H.E. Mr. David Donoghue:

-----but I will try to give the members a general sense of what we are at.

The particular document which my Kenyan colleague and I are negotiating among the 193 member states of the UN will begin with a declaration. This is intended to be a concise but visionary and uplifting declaration by the Heads of the State and Government, who will meet in New York in September, of their political will and political commitment to the new agenda. It is meant to be something on the lines of millennium declaration, a call to action, and that is an important part of our work.

On the goals and targets, my guess at this stage is that 17 will be the final number. From time to time, one or two countries have suggested that the figure of 17 could be reduced but the overwhelming view among developed and developing countries alike was that it would be extremely risky to try to condense or amalgamate goals that had been agreed in the earlier phase because somewhere along the line somebody's key interest would be damaged. It was considered much safer all round to leave the figure at 17 but to work instead on a communications strategy which would try to bring into focus what these goals are about for ordinary people around the world. One can imagine that even the idea of summarising or crystallising the key points of the agenda is highly contested by some member states or groups because they fear that substance of importance to them will be lost in the process. They are almost against any attempt to summarise. However, my colleague and I have put forward a draft declaration which tries to distil the essence of the agenda, and we are making some progress.

The targets are a tricky matter. The figure of 169 targets sounds rather formidable but it means an average of, say, seven or eight per goal. The targets will remain at 169 but a number of them could be improved technically because, in one or other respect, they are deficient. Even that is a contentious exercise. Many countries fear that so-called technical improvement would lead to substantive loss of substance, but I believe we will have some slight improvements.

The issue of implementation is crucial. What arrangements should we have at the global, regional and national levels to enable countries to demonstrate that they are taking this agenda seriously and that they are working within their own powers to implement it? It is accepted that there will be some monitoring and review at the global level. Members might think that is fairly obvious but for many developing countries, there is a concern that they will not have enough capacity in terms of data collection to be able to report faithfully on their progress. They also fear that they will be exposed as having performed in an unsatisfactory way. There is a great deal of resistance on the part of developing countries to strongly developed global review machinery. They prefer to focus on implementation at national level, and I believe a balance will be struck eventually between the three levels.

On the Addis dimension, if I can call it that, members may see the term "means of implementation" from time to time. "Means of implementation" are the means, financial or otherwise, by which the goals will be implemented. In the immediate sense, it means resources along the lines of overseas development aid, ODA, but by no means confined to ODA. It also means policies, measures and a range of other items in a single, comprehensive package. It is easier if I take ODA first. The developing countries attach great importance to ODA but, broadly speaking, the developed countries take the view that it is very important but it is not the only part of the Addis package and that they also need domestic resource mobilisation. That is the term used for efforts to improve the tax take in developing countries, notably. The developing countries recognise that this is an important priority. Broadly speaking, ODA and domestic resource mobilisation would be seen as the twin top priorities in the Addis package. I will conclude shortly and take questions.

A key issue for all of us at present is that, first, the Addis Ababa meeting to be held next week will be successful and, second, that all concerned will accept that it will be the final word in terms of the resources needed for implementing the future goals and targets. There is a real fear on the part of developed countries that developing countries will do their best to obtain the most favourable deal at Addis Ababa and then, having failed to get everything they want, turn their attention to our negotiations, which are due to continue until the end of July, and use political and moral pressure to try to squeeze out more in the context of, for example, ODA commitments. It has been a running theme for the developed countries in recent weeks and months that the Addis Ababa conference must be seen as the end of the road in terms of the means needed to implement the future agenda. On the other hand, the developing countries are keeping their options open. There was a tension between those two positions but it is gradually being overcome. With luck, if the Addis Ababa meeting produces a very clear-cut and satisfactory outcome all around, the developing countries will hopefully accept that, in effect, this is all that is going to be available in the context of implementation of the new goals and targets. I use the word "all" because, potentially, this is going to be a massive package. It is not a pledging conference but the document to be agreed in Addis Ababa is meant to cover, as already stated, financial resources of all kinds but also things such as capacity building, technology transfer, ways of making it easier to remit money, debt relief, trade negotiations, tackling illicit financial flows, etc. The agenda is vast and the Addis Ababa package on its own ought to be sufficient to ensure the implementation of the golden targets. As stated, however, the particular tension to which I refer has yet to be addressed.

I have probably run out of time in terms of commenting on the UN.