A/HRC/15/23 the conditionalities attached to development funds and the current international system that left no room for developing countries to participate in decision-making. Others pointed out that there was a lack of clarity on the three sub-levels of the criteria, as well as on the question of who would monitor the implementation of the right to development. There was a need to reach a clear agreement on the criteria and to clarify the rights of peoples. States should be consulted on the future course of action on the right to development. 21. One delegation stated that development was also in the interest of developed countries, and emphasized the need for pragmatic solutions. It expressed its disinclination to a legally-binding agreement on the right to development, and drew the attention of those in favour of such an instrument to the fact that there were other ways to operationalize this right. A legal text created without consensus would not be binding on countries that did not ratify it, and enforcement would be another challenge. Instead, there should be an emphasis on reaching an agreement on the criteria and sub-criteria, which would facilitate the adoption of a set of standards. In this context, the importance of flexibility was emphasized in moving the process forward and reaching a consensual outcome. 22. With regard to the balance between national and international responsibilities, several delegations felt that the fulcrum was slipping towards the importance of national efforts, as opposed to international cooperation, solidarity and an enabling environment. They underlined the need for shared responsibility and access to resources, as well as participation in global decision-making in the realization of the right to development. According to one delegate, a study of best practices on an appropriate model for the future course of the right to development would be useful. 23. Some speakers stated that sustainable development required actions at both the national and international levels simultaneously, and that one was not a precondition for the other. Both national and international agencies had a role to play in achieving development for all. The level of responsibility would differ with respect to the particular issue and country. Sustainable development also required a strategic and results-based focus, transparency and accountability on the part of both recipient and donor countries, as well as strong and insightful leadership and partnership. One delegation pointed to the fact that the Declaration on the Right to Development focused on the individual as the centre of development, and expressed a preference for maintaining that focus. 24. With regard to the issue of social safety nets as a tool to mitigate the difficulties faced by the poor and the vulnerable, some delegations presented the challenges of social safety programmes, such as a defective cost of living, limitations on coverage, and the availability of resources to maintain such programmes. One delegation stressed the importance of social investment rather than social expenditure. Questions were raised about the effectiveness and utility of social impact assessments, whether it was possible to adjust them to each country and, if so, how to standardize them. The issue of whether the components of social impact assessments would be determined by donors or recipients was also raised. 25. With regard to access to medicines, numerous delegations pointed to impediments in access to knowledge and intellectual property rights. In view of the difficulties in using TRIPS flexibilities, the importance of the right to development approach to the fulfilment of the right to health was emphasized. Access to technology played a crucial role in development. Some stated that green technology was becoming a barrier to development, whereas it should be generational, accessible and not a means of discrimination. Others expressed their support for the approach taken by the task force on the importance of intellectual property and technology for development, as well as the challenges created by the uneven global distribution of technology and innovation. Concerns were raised about protectionist tendencies that threatened the policy space of developing countries. 8 GE.10-14167