1 May 2014

 Statement by The delegation of the Islamic Republic of Iran

At the PGA’s Interactive Dialogue on

“Elements for a Monitoring and Accountability Framework

For the Post-2015 Development Agenda”

1 May  2014 , New York

 بسم الله

In the Name of God, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful

Madam Moderator,

At the outset, I would like to join the others in thanking the President of the General Assembly for convening this interactive dialogue and commend the panelists for their very informative presentations.

My delegation aligns itself with the statement made by the delegation of Bolivia, on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, and would like to add the following points in its national capacity:

  1. The importance of accountability and monitoring of implementation at all levels, be it government, NGOs, or MLCs, is an undeniable fact;
  2. As a lesson learnt from the implementation of MDGs, my delegation fully concurs with the point raised in the background note that pursuing a transformative agenda requires a renewed global partnership for development as well as a robust, inclusive and transparent monitoring and accountability framework; however, by reviewing the analytical reports on gaps and barriers in the achievements of MDGs, there is little or no reference to the lack of commitments by the countries in pursuing MDGs, andthe Goals unaccomplished mainly due to either lack of resources, necessary technologies, capacity building and/or unfair international trading and financial systems, which are all classified in the Rio+20 outcome document as means of implementations;

  1. While,on the issue of means of implementations,there are certain attempts on the part of some partners to delay engagement to after the agreement on SDGs and even after the agreement on the post-2015 development agenda, it is a matter of serious question for my delegation that at such short-notice event, the issue of monitoring and accountability of an agenda, which itself is not yet envisaged, is being discussed. If, madam moderator, there were a reference to any other similar monitoring mechanisms here in the background note, namely, AMR, APRM, TPRM, UPR and OECD-EPR, they were all possible just after when the picture of what/who/and how were made clear.

  1. It is important to have a clear approach about the nature of SDGs and Post-2015 Development Agenda, whether they are sets of guidelines or binding commitments; it is interesting to note that during the discussions about the SDGs, when there was a concern about the current draft for being too much prescriptive at the national level, some referred to the SDGs as guidelines and not commitments, so not prescriptive; the question is that if a goal is not binding, what kind of accountability should be expected? Who or what would be “the subject” of this accountability?

  1. In accordance with the Rio+20 Outcome and also the General Assembly Resolution 67/290, the newly established High-level Political Forum is mandated to conduct regular reviews of implementation of sustainable development commitments and objectives, with clear specifications, such as, to be voluntary, to include both developed and developing countries, to be State-led, and so forth. This point is clearly captured in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the background note; however, in paragraphs 6 and 7 of this note it is talking about “possible accountability architecture for development” at the global level, or any complementary framework of decentralized accountability, as if a new architecture is to be created. My delegation believes that it is upon the HLPF either under the auspices of the GA or the ECOSOC, to see through different aspects of the monitoring mechanism for the implementation of development goals in strict compliance with the related internationally agreed documents.

  1. Finally, Madam Moderator, to my delegation, there are a lot of merits in following the discussion under the HLPF as well, such as, strengthening coherence in the UN system, avoiding duplication, and consolidating Delivering-as-One approach, which to our understanding areof the main reasons for the broad agreement at the UN on replacing AMR with the new architecture as reflected in  GA Resolution 68/1.

To Sum up, three main questions remain unanswered: 1) Since the Post-2015 Development Agenda is not set yet, the question is: are we at a right time? 2) Since the HLPF is designed in a way to address this issue, the question is: are we at the right place? And 3) since the MOIs should be the main focus, not the national governments, the question is: are we having the right subject at our hand?

I thank you Madam Moderator.

Bookmark and Share