By Javier Surasky-
On
September 9, the permanent representatives to the UN from the Netherlands and
Jamaica, co-facilitators of the negotiation process for the Declaration on
Future Generations (DFG), sent a letter to the President of the General
Assembly summarizing their work and presenting a "revised text" of
the DFG.
In their
communication, the co-facilitators explain that the third revision of the
Declaration's text (Rev.3) was put under a silence procedure,
broken into several paragraphs by "some delegations and one group." Based on subsequent
consultations, the revised text of the DFG is presented as the result of
"our best efforts to reach consensus."
Two
clarifications accompany this statement:
1. The
indication of a lack of consensus around "a limited number of
paragraphs," leading the co-facilitators to report that " One delegation is maintaining its concerns on paragraphs 15 and 22,
while another delegation is maintaining its concerns on paragraph 25, as well
as paragraph 32 as amended."
2. A call
for attention regarding paragraphs 22, 26, and 29, as these include elements
that are still under negotiation in the context of constructing the Pact for
the Future, and therefore "The outcome of these deliberations could have
implications for the current language in the Declaration on Future
Generations."
The revised
text of the Declaration includes modifications in its chapters on commitments
(paragraphs 22, 26, 27, 29, 32) and actions (paragraph 37). In the chapeau of
the section on guiding principles, there is a minor modification with the
inclusion of the word "guiding" before "principles," a
purely formal matter that we will not address further. To facilitate changes,
we highlighted deletions in red and additions in blue.
Regarding
commitments:
Paragraph
22 refers to peace
and security, expressing the promise to "Promote international
stability, peace and security, including by steadfastly advancing our efforts to achieve the goal
of a world free of nuclear weapons (In Rev.3, “including
by seeking a safer world without nuclear weapons”] where conflicts and
crises are resolved through peaceful means."
Paragraph
26 focuses on the preservation
and respect of cultural diversity. In the revised text, its contents are
expanded to include a new mention of the international restitution of
culturally valuable properties and highlighting the need to proceed according
to law, establishing the commitment to "honor, promote and preserve
cultural diversity and cultural heritage, as well as languages, knowledge
systems and traditions, and foster intercultural and interreligious dialogue,
including through raising
awareness of the importance attached by the countries of origin to the return
or restitution of cultural property that is of fundamental spiritual,
historical and cultural value to them, so that they may constitute collections
representative of their cultural heritage, and strengthening
international cooperation on the restitution to countries of their cultural
properties, in line with
relevant international conventions and national legislation, where applicable,
recognizing that this will ensure mutual understanding, tolerance and
inclusion."
With these
modifications, the commitment is strengthened for the second time, as its
formulation had also been reinforced in Rev.3 (see here).
Paragraph
27 focuses on indigenous
peoples and is a good example of the drafting effort made by the
co-facilitators to satisfy all positions. It expresses the commitment to
"recognize, promote and protect the rights of Indigenous peoples, their
territories, lands and ecosystems, safeguarding their traditions, spiritual
beliefs and ancestral knowledge, strengthening their distinct political, legal,
economic, social and cultural institutions, while preserving their right to
participate fully, if they so decide, in the political, economic, social and
cultural life of the State and ensuring their right to participate in
decision-making in matters affecting their rights." Rev.3 was limited to
guaranteeing participation in decision-making, but in exchange did not express
the current limitation implied by the formula "in matters affecting their
rights."
Paragraph
29 expresses
commitments on an always complex negotiation topic: environmental protection.
The changes in this paragraph are basically editorial, moving the reference to
climate change and environmental justice from the beginning to the end of the
paragraph. The main modification resulting from this is that while Rev.3 spoke
of "prioritizing" action to address climate challenges, climate
change, and its adverse impacts, now the only reference associated with
"prioritizing" is addressing environmental challenges, while "the importance of accelerating
action" in the fight against climate change and its adverse effects
is reaffirmed. The
paragraph maintains the mentions made in Rev.3 to the principle of common but
differentiated responsibilities and to climate justice "noting (its) importance
for some".
Paragraph
32 on cooperation in migration matters between countries of origin, transit, and
destination of migrants, now states that this cooperation will take place
"including through improving the availability and flexibility of pathways
for regular migration [in Rev.3 "including through expanding
pathways"] while recognizing the positive contribution of migrants to
inclusive growth and sustainable development."
Regarding
actions:
The only
change related to actions appears in paragraph 37, referring to strengthening
national and global accounting systems and using development measures that go
beyond GDP. The modification relates to this latter element, as it now
encourages the use of sustainable development measures that complement and go
beyond GDP, whereas Rev.3 referred to using these measures. The degree of
committed action is, consequently, reduced.
As a
result, we find that the revised text does not introduce changes in 16
paragraphs whose current formulation was observed by Member States when
considering the DFG Rev.3 (paragraphs 2; 3; 9; 13; 15; 16; 17; 24; 25; 28;
30; 33; 34; 35; 37; 38. More information here).
This
situation leads us to reaffirm what we said in a previous post analyzing the
revised text of the Global Digital Compact: too many issues remain unresolved
on the path to adopting the Declaration on Future Generations. The possibility
of consensus appears distant. What will likely follow is leaving the most
complex issues to be resolved at a future meeting (perhaps the second World
Summit on Social Development in 2025?) and the adoption of a weak DFG due to
lack of consensus, followed by cross-accusations between different countries
and groups of countries for the negotiating intransigence that each will
identify in the others.
The
opportunity to build a future seems too big for our current leaders.
