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

Good afternoon, colleagues.
Should we get started? If you find your seats, then Again, good afternoon, colleagues.
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 Wallace, who will be joining us a little later this afternoon and myself, I warmly welcome you to this session.
We are grateful for your continued engagement on the first stage of our work on the templates which were shared with you all Friday evening.
We hope you will find them genuinely useful as a tool to take them, adapt them, and apply them to our work going forward.
I must say I was really, really happy when the first concept note reached me today through the General Assembly email system.
Go have a look and congratulations to the first proponents.
Now, we now move on to the next two deliverables set out for us in resolution 8251, which we will work on in tandem.
Two, on one hand, develop clear and objective criteria to guide decisions on the renewal, adaptation, merger, replacement, or retirement of general assembly mandates, on the other hand, develop modalities to guide the review of the existing stock of general assembly mandates.
As set out in our roadmap, we hope to hear your initial thoughts on these two areas.
Namely, one, what criteria can we agree on to guide our decisions when we come to review mandates? Secondly, what kind of process can we establish in order to undertake a review of the existing stock of general assembly mandates? What would this look like? What is its scope, format, and timing? We have begun some of these discussions already in the informal ad hoc working group.
Again, I commend the coaches for giving us a solid basis.
We must now focus on clarifying our collective thinking on these issues towards nailing down where we can find agreement on the separate but complementary issues of criteria and modalities.
So colleagues, as you will have seen in our roadmap, we intend to synthesize what we hear today into a non paper to transmit to you on 12th June.
This is to inform our PR level workshops on 16th and 18th June.
This means that the more concrete you are today will help us to shape that paper that you will see yourself and your views in it and to feed into those upcoming discussions.
This is both in terms of the substantive contours of what review criteria and review process could look like, and also your level of ambition for this stage of our work.
So with that framing, I open the floor for you to provide your comments on these two areas and there's no pre established list, so just please press the button and tell us if you are speaking on behalf of a group.
With this, I first give the floor to Uruguay and I assume you are speaking on behalf of the G 77 in China, but Uruguay, you have the floor.
Thank you, co chair.
I have the honor, indeed, to deliver this statement on behalf of the group of 77 and China.
At the outset, the group wishes to convey its appreciation to the co chairs, Ambassador Brian Wallace, permanent representative of Jamaica, and Ambassador Merrett Via Blatted permanent representative of Norway.
I don't know if I pronounced it correctly, but for their work and leadership of the UN 80 Workstream two discussions.
The group of 77 and China takes note of the proposed update roadmap and would like to share on a preliminary basis the following general comments without prejudging its position as well as those of its member state on the draft non paper to be presented on June.
First, taking into consideration that mandate texts are political instruments agreed upon by member states.
The group is of the view that the modalities need to clearly state that all review processes must remain fully member state led.
Second, as clearly stated in G Assembly resolution 80 slash 251, the diverse nature of mandates and their context, as well as of the membership, governance structures, and financial and administrative arrangements across the United Nations system must be respected and preserved.
In this regard, the group wishes to reiterate its position that there is no one size fits all approach and that mandates should be reviewed by the specific body that originated them in accordance with their working methods.
Third, the group reiterates that the development pillar should maintain its priority under the UN AT initiative with a focus on how to further enhance support to developing countries.
Whenever possible, efficiency gains should be redeployed to development activities in program countries with a view to fulfilling the UNA vision on strengthening impact on the ground.
Fourth, the group of 77 and China wishes to emphasize the need to avoid politicization and double standards for which it will be key to have easy access to all information needed to develop clear and objective criteria and modalities.
Therefore, the group considers it essential to have secretariat support through accurate, evidence based and objective data, as well as impartial expertise and analysis.
Any recommendations coming from the Secretariat should remain neutral with clear, objective, and consistent rationale provided and should not prejudge member states decision making.
The group would welcome an opportunity for a dedicated exchange with the Secretariat in this regard.
