会在试图影响国家指标的制定上将发挥的重要作用。

发言的有欧盟、代表蓝色小组的巴西、中国、瑞士、智利、孟加拉国、巴西和墨西哥。国家促进和保护人权机构国际协调委员会（International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights）、阿拉伯人权委员会（Arab Commission for Human Rights）和世界公民参与联盟（CIVICUS）也进行了发言。

人权理事会将于6月19日（周五）上午9点继续开展工作，届时将举行关于妇女人权的年度全日讨论。周五中午，人权理事会将结束与教育权问题特别报告员以及人权与国际团结问题独立专家的互动对话，并开始与法外处决、即审即决或任意处决问题特别报告员以及法律和实践中的歧视妇女问题工作组的集体互动对话。

文件

理事会面前有教育权问题特别报告员的报告（A/HRC/29/30）

理事会面前有 教育权问题特别报告员关于其不丹访问的报告增编（A/HRC/29/30/Add.1）

理事会面前有教育权问题特别报告员关于其阿尔及利亚访问的报告增编（A/HRC/29/30/Add.2）

理事会面前有教育权问题特别报告员的报告增编——不丹的意见（A/HRC/29/30/Add.3）

理事会面前有教育权问题特别报告员的报告增编——阿尔及利亚的意见（A/HRC/29/30/Add.4）

理事会面前有人权与国际团结问题独立专家的报告（A/HRC/29/35）

Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the right to education and the Independent Expert on international solidarity

KISHORE SINGH, Special Rapporteur on the right to education, said that his thematic report focused on protecting education from commercialization and examined with deep concern the negative effects of this phenomenon on the norms, principles and legal frameworks underlying the right to education. Privatization bred exclusion, as the marginalized were further disadvantaged, and undermined the right to education as an entitlement. The report stressed the repercussions of privatization on the principles of social justice and equity, and underlined the need to safeguard education as a public good. There were many different public policy responses available for non-State providers of education, including supporting establishment of community schools, philanthropic educational establishments which promoted education as a societal good, harnessing corporate social responsibility, and others. The report also analysed national legislation in various countries which prohibited for-profit education and emphasized education as a public good, and it also offered recommendations on how the right to education could be protected from the forces of commercialization, and how education must be safeguarded as a public good. The State remained primarily responsible for fulfilling the right to education, and instead of disinvesting education to the advantage of private providers, governments must expand opportunities for good quality public education and devote maximum resources to education. The international community also had an important role to play and the Special Rapporteur urged the United Nations human rights treaty bodies to give special consideration during their dialogues with States to the negative effects of privatization, while State obligations for respecting, protecting and fulfilling the right to education should also be a priority concern in the Universal Periodic Review.

Turning to country visits, the Special Rapporteur commended Bhutan for its commitment to strengthening its education system and for placing it at the heart of its national development plans. Its success in achieving the education-related Millennium Development Goals and achievements in literacy for a least developed country such as Bhutan was praiseworthy. Mr. Singh urged Bhutan to develop a comprehensive policy and legislative framework to regulate private education institutions to ensure that education was safeguarded as a public good, in order to ensure that privatization did not exacerbate the inequalities within the country.

Algeria had accorded great attention to education since independence, leading to access to education as a fundamental right, and should continue with its efforts to consolidate progress in this area. There was a commitment at the highest level to the realization of the right of education, as seen in very high educational levels and gender parity at all levels. The quality of education was the ultimate challenge.

In closing, the Special Rapporteur said that education was a public good that served a greater social purpose that benefited all. Universal access at the minimum to free basic education of good quality for all provided by public schools must be an overriding development concern. In the context of the post-2015 development agenda, it was important to ensure that States did not disinvest in public education by relying on private providers.

VIRGINIA DANDAN, Independent Expert on Human Rights and International Solidarity, presented her report which revisited the concept of international solidarity in human rights terms, and in particular, in the context of the proposed draft declaration on the right of peoples and individuals to international solidarity. The first and foremost of the attributes of international solidarity was its inherent link with human rights. International solidarity had to be understood as the convergence of interests, purposes and actions between and among peoples, individuals, States and their international organizations, to achieve the common goals that required international cooperation and collective action in order to foster peace and security, development and human rights. This required that States respected the human rights standards set forth in the international human rights treaties and that non-State actors should be guided in their activities by codes of conduct to prevent harm. While international cooperation was a key feature and mechanism of international solidarity, international cooperation was not the same as international solidarity. International solidarity had to be understood within the context of the conditions that States were duty-bound to maintain in accordance with the United Nations Charter, and not otherwise.

