Madam President,

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

At the outset, the Group would like to thank the President of ECOSOC for the preparations of the 2023 Financing for Development Forum. The Group is also thankful to the co-facilitators: Permanent Representatives of Rwanda and Portugal and their respective teams, for their recognizable and tireless efforts in preparing the text of the outcome document, as well as facilitating the intergovernmental consultation process.

The Group engaged itself constructively throughout the negotiations over the draft text of agreed conclusions and recommendations with a view to reach consensus on an action oriented outcome document encompassing all action areas of the Addis Ababa Action Agenda.

Madam President,

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 multiples challenges that are preventing us from achieving progress in the implementation of the SDGs and sustainable economic growth. However, the Group has the following points of clarification, regarding some elements of the outcome document:

1. First, the Group reiterates that immediate steps by the international community to support developing countries, including expanding concessional financing and its deployment where it is most needed are crucial. In this context, we call upon the international community to follow up and support the UN Secretary-General's proposal for a "SDG Stimulus" for developing countries in particular the most in need and distressed countries.

2. Second, the Group regrets that the agreed conclusions fail to reiterate our recognition from the last year conclusions that the success of the 2030 Agenda and the Paris Agreement adopted under the UNFCCC will depend on our ability to mobilize resources and only reaffirm our resolve to continue to scale up our efforts towards their full and timely implementation. We are also disappointed that our proposed reference to the importance of the provision of new and additional climate finance by developed countries to developing countries, that is different from Official Development Assistance (ODA), to accelerate the implementation of climate change mitigation and adaptation policies was not taken on board.

3. Third, regarding the historical agreement on loss and damage at the COP27 / CMA 4, namely the decision 2/CP. 27 and decision 2/CMA. 4 on funding arrangements for responding to loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change, including a focus on addressing loss and damage, the Group is perplexed by attempts by some to rewrite what we all agreed just a few months ago. We have yet to understand why the reference to the establishment of the new funding arrangements for assisting developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change, in responding to loss and damage, and, in such context, to establish a fund for responding to loss and damage whose mandate includes a focus on addressing loss and damage, which is a verbatim agreed language from the said decision, is not acceptable.

Nonetheless, the Group has decided to demonstrate its utmost flexibility so that we could all have a consensual document by agreeing to just a general reference to the decision. We look forward to considering and adopting recommendations by the transitional committee on the operationalization of the new funding arrangements for responding to loss and damage and the fund at the COP 28 / CMA 5, with a view to operationalizing the funding arrangements and the fund.

4. Fourth, the Group is disappointed with having made reference only to the decisions taken at the second part of the 15th session of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, and not welcoming the outcomes of COP 15 as a whole. The Group emphasizes that such proposal will only undermine the international cooperation for biodiversity. The Group will not take the current paragraph as an agreed language and source for future negotiation processes. The Group urges all countries to timely implement the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and the decision about the establishment of the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund.

5. Fifth, regarding paragraph 25, the Group notes with concern the slow pace of the process of recovery and return of stolen assets which are of serious challenge for developing countries. In this regard, the international community should undertake a series of concrete steps to consider the possibility of waiving or reducing to the barest minimum the process and costs of the recovery of stolen assets, in particular by reducing the administrative and legal bottlenecks in the recovery of illicit assets.

6. Sixth, the Group deeply regrets that the outcome document does not take due account of the harmful role of unilateral coercive measures to the social and economic development of developing countries illegally subjected to such measures. The increasing number and scope of UCMs has expanded in recent years and is a worrying trend with grave consequences for the ability of affected countries to access development finance, engage in free trade and investment. The Group made several proposals, based on agreed language, to focus on the development impacts of UCM, but regrets that no serious effort was made to consider its proposals. The Group reaffirms its firm rejection of the imposition of laws and regulations with extraterritorial impact and all other forms of coercive economic measures, including unilateral sanctions, against developing countries and reiterates the urgent need to eliminate them immediately. The Group emphasizes that such actions not only undermine the principles enshrined in the Charter of the UN and international law but also severely threaten the freedom of trade and investment. The Group call upon the international community to adopt urgent and effective measures to eliminate the use of unilateral coercive economic measures against developing countries.

7. Seventh, on ODA, not only we are disappointed by the fact that many developed countries continue to fail to deliver their ODA commitment, but we are also perplexed that in paragraph 34 our request to revert to agreed language from 2021 and earlier was not accepted. We emphasize that ODA commitment is applied only to developed countries, not other development partners.

8. Eight, on paragraph 36, the Group reiterates that international development cooperation, especially North-South cooperation, remains a fundamental catalyst to sustainable development, with South-South cooperation as a complement to, rather than a substitute for. The international community must uphold the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities" (CBDR) and push North-South cooperation to continue to play its key role. Developed countries should bear the primary responsibility in financing for development.

9. Ninth, on paragraph 48, we are disappointed that our request to use the agreed language from last year and which is the language of the Statistical Commission has not been accepted. We wish to remind that indicator 17.3.1 should not be referred to in the same way as other indicators as it is a proposed new indicator. We also reiterate our position that the discussion on "total official support for sustainable development" or TOSSD should not be included in the outcome document, as TOSSD is not a globally accepted measure. It has been recognized as a data source for commonly agreed elements only. Besides, we stress that TOSSD is not a globally agreed tool to measure South-South cooperation. Developing countries are committed to the full development of the framework to measure South-South cooperation which is the framework for reporting data on South-South cooperation to the proposed new indicator 17.3.1 instead of TOSSD.

10. Tenth, on paragraph 77, the Group reiterates that the reference to "inclusive structural change" lacks clarity, and that our preference would have been to make clear that this "structural change" refers to closing the digital and technological divides.

11. Eleven, on paragraph 83, the Group expresses its disappointment that our proposal on the need to scale up financial support and assistance to strengthen capacities of national statistical offices was not taken on board. We believe that it is important to have this support and assistance to help developing countries "strengthen efforts to collect, analyze and disseminate" data, which was also mentioned in this paragraph.

I thank you.