By Javier Surasky-
Today I have the honor of joining the consultation called by the Permanent Representatives of Germany and Namibia to the United Nations, as Co-facilitators of the Pact for the Future negotiation process, on the Second Revision of the Pact.
Following, you will find my statement, in which I concluded some of the conclusions coming from our series of entries on the Pact for the Future Rev-2 (we have published here five of its seven parts, the last two are coming soon). Here you have a first approach to what Part 7 of the series will be: an integral analysis of the Pact.
The second
revision of the Pact for the Future introduces several changes. Let me
highlight some areas of progress and some of concern.
An
extended use of the word “relevance”, before “stakeholders”, and “bodies”,
without an indication that helps to decide what is “relevant”, opens an avenue
for exclusion from
UN meetings and processes. For example, in Action 40 decision (a), the
reference to a “systematic” youth engagement at the UN is erased, and youth participation in “all United Nations bodies and processes” is
replaced by “United Nations relevant
bodies and processes.” Who will decide what is “relevant in each
situation, on a case-by-case basis? Let me remind you that civil society
participation in the Pact for the Future negotiations process has been seen as
“not relevant” for some member states.
Important
international agreements are not more referenced in the Rev-2. Even in Chapter
1 on Poverty, Hunger, and Development Financing two new actions focusing on
poverty and hunger, brought to the table by the G77, contribute to better
aligning the PFF with the 2030 Agenda, there are no mentions of the Addis Ababa
Action Agenda, and the Paris Agreement and the Paris Agreement is barely
mentioned. When referring to children in Chapter 4 on Youth and
Future Generations, the mention of the Convention on the Rights of the
Child in Rev-1 is erased. And those are only examples in a larger list of
forgotten agreements directly linked to the Pact of the Future decisions.
Chapter
2 on Peace, Security, and Multilateralism reflects evolving priorities with new language
on rebuilding trust, including actions on youth, maritime security, and
compliance with the International Court of Justice decisions. However, the
level of detail has been reduced in several areas, potentially hindering decisions’
implementation. It is difficult to contribute to this chapter without knowing
which will be the outcome of the UN Security Council reform, the only issue
that still lacks a wording proposal.
In
Chapter 3 on Human Rights and Digital Cooperation, we need stronger language on Digital
Technologies and AI for sustainable development to guide digital technology
advances and deployment. Chapter 4 on Youth and Future Generations
includes now more precise actions but the distinction among children, youth,
and future generations as three different groups must be more precise and
clear.
Both
chapters 3 and 4 miss some of the most new and relevant language, specifically
there not mention “climate justice” and “intergenerational justice”. A UN
overemphasis on future generations and youth has left older persons at risk of
being left behind, just now when we need their wisdom more than ever.
Chapter
5 on Transforming Global Governance is the weakest one. The inclusion of minimal
details required to make decisions actionable is absent from the text. That is
highly problematic, particularly when we pair it with Rev-2 notable regression
in financing for development, an area in which almost every timeframe in Rev-1
has been erased because of mandate limits.
There
will only be more robust and effective multilateralism by reforming its key
institutions and providing financial support to implement the required changes.
Some of the
most interesting proposals coming from civil society, academia, experts, and
practitioners, such as the creation of a UN Parliament or transforming
the Trusteeship Council into a sustainable development implementation body,
have not found their way to the Pact.
The
establishment of a follow-up mechanism is a step in the right direction;
however, the Pact for the Future must ensure that it will be aligned with those
in the Declaration on Future Generations and the Global Digital Compact. To be clear, we would not merge
the three, but we should ensure that they work coherently and collaboratively.
Besides, the Pact should establish the foundation operative elements for its
follow-up mechanism to ensure that it responds to the commitments of democratic
and broad participation, action orientation, and effectiveness that inform the document.
Even when we
can consider the Pact for the Future as a step forward, it is still a
shorter-than-required one. The Pact does not push forward enough for the
inclusion of prospective methodologies for planning, future thinking for
strategizing, an evidence-based approach for decision-making, and a
multidisciplinary approach in decision implementation, elements that are so
much needed in the UN structure. Only decision 70 (a) refers to this in a very
general way.
The potential
contributions from the regions, especially “localizing” a global agreement
to help put it into action according to specific realities, are not considered.
If the
Pact for the Future is pretended to be the basis for a renewed international
social contract, it falls short of achieving that goal. The best we can expect is that the Pact would
be the starting point for a long-overdue multilateralism deep reform
process, which requires a Member States long-term view and a political will
that we did not see in the SoTF negotiations.
To conclude,
we are not in the post-2030. Adopting a strong and actionable PFF is
a way to fulfill existing undertakings to accelerate SDGs’ implementation.
As we move
forward, the real test will lie in translating the Pact decisions into
meaningful actions. Words alone do not change the word. Actions do.
