Ad hoc Working Group on Mandate Implementation Review - General Assembly, 80th session

Good morning, colleagues.
Apologies for the slightly late start.
It's good to see you all back in the room, and I'm happy to see that we have enough seats in this medium size room.
So let me call to order this informal consultation of the ad hoc working group on mandate implementation review.
On behalf of my co chair, Ambassador Pratt, I warmly welcome all of you to this session.
As usual, we are grateful for your continued engagement, and we are grateful for the written submissions that a number of delegations took the time to share by the deadline in most cases.
The feedback that we have received is precisely what will allow us to refine these tools that we shared with you into something that becomes genuinely useful.
Before we get into the discussion, I wanted to take some time to sort of set the scene.
When we met on the 8th of May, we introduced a roadmap for our work and flagged the first deliverable under Paragraph 33 D Roman one of resolution 82 51, the development of a concept note of concept note resolution and decision templates, as well as model mandate implementation review and retirement clauses by 30th, May 2026.
Today's session is entirely devoted to that set of deliverables.
We've structured the meeting today as one continuous discussion that covers the full package of draft templates, templates A through E.
The idea is that we want to hear from you across all five components and to understand where things work, where they don't work, and where further thought is needed.
We're not necessarily looking for consensus today.
Today is an opportunity for us to listen.
At the end of this, we will circulate revised draft to you by the 29th of May in order to meet the deadline in paragraph 33 D Roman one.
Your observations today will directly inform that revision.
Let me give the floor note to Ambassador Batistad for a few words before we open.
Thank you very much, Ambassador Wallace and good morning, colleagues.
I would like to start by emphasizing something that we have said before and shared with you before, but that is important also in framing this discussion.
We are very much aware that tools like these can appear to be administrative add ons, more process layered onto an already complex system, and that is really not the intent.
I want to be very direct about what we are trying to achieve here.
The goal is simply a culture shift.
For too long, mandates have been created without a clear sense of how they will be reviewed and or when appropriate, concluded.
What this package of templates is designed to do is to move that conversation upstream, the conversation about implementation and review.
Upstream to the point of drafting before a mandate is adopted, rather than years later when institutional memory has faded and political conditions have shifted.
A proponent of a mandate that has thought through what success looks like, who is responsible for delivering it, and over what time frame is much better placed to draft a clear mandate, and they are better placed to defend it.
Equally important, we want to be explicit that these templates are a menu of options for you.
It's not a checklist, it's not a straightjacket.
They are reference tools at the disposal of member states.
Nothing in this package is mandatory.
We cannot force you to use it.
Delegations are free to pick one clause from template C and none from template D.
You may adapt the model language.
You delegations may use the templates only as a reference and a draft from scratch.
You may propose options not currently reflected.
This is an a la carte menu, not a prefix.
And with that framing, I give the floor back to Brian and Bastor Wallace to walk us through some of the substance of the package.
Thank you, Mitta.
The package before you has five components.
I just wanted to give an orientation before we open the floor.
Templates A and B provides standard scaffolding for draft resolutions and decisions respectively.
We're open to discussing whether or not we need separate templates for resolutions and decisions or whether in reality, they are not the same.
They include dedicated slots for life cycle clauses, the implementation review and retirement clauses that are the subject of templates C and D.
And the purpose is to normalize the inclusion of those clauses at the drafting stage without making any any particular clause mandatory.
Template C is a menu of mandate implementation review clause options.
These are designed to help drafters build a review trigger into the mandate itself, whether that takes the form of a fixed cycle review, a milestone based review, or some other modality.
Template D is a corresponding menu of mandate retirement clause options.
These apply where a mandate has a defined deliverable or where the conditions giving rise to it may no longer obtain.
As co chairs, we are conscious that retirement clauses are politically sensitive, and the options in template D reflect that range of positions.
Template E is the concept note, which the working group has already seen in earlier iterations.
It remains the most upstream tool in the package.
It operates before a resolution is even tabled, giving member states a structured way to think through and communicate what they are proposing, why they are proposing it, and at what cost.
The options in templates C and D draw on three sources, existing UN practice, including from the Security Council, UNA, UNEP, the Human Rights Council, ideas advanced by member states during the informal ad hoc working group process, and the working group's own agreed outcomes.