International solidarity required that human rights standards should guide the policies and practices of State and of non-State actors, and was manifested when the collective action of States had a positive impact on the exercise and enjoyment of human rights. The important role of civil society in engaging in international solidarity was highlighted. She referred to the alarming spread of HIV/AIDS, which had united the international community in an unprecedented manner and generated considerable financial contributions. The establishment of a fair, inclusive and rights-based international trade and investment regime required that all States recognized their obligations to ensure that no international trade agreement or policy to which they were party adversely impacted upon the protection and enjoyment of human rights inside or outside of their borders.

Statements by Concerned Countries

Algeria, speaking as a concerned country, said that the report showed mostly positive appreciation of Algeria’s achievements in the area of education. The country had deployed enormous efforts in the realization of the right to education in terms of school and university infrastructure. More than 16 per cent of the State budget was devoted to education, which was free at all levels. The rate of primary education exceeded 97 per cent and the ratio of boys and girls was mostly achieved at all levels. As for the Special Rapporteur’s recommendation concerning the establishment of a legal framework which would fix and guarantee the minimum level of national budget dedicated to education, it was important to emphasize that such allocations were never reduced. Concerning school instruction in the Amazigh language, a relevant strategy had been put in place. The schooling of children with disabilities was also ensured, as well as the quality of education.

Bhutan, speaking as a concerned country, appreciated the Special Rapporteur’s engagement with the Government during the visit. Education was always a priority for the royal Government, and was key for the development of the country. Education was enshrined in the Constitution and free education was provided to all children up to class ten. Some 17 per cent of the national budget was spent on education, and the nation-wide consultation 2014-2024 was held in order to reform the education system and to ensure that all children had access to education. Access to education was not based on citizenship or residence, as indicated in the report. Continuous efforts were being made to ensure that education met the various needs of the country’s population, including children with disabilities. Bhutan had also contributed to discussions on the post-2015 development agenda.

Interactive Dialogue

Algeria, speaking on behalf of the African Group, noted that it was important to foster global partnership and friendly relations and welcomed the elaboration of the draft declaration on the right to international solidarity. Governments played an important role in the provision of free education and in equitable access to education. Pakistan, speaking on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, shared concerns over the rapid growth of private educational institutions solely motivated by commercial interests, and underlined the issue of lack of availability of public schools. It expressed support for the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on international solidarity, and looked forward to consultations on the draft declaration. Ecuador, speaking on behalf of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean Countries, said south-south cooperation was an instrument to ensure that developing countries played a more important role in the international community. On education, the Community recognized that universal access to public, free and quality education was a key tool to empower women and vulnerable groups and to establish a culture of peace. European Union underlined that the main responsibility to ensure access to the right to education rested with States, and not with private educational institutions, and expressed regret that schools continued to be targeted by vicious attacks. As the world’s biggest contributor in term of development assistance, the European Union demonstrated its commitment to international solidarity on a daily basis, but stressed that international solidarity was not a legal concept or a human right.

Tunisia, speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, was concerned that education was increasingly being marketed as a good, and underlined that the right to education was the responsibility of States. Private education would not resolve issues encountered with public education, and it was important to regulate private education to ensure that they did not destroy the messages of public education. Paraguay agreed that universal access to education was a prerequisite for its realization and there should be no discrimination or segregation of any type in that respect. In Paraguay education was a pillar of national development. United States noted that it was important that education at all levels promoted excellence and access, enriched by diversity. Inclusive education had to be a priority so that all students, including girls and students of colour, had the best chance possible to learn and thrive. Portugal appreciated the report’s focus on the protection of education against commercialization. Since the issue might suffer from misunderstandings from a significant number of stakeholders, the Special Rapporteur was asked to comment on the opinion by some that the freedom to teach was compatible with education as an economic activity, including in the private sector. Chile agreed that international solidarity was a value and a tool to meet international challenges, especially in the framework of the post-2015 development agenda. It agreed with the Special Rapporteur’s recommendations on the need for the oversight of private education providers.

Qatar said that the private sector could also enrich the education process and agreed that education should not be confined to the rich but should be open to all citizens. The National Vision for Qatar 2030 saw the important role of education in human development and Qatar asked how investments in the private sector could help countries meet their international standards. Estonia reiterated that education was not a privilege but an inalienable human right and that States were primarily responsible for guaranteeing the protection of this right. The quality of education must be equally high. The role of private schools on innovation in education needed to be recognized. India said that in a country as vast as India, education needed to also be provided by actors other than the State, but they must all respect the agreed principles and be accountable. All people had the right to international solidarity and international cooperation should come without any conditionality and in line with principles of the United Nations Charter. Saudi Arabia said States should ensure education and the fight against illiteracy. Education was a cornerstone of development, and Saudi Arabia continued to develop public education at all levels through projects and initiatives, including those addressing quality of education.