Fifth, and lastly, as we deliberate on possible modalities for the review of GA mandates, the group reiterates that modalities must avoid the path of the 2006 exercise nor should duplicate other reform revitalization and rationalization processes already underway across the General Assembly and its main committees.
We should also continue to uphold the general rule that mandates remain valid until they are fully implemented or expired as provided for in their original or renewing resolution or decision of member states as it was clearly stated in General Assembly resolution 80 slash 251.
Excellencies, dear co chairs, the group of 77 and China acknowledges your hard work and stands ready to engage constructively in this negotiation process with a view to ensuring that mandates remain fit for purpose, that resources are used effectively, and that the priorities of developing countries are fully reflected and advanced.
I thank you.
I thank the representative of Uruguay.
I now give the floor to the representative of the European Union to be followed by Nepal, European Union.
Thank you, Ambassador and Madam Co chair, colleagues.
I delivered this statement on behalf of the European Union and its member states.
We appreciate the opportunity to exchange initial views on criteria for decisions on the future of General Assembly mandates and on modalities for the review of the existing stock of mandates, two key deliverables of resolution 80 slash 251.
Since 1946, more than 40,000 resolutions, decisions, and presidential statements have been adopted across the United Nations system.
Over time, this has contributed to overlap, duplication, and an increasing reporting and meeting burden for both the Secretariat and member states.
For the European Union, this exercise is therefore an important contribution to the broader UN reform process.
It is also a matter of inclusivity.
A more coherent mandate architecture can help all delegations participate more effectively while enabling the organization to focus on implementation and results.
Allow me to make a few points, first on modalities for the review of the existing stock of mandates and second, on criteria for mandate review.
A comprehensive review of existing mandates has significant potential to improve effectiveness and reduce burdens.
However, there is no one size fits all approach, and attempting to review all existing mandates at once will be neither practical nor realistic.
As a first step, we need a clearer picture of the mandates currently being implemented by the Secretariat and how they are being delivered.
In this regard, existing tools, notably the mandate registry, should be strengthened and further developed to provide greater visibility across the mandate landscape.
We should also explore how new technologies can support more informed and data driven decision making.
As a second step, we see an important role for the main committees in carrying forward mandate review efforts within the respective areas of competence, using the methodologies and guidance developed by this working group.
This will help foster a culture of mandate review across the general assembly and encourage a more systematic consideration of existing mandates when proposing new ones.
The mandate landscape review proposed in the concept note offers a valuable opportunity to advance this work through an agile and incremental approach.
We could also consider identifying a pilot case involving a limited set of mandates to test methodologies and draw lessons for future reviews.
Turning to the criteria for mandate review.
We agree with the Secretary-General assessment that this is fundamentally a stewardshipship function.
A life cycle approach should provide greater visibility over how mandates are created, resourced, implemented, reported, and reviewed.
Against this backdrop, the EU believes that mandate reviews could be guided by a set of practical cross cutting questions.
One, relevance.
Does the issue continue to require international attention and remain within D competence? Two, effectiveness.
Does the mandate demonstrably produce useful outputs or results? Three, uniqueness.
Does the mandate provide distinct added value or is the work already being carried out elsewhere? Four, cost benefit analysis.
Are the resources and reporting burden proportionate to the results achieved? Such an assessment could help guide decisions on the future of mandates.
Some mandates may warrant renewal because the underlying issue persists and the mandate remains fit for purpose.
Others may require adaptation to reflect evolving realities.
Where substantial overlap exists, merger should be considered to reduce duplication while preserving substance.
In some cases, replacement may offer a more effective delivery mechanism.
Finally, mandates that have been completed, become inactive or no longer provide meaningful added value may warrant retirement as envisaged in paragraph 20 of the resolution.
The decision to merge or replace mandates should be informed by analysis from the Secretariat.
The Secretariat, therefore, has an important role in supporting evidence based and data driven decision making through strengthened analytical capacities and tools.
Colleagues, mandates are created to achieve agreed objectives not to exist indefinitely.
