Needless to say, Norway aligns itself with the statement we delivered on behalf of the Group of 7 yesterday. Let me add a few comments in our national capacity, focusing more specifically on your discussion paper:
- Thank you for a good discussion paper
- Most of the questions you pose we need to answer at some point in time. But we don't need specific answers for all of them at this point in time.
- The outcome document does not need to spell out all the specifics, such as the frequency of national reviews or how to fund regional mechanisms.
- What it should contain is: a) the basic principles for the framework, and b) the key elements of the framework.
- Regarding the principles - many are already spelled out in your document.
- As for the elements - please refer to the Go7 elements paper.
- Let me (in my national capacity) address a few of the questions we did not address in our G7 statement yesterday :
- First, we need a system of follow-up and review that is high in impact while lightweight in structures and not burdensome for member states.
- Second, this is not the time to start creating new structures, but rather to map what mechanisms and structures exist and find out how they may best be utilized for this purpose. ref our G7 suggestion yesterday to ask the SG to do such a mapping exercise within the UN system. Similar exercises should be encouraged at the regional level.
- Third, we need a coherent framework, that monitors progress for the full agenda, including the MoI. Separating the MoI from the rest of the agenda will not make sense. and it will most likely make it more challenging to get the kind of high level attention we want and need if we are to keep the political momentum on the implementation and follow-up.
On the way forward:
The HLPF in July this year should further elaborate on its role and on the global review mechanism.
Next year's HLPF should be tasked to further elaborate on the global framework and the global review mechanism, in line with what the G7 proposed yesterday