Israel said that the right to education was a fundamental right that Israel acknowledged and held dear since its founding days. It was the essential role of national governments and the international community to provide for and ensure quality education for the entire world’s youth. Some services, including education, should not be privatized. Australia said it was committed to the full realization of the right to education and provided universal, publicly accessible primary and lower secondary schooling, which was compulsory. It agreed that States should regulate the education sector to ensure quality and equity of access, in particular in the case of students with disabilities. China appreciated efforts of the Special Rapporteur to ensure equal access to education, which was a strategic goal. China strove to provide better education to all Chinese citizens and thus increased allowances to disadvantaged students and improved school infrastructure in rural areas. As for international solidarity, it was the foundation for shared global prosperity and peace. Republic of Korea placed a key emphasis on the right to education and the State’s responsibility to provide lifelong education for all citizens. The Government made every effort to strengthen the public education system, and in 2014 enacted an act on the normalization of public education in order to create sound conditions for the development of public education.

Sierra Leone stressed the primary right of parents to provide the best possible education opportunities for their children and the question was that of affordability and accessibility rather than entitlement. With regard to international solidarity, it was important that the post-2015 development agenda was grounded on human rights standards. United Arab Emirates said that private education took special place in the United Arab Emirates and was based on a comprehensive strategy laid down by the Ministry of Education, which encouraged competitiveness in terms of quality and the rights of students to choose. El Salvador said that education was the best way to combat poverty and that its development strategy was based on pillars of productive employment, inclusive education and social equality and citizen security. El Salvador urged all to continue to work on the preliminary draft of the United Nations declaration on the right to international solidarity and stressed the fundamental role of international solidarity in the post-2015 development agenda. Egypt said that private providers of education significantly supported national efforts in enabling access and reducing tuition and recognized the possible negative ramifications resulting from profit-driven privatization of education. Egypt took positive note of the finalization of the preliminary draft of the United Nations Declaration on the right to international solidarity.

Mali believed that education was an essential right, which was crucial for the social and economic development of any society. In Mali, more than half of the population was 15 years of age or younger. Basic education in Mali was obligatory, free of charge and secular. A number of education programmes in Mali had benefited from the support of a number of bilateral and multilateral partners. Bangladesh stressed that while discussing elements for international solidarity, they needed to be guided by the United Nations Charter first and foremost. Poverty, deprivation and underdevelopment were both causes and consequences of human rights violations. An open, equitable, rule-based and non-discriminatory multilateral trading and financial system was of crucial importance. Morocco supported the opinion of Mr. Singh that the private education sector should not be limited to making profits. Schools were flourishing in Morocco, to which the private sector had also contributed, by enshrining main principles. Certain evolution in that regard had been seen; Morocco was now focused on providing equality of opportunity and the equality of education for all children. Ecuador said that in December 2014, UNESCO had published results of the third comparative study on education, in which Ecuador had shown significant improvements. Ecuador had thus been chosen as the representative of the region in the World Forum on Education in 2015. Universalization of general basic education had taken place in Ecuador in 2011, leading to more than 95 percent of children attending basic schools.

Venezuela noted that the privatization of education was the easiest way for capitalist countries to exclude the majority of the society from the right to education. International solidarity had to be the fundamental principle and value of justice and social equality, with guarantees for sovereignty and equality among States. Iran said that solidarity was a positive force in the lives of people and nations, and it should be protected from exploitation and corruption at the international level. Iran agreed that education was increasingly being opened up to profit-making. Education was not a privilege of the well-to-do, but an inalienable right of every person. United Kingdom recognized the important role that the private sector could play in delivering and developing high-quality education provisions, alongside the public sector. It was important for States to be able to define the appropriate balance between private and public education. Indonesia appreciated the Special Rapporteur’s recommendations on developing effective regulatory frameworks for controlling private providers of education, and safeguarding education as a public good. The fulfilment of the right to education was a powerful tool to transform social classes.

Benin said that guaranteeing the right to education as a pillar to development was an obligation of all States, and presented domestic efforts to ensure free access to quality education for all, including girls. Benin also supported the idea of continuing consultations on international solidarity. Tunisia said its constitution recognized the right to free education, and that it had conducted national inclusive consultations for reforming education. Education was one of the most important budget headings in Tunisia. Greece said education was a core obligation of States, and supported better protection of schools from attacks in conflict zones. The best remedy to tackle inequality worldwide was through free education for all, regardless of origin, religion or gender. Education should remain a public good. Georgia said the right to education had been confirmed in a recently adopted national human rights action plan. Despite efforts by the Government, the occupied territories in Georgia still lacked access to education, and the right to learn Georgian history and culture was violated by the Russian occupation forces.