We have tried to reflect the range of positions without preempting the substantive debate that belongs to this working group.
So with that overview, I open the floor.
We are particularly interested in hearing your reaction to the structure of the templates, the range of clause options, and any gaps you see in what has been provided.
I give the floor to Uruguay on behalf of G 77 and China.
Thanks so much, Ambassador, and good morning, colleagues.
First of all, in my national capacity, just to acknowledge and thank you as well for all the clarifications provided that some of them will actually respond to some of the general comments and questions that the G 27 submitted last Friday.
And also in my national capacity, we would like to say that we would appreciate having all the submissions by member states published so we can also see the position of other countries and we ensure transparency throughout this process.
I'm just going to read out the general comments of the G 77 if you allow me.
Um, the group wishes to underscore there is no one size fits all approach, while reminding that member states have the prerogative to determine the language to be used in each intergovernmental negotiation on a case by case basis.
The group of 77 and China also wishes to reiterate that the diverse nature of mandates and context and the membership, governance structures and financial and administrative arrangements across the UN system must be respected and preserved.
This is, as you know, one of the principles we included in the resolution.
The group of 77 and China recognizes that templates can serve as a useful reference tool to facilitate the work of delegations.
Nevertheless, the group understands that templates A to D are intended to be indicative reference points and non exhaustive rather than mandatory language.
Regarding the concept no, the template E, We bearing in mind that it includes the elements agreed upon in OP two of resolution 80 as last 251.
The group is of the view that proponents will decide its exact structure and language also on a case by case basis.
The group would also appreciate further clarification on whether the working group plans to formally adopt or endorse the templates, as well as on when delegations would be expected to start applying them.
The group of 77 and China would also welcome more clarity on the scope of this exercise and particularly where the intention is to use the templates and drafts in all the UN system, including not only New York, but Geneva, Vienna, and Nairobi.
Thanks so much again, Ambassadors.
I thank the distinguished representative of Uruguay.
I give the floor to the European Union.
Thank you, Ambassador.
Distinguished co chairs, colleagues.
I have the honor to take the floor on behalf of the European Union and its member states.
We reaffirm our strong support for UAT Workstream two and its roadmap.
We acknowledge the ambitious timeline outlined in resolution 80 slash 251.
We thank the co chairs for the approach adopted throughout this process, as well as the idea that you just mentioned ambassador of the culture Shift.
Mentioned by you.
We welcome the draft templates and the model clauses.
They represent an encouraging step towards the development of clear and objective criteria for decisions on adoption, renewal, and retirement of mandates.
At the same time, we consider that some elements should be added or strengthened to enhance the effectiveness of the mandate implementation review processes.
And if you allow me, I'll go through the overview of written input.
So on template A, in line with OP five and OP 21 of the resolution, we suggest adding a section that explicitly addresses the mandate, scope and objectives, a dedicated section on the implementation roadmap, which includes the implementation lead and timelines, as well as a section on the expected funding arrangements.
On template C, we welcome the proposed model, clauses aimed at supporting informed and action oriented mandate reviews.
For us, the mandate implementation review is meant to allow for more systematic decision making on the continuation, modification or retirement of mandates.
We will therefore suggest using the second proposed clause review at defined session as a new standard phrase as it includes the decision to review and the task to determine continuation of the mandate, acknowledging that the first phrase is the minimum achievement to at least have a review.
For consistency, we also propose that the phrase to continue, modify, or retire the mandate should be used in a harmonized way across model review and retirement clauses.
Finally, on this template, we suggest including a review against benchmarks or performance indicators as an optional part into all or most of the model mandate implementation review clauses.
We believe this would strengthen the link between mandate performance and review and support a review process that is evidence based as per article 0P 2021.
On template E, the concept note, we have proposed adjustments mainly aimed at ensuring that the explanatory sentences in each section lay out as clearly as possible which factors must be considered when putting forward a new mandate.
For instance, on 0.2, objectives unexpected impact, we suggest requesting that proponents include quantified indicators or benchmarks that will ensure the achievable targets are met in the defined time frame.
On 0.3 of the mandate landscape, which offers a unique opportunity to not only monitor, but where appropriate, modify the landscape to reduce duplication, we suggest further emphasis on the added value of a new mandate in relation to existing ones.
