By Javier Surasky-
The Ministerial Declaration of the High-Level Political Forum (HLPF) is its primary political document. Adopted at the end of each Forum session, it would provide the necessary policy guidance for the global implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Ideally, Member States would adopt the Ministerial Declaration by consensus, although this has only sometimes been achieved.
A quick review of declarations from previous forums reveals that they have often been filled with vague promises, written using a vocabulary previously accepted by UN diplomacy, and unnecessarily lengthy. For instance, the Ministerial Declaration adopted by the HLPF in 2022 consisted of 142 paragraphs.
Following the same premise of creating a concise, concrete, and action-oriented document, UN Member States ignited negotiations for the 2024 Ministerial Declaration building. On July 8 of this year, the co-facilitators of this process—representatives from the Dominican Republic and Norway—initiated the silence procedure for its adoption after months of negotiations.
The text initially presented by the co-facilitators contained 96 paragraphs, making it the second-longest since 2016. Similar to the 2022 declaration, it exceeded the length of the 2030 Agenda.
Ministerial Declarations adopted by the HLPF Length (in paragraphs)
As an example of the document’s tone, consider paragraph 29, which addresses the sensitive issue of financing gaps for the SDGs:
“We commit to addressing the ongoing financing gaps to achieve the SDGs. We call for increased international public financing and improved access to concessional financing, committing to deliver more affordable, predictable, sustainable, and sufficient funding to developing countries.”
To be clear, the draft Ministerial Declaration proposed by the co-facilitators was once again unuseful in accelerating SDG progress, providing policy guidance, or directing action for sustainable development. It lacked innovative elements.
Despite the length of the text, its vagueness, tone, and lack of action orientation it was impossible to reach a consensus: the silence was broken, compelling the co-facilitators to send a final non-consensual text to the ECOSOC president, Paula Narvaez. On July 11, she shared with the Member States a new (and last) version of the HLPF 2024 Ministerial Declaration draft including reforms in the following paragraphs:
- 11 on efforts to end plastic pollution.
- 33 on gender equality and empowerment of women and girls.
- 36 on poverty as the main challenge to sustainable development.
- 76 on reform of the international financial architecture.
The reforms are merely formal, except for paragraph 11, where the mention of
2024 as the deadline for adopting a legally binding treaty on plastic pollution
is removed. The date was nothing more than a repetition of a commitment made by
States at the fifth United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA-5) held in
Nairobi in 2022 (UNEP/EA.5/Res.14).
In her letter introducing the new text to the Member States, the President of ECOSOC, explains that "This is a pivotal moment for the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. The final draft ministerial declaration presents an avenue to demonstrate the political will to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals for the benefit of the people. The final draft builds on the SDG Summit political declaration, looks towards the Summit of the Future and ensures a common understanding among Member States to advance transformative actions to achieve the SDGs leading up to 2030." Consequently, she invites "all delegations to show utmost flexibility with a view to agree on an outcome document, thereby sending a strong positive signal on SDG achievement".
What we are witnessing reaffirms the characteristics of current multilateral negotiation processes: entrenched national positions, excessive “red lines,” a lack of political ambition, commitment to change, and negotiating skills.
The fact that frontline diplomats failed to produce an acceptable text for all states is troubling. It hints at the complexity of achieving a successful Summit of the Future, potentially hindering progress in addressing a less-discussed crisis—one that, due to its impacts, makes finding solutions to any other crisis even more challenging: the crisis of multilateralism.
As Stuart Eizenstat reminds us in his book The Art of Diplomacy, “Just like an artist creates paintings or music, there is an art to diplomacy. In capable hands, it can resolve seemingly intractable disputes between countries for the common good. However, in the wrong hands or under unfavorable circumstances, it can exacerbate matters.”
We cannot afford worse outcomes if we still wish to safeguard future generations from the scourge of war, reaffirm faith in the fundamental rights of humanity, uphold equal rights for men and women, and recognize the rights of both large and small nations, creating conditions to allow for justice and respect for obligations arising from international law, while promoting social progress and improving the overall quality of life within a broader concept of freedom, just as the peoples of the United Nations mandated in 1945.