Russia believed that the issue of international solidarity did not receive the attention it deserved in the Council. Serious attention must be given to the question of privatization of education and States must adopt strict laws regulating private education institutions. Angola noted that legal and economic barriers and child marriage affected negatively the enjoyment of the right to education. Education was a fundamental human right and a core obligation of States, and must be preserved as a public good. Djibouti said that international solidarity was a powerful tool to overcome human rights challenges and the international cooperation was a valuable tool in that sense too. The Independent Expert should continue her work on international solidarity. Brazil said that international solidarity should not be confined to international aid or humanitarian assistance, but should encompass the realization of human rights, including the right to development. Only education liberated people and opened doors to a prosperous future and that was why access to quality education at all levels was an essential component of efforts to achieve sustainable development.

France said that equal access to quality education was a crucial right, as education was indispensable for flourishing of all citizens and promoting social cohesion. Education was a public good, and it was up to the Government to ensure it was provided. Private actors could take part in the education field, but under clear principles. Families should have a choice between sending their children to public or private schools. Côte d’Ivoire stressed that international solidarity should be based on the partnership of equal players and involve States, citizens and civil society. Advocacy of such a global partnership ought to be continued. The right to education should be promoted by all countries, and it was up to States first and foremost to guarantee that right to its citizens. Cuba viewed international solidarity as being of the utmost importance and in line with the principles of the United Nations Charter. Work done on drafting a universal declaration on international solidarity was appreciated, and Cuba would table a draft resolution on that issue. Making education a tradable, commercial asset would jeopardize the access of all persons to education; privatization inevitably led to exclusion and marginalization. UNESCO stressed the importance of life-learning experiences, and said that regulating private providers was essential. Aggravating disparities in education ought to be avoided at all costs. Public actors were called upon to establish a solid regulatory framework to regulate provision of education by private actors. Sri Lanka said access to education for all was a core obligation for all States, and that it had adopted policies and legislation to foster access to quality education. Sri Lanka highlighted the importance of enhancing public investments in education in order to maintain education as a public good.

Response

VIRGINIA DANDAN, Independent Expert on Human Rights and International Solidarity, in response to a question by the European Union, said consultations held on the proposed draft declaration were a success, and expressed satisfaction at the expressions of support for her mandate. She expressed her warm invitation to the next consultation, to be held next month in Addis Ababa. She would continue implementing her mandate with much fervour and determination.

Right of Reply

Angola, speaking in a right of reply, asked that non-governmental organizations be more objective, in reaction to allegations made on the situation of freedom of expression in the country. Raphael Marques was facing prosecution for defamation, which was considered a crime under Angolan law. Marcos Mavundo was being held preventively for having committed sedition.

China, speaking in a right of reply, resolutely rejected the slander of several civil society organizations, noting that China protected freedom of expression and religion, and protected the rights of minorities, including the Tibetan people. The punishment of individual criminals should not be confused with the issue of minority protection. China was open and supported frank international cooperation, but those organizations that undermined China’s internal stability would be punished.

Malaysia, speaking in a right of reply, in response to accusations by two civil society organizations about the rights to peaceful assembly and association, and to freedom of opinion and expression said the Government aimed to preserve peace and stability in the country and had enacted the Sedition Act after consultations with civil society organizations and other stakeholders. Malaysia remained committed to the protection of freedom of expression, but noted that public order and security had to be upheld. The Sedition Act was a useful act that aimed to strike a balance between the exercise of free speech and security.

Presentation on Negotiations on the Post-2015 Development Agenda

DAVID DONOGHUE, Permanent Representative of Ireland to the United Nations in New York and co-facilitator for inter-governmental negotiations on the post-2015 development agenda, said that negotiations on the agenda were currently entering the final stage. It was hoped that textual negotiations on the zero draft would commence the following week and that an agreement would be reached by the end of July. An outcome document would be provided to the Heads of State and Government for the Summit from 25 to 27 September. Mr. Donoghue reminded that there were 17 goals, with 169 targets or sub-goals. The goals and targets had been discussed in detail throughout the negotiations, and were expected to emerge unchanged in the final document.

There was a separate area of work on indicators to support the implementation of work.
The indicators would be prepared by the United Nations Statistical Commission, in cooperation with a range of other players, and would be completed by March 2016. In addition, there would be a section on follow-up and review arrangements, which would take place at global, regional and national levels. The details of many of them remained to be settled, which would be done after September. Another important section of the document was on the means of the implementation. A major conference would take place in Addis Ababa in July, and negotiations were underway in New York. Those negotiations sought to put together a package of measures which would ensure the implementation of the new framework.