On 0.4, proposed mandated activities.
We believe periodicity should also be included in the sections considerations following the mandate on OP 13 of the resolution.
0.5, indicative financial implications, we consider that proponents should provide further details on how to measure financial implications with guidance from the Secretariat, of course.
On 0.7, UN system implementation lead.
We consider that it is up to the proponent to suggest which UN entity should meet the implementation.
Again, guided by the Secretariat and that should be made clear.
Then one last point, implementation timelines, we suggest explicitly requesting that the proponent includes considerations regarding the review and retirement of the proposed mandate.
In addition to this, we consider that all elements 1-8 under template E should be subject to indicative word or character limits to ensure efficiency and effectiveness.
Again, we are happy to engage with you coaches and with colleagues on the details and the wording of our proposal as needed, and we look forward to continued collaboration on this workstream on Worsen two under your guidance, and we reiterate to support for this process in ensuring mandate effectiveness across the UN system.
Thank you.
In fact, the European Union.
I give the floor now to New Zealand on behalf of Cs.
Thank you, co chairs and congratulations on your appointment.
You have Kansas full confidence and support.
Kansas is committed to maintaining the momentum and the ambition built up through the informal ad hoc working group.
The adoption of resolution 80 slash 251 shows strong shared commitment across the membership to meaningful mandate reform across the UN system.
If successful, this work will strengthen the mandate life cycle and streamline UN mandates, delivering lasting improvements to our work.
However, significant work remains, including in achieving the cultural shift referred to by you, Madam co chair, by both member states and the Secretariat.
The development and practical utilization of the draft templates and model clauses is obviously an important first step.
These will provide a practical toolkit to improve mandate design, supporting more effective delivery across the UN's three pillars.
Over time, they will also reduce the burden on member states and enable more substantial engagement, particularly for smaller delegations.
In short, this involves, as you have already said, generating practical tools to assist member states without creating new obligations.
As such, we hope that it will be the most straightforward and positive part of our work.
Against this background, Ks welcomes the draft resolution and decision templates you've provided us with.
These tools will support the development of clearer mandates through an emphasis on precision, simplicity, and transparency in drafting.
They will also assist member states to develop more consistent mandates by promoting common structures and standardized approach.
We see potential to make the templates even more accessible and practical.
First, by outlining that the templates are for use in intergovernmental organs across the UN system, not only the General Assembly.
This would be consistent with paragraph 32 of a slash slash 80 slash 251, which called upon all intergovernmental organs across the UN system to apply the principles and actions outlined in the resolution.
Second, by adding brief definitions of preambular and operative paragraphs to support a shared understanding, particularly for new delegates of their distinct purposes and resolutions.
Third, by specifying that member states should strive for clarity and brevity when drafting paragraphs as member states agreed in paragraph one J of a slash re slash 80 slash 251.
We also strongly support the concept template for new mandates.
These will enable member states to make more informed decisions on the mandates we create and help proponents of mandates reduce unnecessary overlap and duplication with existing mandates.
To make the concept note even more useful, we would encourage mandate proponents to, where possible, include the indicative timelines for the review and retirement of proposed mandates as part of the implementation timelines they provide.
The template should also suggest a maximum length per section or overall and explicitly direct member states to indicate why existing mandates do not adequately respond to the issue addressed by the proposed new mandate.
CAS also welcomes the draft model mandate implementation review and retirement clauses.
By embedding clear and predictable review points, the draft implementation review clauses will help member states assess progress towards desired outcomes, ensure continued relevance, and take informed decisions on whether mandate should be continued, adjusted, or concluded.
The draft retirement clauses provide a structured and transparent mechanism for supporting member state decisions on bringing mandates to an appropriate close once their objectives have been met or when they are no longer required.
This will contribute to a more streamlined and effective mandate landscape and organization overall.
Fundamentally, ensuring the clarity, consistency, and usability of these clauses should be our priority, using clear, direct, and active language and ensuring consistent terminology across the model clauses will make them more usable and accessible for all delegations.
We have made suggestions to this end in our national written submissions.
Finally, co chairs, as CAs, we will continue to engage positively and constructively on the templates and model clauses to support mandate efficiency, delivery, and effectiveness, and ensure their ease of use by member states.
