Mr. President,

1. I have the honor to deliver this explanation of position on behalf of G77 and China.

2. At the outset, the Group would like to thank the President of ECOSOC for convening the Financing for Development Forum 2022 and for his overall leadership during the negotiation process for the adoption of the outcome document by consensus.

3. The Group is also thankful to the co-facilitators: Permanent Representatives of Grenada and Iceland for skillfully convening the negotiations of the outcome document to its successful end.

4. The Group has engaged constructively over the draft outcome document for last two months with a view to reach consensus on an action oriented FfD 2022 outcome document, reflecting the challenges faced by all Member States in achieving the SDGs and the goals of the Paris Agreement.

Mr. President,

5. The Group has joined the consensus on the agreed conclusions and recommendations of the ECOSOC Forum on Financing for Development follow-up, remaining firm in its conviction that the United Nations must remain strong and united in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the Group has the following points of clarification vis-à-vis some elements of the agreed conclusions and recommendations of the outcome document.

6. First, on para 7, the Group would like to stress that the issue of social protection is of high importance. However, it is equally important that any extension of social protection is undertaken in accordance with national policies, legislation, and circumstances, as expressed by the Group during the process of informal consultations. This is also in line with agreed language in the Addis Ababa Action Agenda.

7. Second, the Group would have appreciated taking note with appreciation of the “Global Accelerator on Jobs and Social Protection for Just Transitions”, which was jointly launched by the UN Secretary-General with ILO during the High-level event on “Financing for Development in the era of COVID-19 and beyond”, that aims to channel national and international, public and private financial and technical support towards the creation of at least 400 million decent jobs by 2030. We believe this is a major and important update that would have been of added value to the FfD outcome document.

8. Third, during the negotiations, the Group consistently proposed the inclusion of principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities in para 9, which was not included in the outcome. The Group would like to reiterate that these are fundamental principles of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and form basis for any discussions on combating climate change, protecting environment, and preserving biodiversity and oceans.

9. Fourth, the Group regrets that the Group’s inputs on para 10 were not fully accommodated and that the outcome document does not contain a reference to “result based payments” in the conservation, preservation, and restoration of ecosystems. The Group also believes that the document does not reflect, in a balanced way, the three main objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity: the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its component, and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources.

10. Fifth, the Group also regrets that our inputs on para 44 on “noting the specific challenges facing the middle-income countries and recognize the need to help them to integrate into the global supply chain and trading system” were not incorporated as middle-income countries are also severely affected by the adverse impacts of the disruptions in the global value chains.

11. Sixth, on para 55, the Group regrets that important proposal of the Group on “explore ways to work towards a more comprehensive solution to addressing debt challenges” is not accommodated in the final compromise. Given the unsustainable debt burden faced by many developing countries, it is important that a comprehensive solution is achieved.

12. Seventh, in para 58, the Group does not support the term “vulnerable middle-income countries”. We believe that such classification of middle-income countries is not multilaterally agreed and is not true reflective of the challenges faced by the middle-income countries. Furthermore, it is restrictive in suggesting specific middle-income countries to be provided relief through Resilience and Sustainability Trust (RST) of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which is contrary to our pledge of “leaving no one behind”.

13. And eighth, on para 60, the Group regrets the unbalanced approach regarding digital assets, and that the proposal submitted by the Group, based on agreed language from para 76 of the 2021 FfD outcome document, was not reflected in this year outcome document. It contained important elements for developing countries regarding the support of the UN through knowledge-sharing and capacity-building needed to better understand the opportunities, challenges, and implications of emerging digital financial technologies.

I thank you.