As circumstances evolve, mandates should evolve, too, ensuring that the United Nations remains effective, responsive, and fit for purpose, while safeguarding the UN Charter, the organization's unique normative role, and the three pillars of the UN.
The EU looks forward to working with all delegations to make the most of this opportunity and help build a more effective and adaptable United Nations.
Thank you.
I thank the representative of the European Union and now give the floor to the representative of Nepal to be followed by New Zealand.
Nepal.
Thank you.
Co chairs, Excellencies, Nepal aligned itself with this statement delivered by Uruguay on behalf of G 77 in China.
I now have the honor to speak on behalf of the group of least developed countries.
Excellencies, the LDC group wishes to highlight the following points.
First, LDC attaches great importance to the work of this working group as a central pillar of the even 80 initiative to build a more efficient, effective United Nations that delivers better for those for this behind.
In that regard, LDCs support the principles set out in paragraph one of resolution 80 slash 251, including the understanding that mandates must deliver maximum impact for member states and the people we serve while being properly resourced in line with established program planning and budgetary processes as reaffirmed in paragraph nine.
Second, LDC underscored that mandate creation, implementation, and review must remain firmly member state driven, transparent, and inclusive and fully respect the diverse nature of mandates, their context, and the different governance and financing arrangements across the UN system, as recognized in paragraph one B of the resolution 80 slash 251.
Any criteria and modalities must therefore safeguard development priorities, policy space, and the integrity of mandates, especially LDC specific mandates that are vital to structurally vulnerable countries.
Third, From the perspective of LDCs, the work on criteria and modalities must put development at the center and uphold the balance across three pillars, ensuring that the development pillar is not disadvantaged.
Resources linked to any efficiency gains should be redeployed to stand development mandates and operational activities in program countries, consistent with the call in para one L and para nine of the resolution.
Fourth, LDC attaches particular importance to the implementation of paragraph 16 of Resolution 80 slash 251, which requires the Secretary-General to review the full portfolio of mandated reports to identify candidates for combination or change in periodicity for consideration by member states by the end of June 2026.
This exercise must be guided by clear, objective criteria, accurate data, and impartial analysis and must avoid becoming a vehicle for weakening or diluting mandates of special importance to LDCs, especially in areas such as development financing, trade, climate resilience, LDC gradualism, and a smooth transition, and other priorities agreed in intergovernmental processes.
In closing co chairs, the LDC group stands ready to engage constructively in this initial actions of views on criteria and modalities.
Our aim is to ensure that the outcome of the working group stands a mandate architecture that is fit for purpose, adequately resourced and fully aligned with the needs and priorities of the LDCs in line with the letter and spirit of the resolution 80 slash 251.
I thank you.
I thank the Representative of Nepal and I now give the floor to the Representative of New Zealand to be followed by the United States, New Zealand.
Thank you, Merit.
I speak on behalf of CAS.
CAS welcomes the development of criteria and modalities for reviewing the existing stock of GA mandates.
It was a key outcome of resolution 80 slash 251, and we must take this opportunity to address one of the core problems identified by the Secretariat and by many of us as member states to reduce the burden on our organization from outdated and inactive mandates.
The ad hoc working group must outline a clear agreed methodology and process for review that one takes a system wide approach, considering GA mandates in the context of the broader mandate landscape across the wider UN system.
Two, ensures balance across the three pillars of the United Nations as also just noted now by the least developed countries.
Three, identifies opportunities to reduce unnecessary duplication, improve coherence, and retire obsolete or inactive mandates with ongoing programmatic or resource implications, and four, excludes mandates that are in the charter as well as those that are norm setting of universal character, institution creating or relate to ongoing political situations with implications for international peace.
As cans, we would like to offer four elements that we believe are necessary to conduct a successful mandate review exercise.
First of all, the ad hoc working group should consider whether we have the data or evidentiary basis to conduct the review.
If not, we should direct the Secretariat to undertake a preview assessment to identify low risk efficiency opportunities.