We look forward to working with the co chairs, all member states, and the Secretariat to deliver on the implementation of this important resolution.
Thank you.
I thank the distinguished DPR of New Zealand.
I give the floor now to Belarus to be followed by Pakistan.
We Belarus is thankful for distinguished co chairs and the Secretariat for preparing draft templates and model closes.
We think it's a good start in general, and we also agree with the statement at the start of today's event.
Thank you, Ambassador.
We also think that all the member states should be not forced to use all and exclusively proposed recommendations in our draft.
We proposed and we think so if we would like to adopt this model templates by J resolution or decision to add a point that indicate that all the annexed draft templates are a non binding instrument.
I thank you.
I thank the distinguished representative of Belarus and I give the floor to Pakistan, who will be followed by Mexico and then Japan.
First, let me appreciate the work undertaken by the co chairs.
We also appreciate the way in which this process is being undertaken.
We underline the concepts of inclusivity and transparency.
Pakistan aligns itself with the statement made by G 77 and China and wishes to retreate the group's queries regarding the practical implementation of this clause, in particular, how and by whom it would be determined whether the conditions that gave rise to a mandate continue to prevail.
In our national capacity, we wish to stress that during negotiations on resolution 80 slash 251, there was no consensus on classifying mandates as being overtaken by changed circumstances.
That reference was deliberately removed from the final resolution text in order to achieve consensus.
If the clause under conuation implies, whether explicitly or implicitly the creation of a new category of mandates deemed overtaken by changed circumstances, Pakistan reiterates its objection to this inclusion.
We would caution against reintroducing language that member states already agreed to remove.
I thank you, Coaches.
I thank the distinguished representative of Pakistan.
I give the floor now to Mexico, then Japan, and then Argentina.
Thank you, distinguished co chairs.
We would like to first support what Uruguay on behalf of the G 77 kindly request if it would be possible to have all the comments sent by all the delegations.
Mexico would like to welcome the documents that were circulated.
We really appreciate your work and we believe these documents is a first step in the right direction towards a cultural shift.
In the organization.
Mexico sent written comments, but would like to add the following.
We believe the proposal presented by the distinguished co chairs constitute a significant step towards strengthening the coherence in the formulation of mandates across the entire United Nations system.
And in terms of the proposal presented in template C of model language, Mexico sees this as an important proposal, nevertheless believes it should preserve a flexible spirit and should be able to be adapted depending on each mandate, context, and resolution.
Regarding the concept note, Mexico believes it's a useful instrument to enhance discipline in the creation of mandates, particularly with the view of avoiding unintentional duplication in the creation of mandates.
In this regards, we would like to suggest two points.
First, in line with what the European Union said, we would like to see, um, a section where we would add from the beginning indicative parameters for possible review or eventual sunset clause.
Also, we would like to have more clarity on how this concept note would work in the sense that because it requires both collaboration from member states and Secretariat to fill the concept note, we would like to know how this would work once we have a final version.
Thank you.
I thank the distinguished representative of Mexico.
I give the floor not to Japan and then Argentina.
Thank you, Madam and Mr.
Co chairs.
We welcome the proposal from the co chairs regarding the template for concept note and draft resolutions, as well as the model for review clauses and retirement clauses.
Japan has already submitted written comments on the following points.
First, we recommend the overall draft presented by co chairs.
We especially welcome the inclusion of review and retirement clauses in both template A and template B.
Second for template A to maintain the significance and momentum of this resolution.
General assembly resolution 80 slash 251, we propose to recall this resolution in the preambula part.
Second, *** template C and template D elements have long been a priority for Japan.
However, the first and third options in template C only request a review of implementation status.
We therefore propose to include a review that enables us to determine whether the mandate should be renewed or consolidated.
We further have some technical questions regarding each of the draft templates A to D.
We would appreciate if the co chairs and Secretariat could share the precision that informs their drafting.
We would also appreciate clarification on how to distinguish between the uses of templates A and B.
Finally, we would like to seek clarification on the decision making methods and procedures for template A through E, significant specifically regarding their adoption by this working group.
We are determined to constructively participate in collective efforts, including discussions in this working group which had commenced.
I thank you.
I thank the distinguished representative of Japan.
I give the floor now to Argentina.
