Major Group of Children and Youth Intervention

Our very own Aura Silva had the privilege of sharing the intervention on behalf of the Major Group for Children and Youth this morning in the opening session. The intervention states the thoughts and demands from the position of children and youth on the Sustainable Development Goal indicators that have been discussed here for the past 3 days. The intervention was received very well, especially from Mr. Damaso Luna, the Deputy Director General for Global Issues of the Government of Mexico. He agreed with Aura in her statement that setting back the dates of the targets that have been moved to 2030 is entirely counterproductive.

Below, you will find the video taken of the intervention during the General Assembly as well as the transcript of the intervention. (Please excuse the poor sound quality).




[Thank you Co-Chairs,

I am taking the floor on behalf of the Major Group for Children and Youth and we will be very quick. The goals and targets from the OWG are the most fixed element of the agenda, and open to minimal changes.

Keeping the delicate political balance in mind, the endeavour of technical proofing is indeed brave. We can only support this undertaking if it raises the ambition of the agenda. It is also important to preserve the gains made on some of the gender related targets.

Any attempt to use this proofing to move away from the universality & comprehensiveness of the agenda, or reducing the level of commitment or number of goals & targets is unacceptable.

The proofing on the education goal has indeed increased the ambition level and we are happy about this. But the change of timeline from 2020 to 2030 for some targets along with the revisions in the biodiversity targets is setting us back.

A challenge moving forward will be to effectively operationalise the term ‘sustainable’ as mentioned in the targets and goals. Specially, in the context of goal 8, 9, and 11 while talking about growth, industrialisation and urbanisation respectively, this needs to take into account ecological footprints as compared to planetary boundaries.

In the context of inequality the targets will only be impactful if we talk about caps on maximum incomes and specific ratios between the top and bottom quintiles.

In addition, we want to raise concern about not having a target in the health goal on antimicrobial resistance. This has been recognised in a World Health Organization report in 2014 that reviewed data from 114 countries.  In addition the 68th World Health Assembly in May 2015 is scheduled to discuss a draft global action plan to combat antimicrobial resistance.

Finally, why was the term ‘human right to water and sanitation’ not included as an amendment for technical proofing, in spite of it being agreed in a General Assembly resolution 64/292? We notice inconsistencies in the type of reasoning for altering the targets. This is a dangerous
precedent and any regression is not acceptable.  

We are here to ensure that the voices of young people are reflected in our perceptions and implementation of the goals and targets and have an ambitious agenda. We hope our opinions are listened to and implemented.]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.