For example, we should ask ourselves questions such as, do we have a complete inventory of mandates? Can we identify normative versus operational mandates? What about the identification of inactive, obsolete, or completed mandates? We will need an assessment of possible duplication and fragmentation across multiple bodies, and we should ask ourselves whether we have an overview of which of those mandates might still draw significant resources.
Secondly, a comprehensive and accessible mandate inventory is essential to underpin a credible review.
We encourage the Secretariat to continue strengthening and completing essential inventory of mandates, building on existing tools.
This should include key classification criteria such as mandate age, origin, legal status, implementing entity, resource implications, reporting requirements, and overlap with other mandates.
This will enable a more objective and evidence based decision making by member states.
Third, we believe the mandate review should have a clear purpose, specifically, achieving more coherent, efficient and effective delivery while preserving norms.
Clearly distinguishing between normative mandates and operational mandates would support efforts to streamline delivery, such as reducing duplicative reporting, meetings, and administrative burdens, while preserving core standard setting and normative functions.
At the same time, the review should prioritize strengthening the impact, efficiency, and coherence of mandate delivery by identifying overlap and fragmentation, as well as opportunities for consolidation, merging, streamlining, and reduced periodicity.
Through the UNAT Initiative, the Secretariat and member states have identified proliferation of meetings and reports as a systemic challenge.
Potential measures to address this include consolidating reports across agendas, related agendas, moving from annual to bi annual or triannual reporting, creating common analytical annexes, standardizing indicators, establishing single reporting windows, digitizing reporting processes, and eliminating repetitive procedural reports.
Enhancing coherence across UN bodies and aligning mandates with realistic resources will be critical to achieving sustainable improvements.
The fourth point that we think is crucial to a review in terms of modalities is that we really do see practical value in clustering related mandates for review instead of reviewing individual mandates.
This would encourage us to consider which entities are undertaking overlapping work and which reports and meetings covering similar ground could be merged.
We believe that these elements, when put together, can deliver a practical, balanced and results oriented mandate review process.
CAS remains committed to working constructively with all member states to advance this important agenda and with you, the co chairs.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Carolyn, on behalf of CAS.
I now give the floor to the representative of the United States to be followed by the representative of Indonesia, United States, please.
Thank you very much, Ambassador.
It's, of course, hard to follow one of the previous co chairs of this process.
I think the ambassador statement was extremely thorough.
I don't have prepared remarks, but I did want to pick up on a number of themes that have already been raised in a few of the interventions.
I think the question that the ambassador from New Zealand raised of, do we have enough data at the outset is a good starting point.
I and the idea of approaching this from the angle of clusters of mandates rather than individual mandates.
I think taking those two together, it would be extremely helpful to have guidance from the Secretariat on what the big clusters of mandates are that are out there, both within the GA and its subsidiary bodies.
But I think even if for the time being the mandate of the ad hoc working group is solely to focus on GA mandates, it would be helpful to know what are similar mandates from other related bodies that touch on or similar to mandates that the GA deals with.
Um, and I quite like the criteria that were proposed by the European Union.
I think inevitably there's going to be an issue of subjectivity, there's going to be differences of views within the membership, different groupings on what remains relevant, what is still effective, whether or not the cost benefit is worth it.
I think all of these are questions that are worth digging into.
I do think in some ways the question of uniqueness is maybe a little bit easier as a starting point because it gets to this issue of similarity and whether we as a working group can at a minimum agree which mandates are sufficiently alike that they warrant being potentially merged as a first step and if there's a possibility in doing that analysis to decide that, in fact, some of them could actually be retired so much the better.
Thank you.
I thank the representative of the United States now giving the floor to the representative of Indonesia to be followed by the representative of Malaysia.
But Indonesia first.
Thank you, Excellency.
Indonesia aligns itself with the statement by Uruguay on behalf of the GCF seven in China and wish to add some points in our national capacity at the outset, our obligation, thank the co chairs for convening this meeting as an important follow ups to the resolution 82 51.