Thank you very much.
Good morning.
Thank you, co chairs.
Congratulations for your appointment and thank you for the work you have done on the templates.
We consider it's a good basis for discussion and as you mentioned, for a cultural shift when we work on the mandate creation.
Um, in addition to what had been said by G 77 and the comments that G 77 had submitted, we would like to express a part of what we understand when it comes to the retirement templates or clauses.
The G 77 has submitted a very elegant way to incorporate what has been agreed in OI of the resolutions that retirement clauses should be included as appropriate.
And we want to highlight this because the way the templates are presented, it seems that we need to have some retirement clauses in all the resolutions that we will present in the future or some clauses.
And in our understanding when we discuss the previous resolution, Some mandates might need a retirement clauses, but some mandates that are more broad or open do not need that retirement clauses.
In OP five, I think in that resolution we capture that idea as appropriate.
So we would like to see that simple but important caveat also contemplated in template A.
When we go to the template D with all the options that we have, that's something that has to be considered as appropriate dependent on the mandate that we are discussing.
I think that is an important balance that we need to keep and we didn't send this in our national capacity because it was, I think, very well and elegant introduced by G 77, taking OP five as a source for that.
Thanks for the clarification that this is not a fixed menu, but a manual acc cart that member states can see how better improve or incorporate in their own wording also these ideas that are important for a cultural ship.
When it comes to the concept notes, we have said from the beginning that it's important to have this.
It will have small delegations to have an idea, I think it's important also to present the rationale and the arguments and the financial context without prejudging any discussion.
Generally speaking, we are supportive of concept notes in template E.
What we would expect from those concept notes is that they are not heavily written and doesn't become a huge document that goes in addition, in our point of view should be practical, concise and I don't want to say that we should have a maximum of words, it should be something that help us to move in a more executive way, I would say, rather than having concept notes that creates a huge burden with ten, 15 or 20 pages for that.
But that's our point of view on those.
Thank you very much.
I thank the distinguished representative of Argentina and I give the floor to Iran.
In terms of God, the most compassionate, the most merciful, I would like to thank co chairs for convening this meeting and also congratulations to them and accepting this role.
We would also like to thank all delegations for their constructive engagement as well as the Secretariat in this process.
My delegation has reflected its position through the group of 77 in China and we associate also with the group.
We would like to make a few additional remarks in our national capacity.
First, we believe that the recognition and identification of benchmarks in the evaluation and review of mandates is both a critical and complex issue.
This aspect deserves sufficient and careful consideration in order to ensure that any assessment process is meaningful, balanced, and genuinely reflected of mandate implementation and effectiveness.
Second, with regard to the language and review and possible termination of mandates, we believe that the process should not necessarily be confined to a single predetermined or rigid formulation.
Flexibility in the language and approach is important in order to accommodate the diverse nature of mandates and the different circumstances under which they operate.
Another important issue that the working group should address is whether its focus is intended to be limited only to future mandate resolutions.
Greater clarity on this matter would be useful for delegations and would contribute to a more transparent and focused process.
In addition, with respect to the role of the Secretariat, we believe that any support provided should remain consistent with the relevant resolutions and should primarily be of a technical nature, particularly in assisting the proposing delegation with the formulation of language where necessary.
In our view, it is also important to remain mindful of the existing workload and capacity constraints of the Secretariat and to avoid creating additional burdens or layers that may affect its overall functioning and service delivery.
Finally, we believe that all efforts of the working group should continue to be directed toward listening carefully to the views, concerns, and concentrations of member states and negotiating groups with the objective of achieving a consensual outcome.
In this regard, we believe that a consensus based resolution can play an important facilitating role as it enables all member states to develop a sense of ownership of the outcome and strengthens their commitment to its implementation.
I thank you, co chairs.
I thank the distinguished representative of Iran and I give the floor to the Republic of Korea.
Thank you, distinguished co chairs.
My delegation thanks to co chairs for preparing and sharing templates and model clauses and also for guiding the work of this working group in such a smooth and efficient manner.
We agree that these templates and modal clauses will be an important step to the cultural shift.
We also believe that the successful implementation of the resolution 80 slash 251 can best be ensured through the self discipline and voluntary engagement of member states.
