A/HRC/33/45 and promotion of financial support and capacity-building. Japan strongly supported the 2030 Agenda and its human-centred approach, but had questions relating to indicators and the role of private sector investment. Brazil discussed how the 2030 Agenda had reinvigorated multilateralism, and reaffirmed the three dimensions of development as enshrined in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development of 1992. The Agenda required the strengthening of international cooperation and the doubling of efforts on the right to development, to move away from polarization and to achieve consensus. Brazil enquired about the role of the Working Group in the Agenda. Kenya observed that the right to development did not always receive the support and attention it deserved by the Human Rights Council. Bearing in mind the time it would take to negotiate a legally binding instrument, given current challenges, Kenya asked what could be done to move the right to development agenda forward. Ecuador raised a question on how the fair distribution of wealth within countries could be measured. 42. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development pointed out its longstanding commitment to and participation in the sessions of the Working Group. Given the impetus provided by the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, it was important that the Working Group find a concrete outcome and role within this framework, to also utilize valuable time and resources. 43. South Centre emphasized the need for common but differentiated responsibility. It referred to examples of intellectual property rights, transfer of technology and actions on climate change where it was not always clear who was responsible for what. Given differentiated capabilities, there was also a need for differentiated responsibilities. On measurability, there was also the question regarding both the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and human rights of whether all components could be measurable as such. According to Associazione Comunità Papa Giovanni XXIII, the new Agenda had incorporated the transformative vision of the Declaration on the Right to Development. If adequately implemented, it would provide new impetus for the realization of the right to development. A right to development approach to the Sustainable Development Goals would create positive effects, including the understanding that States have duties to ensure development as a human right and not as a matter of charity. It referred to the need for participatory and inclusive monitoring. The global high-level political forum should build on the work of human rights mechanisms, while the Working Group should also take charge of the important role it could play. International-Lawyers.Org pointed out that the process of drafting the Sustainable Development Goals had begun by agreeing on issues of principle, not the specifics of indicators. It observed that human rights today were often legal rights. With regard to the 2030 Agenda, the greatest flaws were the tendency to make unequal things equal, and that not all States or all peoples had the same responsibilities. 44. In replying to the questions asked, Ambassador Kamau noted that the general trajectory was a positive one, despite war, conflict and other disasters. The right to development agenda had to move forward. The world had been moving on, irrespective of developments in the Working Group. The 2030 Agenda had to be addressed in an integrated fashion, and not by “cherry picking”. Expectations had to be managed; the Sustainable Development Goals did not prescribe a particular political or economic model, but were aimed at reaching agreement on concrete goals and targets. The discussion could not have started with indicators, and that work had been delegated to a technical group. There was no need to “reinvent the wheel”; the Working Group should ask itself whether it really wanted to embark on an exercise of identifying indicators or leave it to a technical group. All forms of resource mobilization were important, including at the domestic level. Accountability deficits had to be closed. The common but differentiated responsibilities were part and parcel of the 2030 Agenda, so this had been settled. Many of the comments were acknowledged. Ambassador Kamau reiterated the need to search for the common good. In this regard, the 2030 Agenda had set a high bar, and there was enough ambition 13