As we deliberate on the criteria and modalities for reviewing the existing stock of mandates to achieve meaningful and lasting reform, we must ground our efforts in today's realities.
First, geopolitical landscape presents unique challenges compared to the previous mandatory review processes, further compounded by a vastly higher volume of active mandates.
Therefore, we are of the view that the current review process should avoid replicating past approaches, particularly the impractical one by one review methodology.
Second, we must be mindful that one size fits all approach shall not be applied.
Every mandate serves a specific carefully negotiated purpose.
Mandates review must therefore respect unique working methods, specialized expertise and contexts where its mandate is created.
Third, to manage this fast volume effectively Thematic clustering could be the entry point by grouping similar mandates from various resolutions, we potentially identify functional overlaps.
We could also then possibly identify the potential reduction or simplification of multiple citation on similar mandates coming from different resolutions.
Last but not least, in executing this massive mapping exercise, the strategic utilization of technology, including AI might offer significant benefits in terms of scale and speed.
However, robust human oversight and member state control remain indispensable.
The delicate nuances of diplomatic consensus shall be preserved.
To conclude, Indonesia looks forward to the circulation of the non paper on this exercise and remains constructively engaged for the upcoming discussions.
Let us put forward a pragmatic and member state led process that prioritizes trust, respect for institutional mandates, and long term sustainability.
Thank you.
I thank the Representative of Indonesia and now give the floor to the representative of Malaysia to be followed by the representative of Mexico, Malaysia.
Thank you, Madam Co chair.
Malisa, thank you for convening this informal consultation.
We are at a crucial juncture of the UN AT initiative, where our focus must increasingly shift from conceptual discussions to practical implementation.
Having collectively agreed on the framework set out in resolution 80 slash 251, it is incumbent upon the working group to translate shared commitments into concrete actions, clear deliverables, and workable mechanisms.
Malisia aligns itself with the statement delivered by Uruguay on behalf of the Group seven in China and wishes to provide the following comments in our national capacity.
On the criteria for mandate review, Malisia believes that any criteria developed should be clear, objective, and practical while preserving the political nature of mandates as instruments negotiated and agreed by member states.
The criteria should serve as decision support tools for member states to make informed decisions regarding the renewal, adaptation, merger, replacement or retirement of mandates.
Melia further considers that the criteria should be firmly grounded in evidence and informed by accurate data, impartial analysis, and the specific context of each mandate.
Some useful considerations in this regard may include the continued relevance of a mandate to member states priorities, the extent of its implementation, the demonstrated impact and added value, the existence of overlaps or duplications with other mandates, and the efficient use of resources in support of implementation.
At the same time, any assessment must take into account the specific political, developmental, or normative context in which the mandate operates.
On the modalities for review of existing mandates, as an overarching principle, Malisia considers it essential that the review process remain firmly member state led, transparent, and inclusive.
The role of the Secretariat should be to provide objective information, technical support, and analytical inputs to facilitate informed decision making by member states.
Malisia also believes that the review should proceed in a manageable manner.
Given the breadth of the General Assembly's mandate portfolio, a phased or clustered approach may help to facilitate a more coherent review process while avoiding duplication with existing review, revitalization, and rationalization efforts already underway across the United Nations system.
Finally, Malisia wishes to underscore the importance of adhering to the safeguards already contained in the resolution, mandates that are charter based, norm setting of universal character, institution creating or related to ongoing political situations with implications for international peace and security should remain outside the scope of these reviews unless member states decide otherwise.
In closing, Malisia approaches this exercise not as a mandate reduction exercise, but as an opportunity to enhance the effectiveness, coherence, and impact of the work entrusted by member states to the United Nations.
The credibility and success of this process will ultimately be measured not by the principles we have endorsed, but by our ability to operationalize them.
We look forward to engaging constructively with all delegations as we move from principle to implementation and from aspiration to delivery.
I thank you Madam Co Chair.
I thank the Representative of Malaysia and now give the floor to the Representative of Mexico to be followed by the representative of India.