In this regard, we encourage delegations to actively utilize the templates and model clauses shared by the co chairs.
We also agree with the distinguished delegates of cans in that these templates and model clauses are for the entire UN system, not just for the General Assembly.
We as member states should encourage our colleagues in other parts of word to use these templates and model clauses as possible.
Furthermore, we have a question or request regarding the model clauses presented.
We don't think that this is an exhaustive list.
SG 77 or other delegates also mentioned that uh when we are consulting the actual resolution, I think this exact language cannot be sometimes be put in the resolution.
So it would be helpful if we can see more examples.
So I wish to ask the Secretary the feasibility to establish a dedicated category within the mandate registry compiling existing review and retirement clauses so that delegations may refer to practical precedents in their future considerations.
Thank you.
I thank the distinguished representative of Korea for the innovative suggestion.
I saw eyebrows Well, I saw nods coming from the Secretariat in response, that's a good thing.
You see me ad libbing because I have no more requests for the floor.
We are open to engaging further.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I apologize for taking the floor again, just a small technical suggestion, not just for draft templates, but for all the work of the updated working group to avoid some issues of our previous work and to be truly effective and a open for engagement, we proposed for the co chairs we see that a number of delegation have their own proposals.
That is why we think it would be truly useful to see a compilation of the proposals and it's even more important when the co chairs present us a new revisions of the document to see as it usually work here in New York, what changed in, for example, revision one of the draft from the first revision from the draft.
We don't think it's extremely hard, but it would be very useful for all of us to see the difference and then to speak and to discuss these concrete updates.
Thank you.
Thank you very much for that.
There have been a few comments and questions raised.
I'll give the floor.
Do you want to I can start if you want, I'm fine.
I have taken notes.
I think it's important also for your last question, representative from Belarus, because Um, we are not planning this as a negotiated outcome that will be adopted as a resolution.
On the contrary, we listen, we take note, we have all your written inputs.
They shall be somehow published.
I don't know what the routine is for that, but so that you can see it.
And we refine the templates according to what we have heard in the room that we think people and delegations agree on and we presented to you as a gift.
It's a gift for you to start using when you want to propose new mandates.
What we're actually doing is trying now to implement Resolution 251 in all its glory.
Paragraph 33 of that resolution does set out what we're going to do, and this is our first, deliverable according to paragraph 33.
But it's not going to be because no one can force member states to write resolutions or concept notes in specific ways.
It's of course up to the proponent, but we have agreed in resolution 251.
That we should have a concept note, a concise concept note.
We have agreed that we shall continue this work in this working group where the first deliverable will be templates, model clauses that can be used by delegations when proposing new mandates.
Then it's about the cultural shift that we all have to start asking for them.
When we come to committee season and someone wants to propose a new resolution with a mandate for something in some committee, if it doesn't come with a concept note, the Norwegian delegate will ask for it and we'll also ask, well, why isn't there a review clause in this resolution? Is there a good explanation for that? It is about making our decisions easier in a way that we have clarity of what we are actually wanting to do.
Another question was whether this would apply to the whole UN system.
Yes, as it says in Resolution 251, it will and we will have to find ways of engaging with especially Geneva and Vienna in principle, all the UN capitals, how we go about that.
Um, when should we start using this? Well, we have a deadline in resolution 251 that we need to have these templates by the end of May, beginning of June.
Yeah.
We're trying to do this in a very businesslike way, coming up with something that we all think will be useful and that's the idea.
It's a menu.
We do have the Secretariat, including the Office of the Legal Advisor checking the text that we propose because we don't want it to be technically wrong or illegal, but that's basically the idea.
Thank you so much for that clarification.
I couldn't agree more.
Just to reflect a little bit on some of the other inputs as well.
The question was asked, I think, by Iran whether or not what we're trying to implement here will be limited only to new mandates.
And you will recall in paragraph 13 of the resolution, we say agrees to include mandate implementation review clauses.
Dot, dot, dot, in all new and renewing mandates.
So there is an opportunity for us to refresh existing mandates and existing mandate decisions and resolutions with this new culture shift as well when they come up for renewal.
To the distinguished representative of Pakistan, we will certainly look into that to make sure that we're not overstepping beyond what was agreed in the resolution.
So thank you for flagging that.
Much appreciated.