From a human rights perspective, it was right to say that human rights were at the heart of the new agenda, as they were included in many goals and targets. Human rights were cutting across the whole framework; some stand-alone goals had a very clear human rights dimension, but they resonated strongly in the entire agenda. The Millennium Development Goals had paved the way, and the post-2015 development agenda would continue on the same path. All the Governments would attempt to tackle poverty eradication and protection of the planet in a more far-reaching manner than ever before. The new goals were being negotiated in detail by 193 Member States, which was a daunting task. The goals and targets were genuinely universal and would be translated into real policy; it was hoped that every country in the world would be on board.

Discussion

European Union said the post-2015 agenda constituted a great opportunity to link sustainable development and poverty eradication, and that it should be based on human rights and promote equal opportunity between men and girls. The European Union remained confident in the co-facilitator’s ability to reach a successful goal. Brazil, in a joint statement on behalf of 21 cross-regional States called the Blue Group, expressed their satisfaction on the proposal to establish a standalone universal goal on water and sanitation, and welcomed the inclusion of targets that translated into normative content of the right to safe drinking water and sanitation. China said the negotiations on the agenda should be inclusive and transparent, with Member States playing a leading role. Negotiations should focus on poverty eradication and should include the right to development. Human rights were not development issues and should not substitute development issues within the post-2015 development agenda.

Montenegro said that it was essential that the human rights approach be included in the formulation of the post-2015 development agenda. It was of utmost importance to ensure that the new development framework was universal and inclusive, and based on the principles of transparency and mutual accountability. Switzerland noted that the post-2015 development agenda should be based on human rights. It was indispensable that the international community define the accountability mechanism in order to follow the progress of implementation of the new development framework. Chile said that sustainable development goals needed to reflect the new development paradigm, with focus on poverty reduction and dealing with environmental challenges. The new targets should be met for all social and economic groups. As for monitoring, Chile inquired whether due diligence for States would also be applied to businesses. Bangladesh underlined the importance of reflecting the issues of poverty and deprivation in the post-2015 development agenda. Developing countries faced resource constraints, climate change impacts, capacity deficit, gaps between national priorities and donor policies, and legal enforcement gaps. International cooperation, thus, had to factor in as a right and not as charity.

Brazil said the human-rights based development agenda needed to be based on universality, participation and non-discrimination. The human being ought to be the principal beneficiary of the right to development. An ambitious and sustainable international development agenda would create new possibilities and architectures for engagement. Mexico found it fundamental that the post-2015 agenda included principles of universality, equality and non-discrimination. To that aim, Mexico had promoted closing gaps in society, promoting the universal inclusivity of the agenda. Any development required public policy frameworks; it was important to strengthen the link between international development and international human rights instruments.

International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights called on Member States to adopt a follow-up and review mechanism that ensured mutual accountability for the commitments made. States were asked to tap into the experience of the Human Rights Council on the modalities and experiences of the Universal Periodic Review. Arab Commission for Human Rights asked how it could be ensured that the objectives would be sufficient and satisfactory to people on the ground. Tunisia and Egypt, the two most advanced countries in Africa when it came to the realization of the Millennium Development Goals, had experienced revolutions, as democratic aspects had not really been addressed. Were secondary indicators planned in the new agenda? World Alliance for Citizen Participation said the Council’s Universal Periodic Review mechanism could play a great follow-up and review mechanism for the development goals. Would civil society be invited to play a role in the follow-up mechanism?

Concluding Remarks

DAVID DONOGHUE, co-facilitator of the intergovernmental negotiations on the post-2015 development agenda, said the implementation arrangements were an important focus of the current negotiations, and constituted one of the priorities for the agenda. Human rights were at the core of the agenda, and they had to remain so at the implementation level. The High-Level Political Forum would likely be the main mechanism for monitoring the implementation of the goals at the global level, and negotiations on how this would work were still underway. There was strong emphasis in the negotiations at the national level on follow-up and review of the implementation of the goals. Indicators were a vital part of the agenda. There would be indicators at the global level, and Member States would establish national indicators as well. There was a very important role for civil society in terms of influencing the national indicators’ drafting process. A crucial concept for the new framework was ambition. A high degree of ambition was required in the creation and implementation of the goals. The Statistical Commission was in charge of developing the indicators.

____________
For use of the information media; not an official record

Follow UNIS Geneva on: Website | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube |Flickr