A/HRC/33/45 Sustainable Development Goal 17, there were many elements in the 2030 Agenda that should be factored in. It referred to the trade system, the need for policy space, and the participation of countries in global governance, and gave examples relating to food and health, where a favourable international environment was lacking. 62. The United States of America commented on the characterization of the Sustainable Development Goals, given that they were aspirational and non-binding goals, not parallel to human rights. Wording that suggested legal obligations and binding commitments were therefore to be avoided. It also suggested that national efforts be highlighted and that more references be made to the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland reiterated its view on the need for national obligations to be stressed, and that reference be made also to Sustainable Development Goal 16. It raised broader questions on how the Goals would be referenced in the report of the Working Group on the current session, and whether the monitoring system would not duplicate those being considered for the Goals. 63. Associazione Comunità Papa Giovanni XXIII, speaking on behalf of the working group on the right to development of the Geneva Forum of Catholic-Inspired NonGovernmental Organizations,3 agreed that on the need to set standards, which were crucial for responding to human basic needs and to render justice to rights that had been too long denied. It hoped that consensus could be reached on the proposed standards. InternationalLawyers.Org viewed the standards as basic consensus on agreed text, and shared the view of the Chair-Rapporteur that there were uncontroversial. Centre Europe – Tiers Monde recalled that all aspects of the right to development were interdependent, and the risk of selectivity. 64. The Chair-Rapporteur responded that his report was the document that he had been mandated to prepare, with his views. Even though it was not intended as a document for negotiation or to generate consensus, the text itself was based on consensus documents. He was not reformulating legally binding standards. Core elements, such as participation, nondiscrimination, equality and self-determination, could still be seen as contested. Characterizing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the right to development was an unnecessary area of controversy and debate. There was no imbalance towards international cooperation, given that both standards 1 and 3 were specifically worded to cover national responsibilities. On gender roles, the language had been taken from the Sustainable Development Goals. The logic of the proposal on monitoring was to outline a voluntary commitment, which implied no obligation or need for consensus. This would be pending agreement on the follow-up to the 2030 Agenda. While the Sustainable Development Goals were non-binding and aspirational only, States were expected to abide by their commitments. The Goals were therefore an important achievement. IV. Conclusions and recommendations 65. At the final meeting of its seventeenth session, on 3 May 2016, the Working Group adopted, by consensus, its conclusions and recommendations, in accordance 3 18 Statement made on behalf of Associazione Comunità Papa Giovanni XXIII, Association PointsCoeur, Caritas Internationalis (International Confederation of Catholic Charities), the Company of the Daughters of Charity of Saint Vincent de Paul, Dominicans for Justice and Peace (Order of Preachers), the International Institute of Mary Our Help of the Salesian Sisters of Don Bosco (IIMA), the International Organization for the Right to Education and Freedom of Education, MIAMSI, New Humanity, the Teresian Association and VIDES International (International Volunteerism Organization for Women, Education, Development).