Um The question from Japan, what is the difference between templates A and B? As we were reflecting on this and taking some advice from the Secretariat, the technical advice on whether or not these things actually will work and what the implications are, we also had caused to reflect on whether or not there needs to be a separate template for resolutions and decisions.
You may see in the next iteration that there is one less.
But we're still reflecting on that to make sure that we're not going to deprive member states of an option that could be useful that may contain differences, but we're examining that closely.
We share the view that there was no one size fits all, which is why we cannot make this an adopted set of templates because by nature, they have to be flexible and they are up to you to use as you see fit, to adapt as you see fit, to make worthy of the resolution that you are drafting or the decision that you are drafting.
Bear in mind, though, that what you're hearing from the room is the expectations of all delegations of what they would like to see.
Even if you don't have it in your contemplation, be prepared that these are the questions that will come from the other sides of the room.
And so it would be helpful if you telegraph your answers to those things in advance, or if you address your minds to those things in advance because they will come up during the course of the discussions around your resolution.
And that's the idea behind doing this so that it brings that greater clarity.
And with that greater clarity comes greater efficiency in how we adopt the resolutions.
It will take significantly less time if answers are provided to questions that will come up front.
Um, on the question from Mexico of how the collaboration with the Secretariat will work.
It's an important question and especially with respect to the concept note where we ask member states, we ask proponents to provide information that they cannot develop on their own, that they will need collaboration from the Secretariat.
And we are working closely with the Secretariat to develop that precise modality.
One of the things that we will do when we present the final revision on this is perhaps some guiding note, we're not sure exactly what the format of that will be yet, whether it's a separate guidance note on the concept notes, which will provide precisely that information, where you would go, who you would contact, et cetera, to get the information that we say we want you to have in the concept notes.
We will try to make that as clear as we can, and we are having our discussions with the Secretariat to fine tune that as we speak.
Um Couldn't agree more across the system and we will devise ways to make sure that the entire UN system has access to these templates and are encouraged to use them as far as possible.
The best way to do that is to remind all of us that we represent the same member states that are represented in all of these other specialized agencies.
So if we share with our counterparts through our capitals or directly, if I share these templates with my peer and his team in Geneva, then they have a set of templates that they can use when they are proposing resolutions.
The responsibility is not just on us as co chairs, but it's on all of us as member states to share this and to make sure that we have this as synchronized as possible and as practicable.
Um, on the point made by reinforced by Argentina and as he said, very elegantly made by G 77 on the as appropriate for the retirement clauses, it is true that it is so worded in the resolution itself.
And if that brings clarity to the fact that then I don't see the harm in doing that.
The reality is that all of these things that we are proposing are as appropriate because they are up to you to decide how you use them.
But if that reinforces that part, we're happy to consider that as well.
For the EU a suite of proposals there that we are looking at, they are very detailed and some of them are workable.
Some of them are going to present some challenges in terms of bringing them forward, but we will see how best we can provide options, again, for consideration.
Again, bearing in mind that they are not mandatory, but to see whether or not we can draw on the resources of the Secretariat in identifying some potential language that could be useful for proponents of resolutions or renewals.
Um And I think I don't know if there are any other questions, we do have the option of being very interactive.
We still have a little bit of time.
So if there's anybody else who wishes to take the floor, I'm happy to open it for a second round.
If not, we can refer to our usual efficiencies and finish within an hour.
Give you 2 hours.
And we give you back 2 hours of efficiency.
I see no requests for the floor.
Thank you, colleagues.
We will be providing you with some updates.
We indicated in the roadmap that we will circulate the revised drafts of the full template package to you on the 29th of May in accordance with the deadline.
So we will have a meeting on the 5th of June for an initial exchange of views on the criteria and modalities.
Which we will not because it's no longer on the 5th of June.
Is now going to be on the afternoon of the 2nd of June.
Now, I know the morning of the 2nd of June is a very busy day and a very important day for all of us, but we anticipate that part of our important work will have concluded by the morning session.
And so we have asked for a room to be reserved for our discussion on the afternoon of the 2nd of June.
And we'll circulate a revised roadmap that reflects this change and we ask you to just look out for that.
That's it for now.
I think so.
All right.
Thank you so much, colleagues.
The meeting is adjourned.