Mexico, please.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Mexico has advocated for the relevance of revising all mandates from the General Assembly in order to allow for their renewal rationalization, strengthening, or eventually extinction.
The world is evolving and therefore, UN mandates should adapt to the changing needs of member states.
The adoption of resolution 82 51 is a step in the right direction, a first step in the right direction.
The deliberations of this working group to define criteria and modalities for that in depth review are key to the success of the UN reform process.
The UN are largely the sum of mandates entrusted by member states and reviewing all mandates does not mean reopening the reasons for why they were originally created, but rather updating their terms of reference to make sure they adjust to new international realities for Mexico Reviewing is not synonymous with dismantling.
It is rather about ensuring that the organization continues to be effective through better monitoring of the life cycle of mandates.
In that sense, Mexico would like to put forth certain fundamental premises.
First, the in depth review of GA mandates should not duplicate or substitute existing processes.
Second, this exercise should set a positive precedent in order to modernize other UN system organs.
Third, Whatever decisions we adopt should be based on clear, objective, and verifiable criteria with technical support from the Secretariat.
The goal is not to modify mandates arbitrarily, nor is it to evaluate their substantive content.
Instead, it is to improve how the system works by rationalizing meetings and reports and reducing duplications, as well as identifying synergies and complementarities.
Finally, accountability and results.
And following that very same logic, an in depth review of each mandate should consider its effective impact on the ground and their added value for the peoples and communities that will benefit from the United Nations actions.
That is why criteria should not be limited to reviewing administrative, bureaucratic, or budgetary aspects.
They should consider the real impact of mandates when it comes to normative development, the protection of people, accountability, Technical cooperation and assistance and strengthening national capacities.
Madam Co Chair, allow me to conclude with the following.
For Mexico, reviewing mandates is an ongoing process where we primarily seek to reach agreements on criteria and modalities.
It is also critical to on the basis of the resolution that I quoted, the Secretary-General provide the necessary advice on the mechanisms to carry out individual and collective reviews of mandates.
We hope that this will be presented to member states at the latest at the end of September 2026.
I thank you for your attention, Madam Co chair.
I thank the representative of Mexico and now give the floor to the representative of India to be followed by the representative of Argentina, India.
Thank you, Madam Co chair.
India alliance with the statement delivered by Uruguay on behalf of G 77.
Allow me to offer following reflection in our national capacity.
First, the review process should be based on clear objective data driven criteria that consider the impact, result, review cycle, continued relevance of mandates, and the need to avoid overlap and duplication.
In this regard, identifying certain key elements could facilitate our work in developing criteria and modalities.
These may include improving mandate to visibility in terms of categorization of mandates into normative or operational.
Whether mandates has quantifiable objectives, results, and a time bound review cycle.
Whether Mandates has been provided with adequate resources and time to deliver on its intended objectives.
Impact and results should inform decisions on the future of mandates, including additional resources to achieve intended results.
Second, it is important to recognize that mandate review process should strengthen rather than diminish the UN system's capacity to deliver on development pillar, to support member states.
National ownership must remain the central organizing principle of the UN development system to ensure it remains responsive to member states needs and priorities.
Any decision on the future of mandates, particularly those with country level activities should be preceded by reaffirmation of host government consent.
Third, review of mandate implementation should benchmarked against a metric of key performance indicators to assess impact, effectiveness and efficiency and guide member state decision on the future of mandates.
Finally, in terms of modality, Madam Co chair, the review process should be carried out in a manner that leverages best practices across the UN system, including the collective review mechanism wherever possible to avoid pitfalls of the 2006 mandate review process and develop more effective mandate landscape backed by adequate resources while minimizing perpetuation of ineffective, obsolete or duplicative mandates.
I thank you, Pane.
I thank the representative of India and now give the floor to the representative of Argentina to be followed by the representative of South Africa, Argentina.
Thank you very much, Madam Co chair.
Good afternoon, colleagues.
Thank you very much for this first informal consultations.
We would like to make a few comments in addition to the G 77 statement.
OP 33 D three in paragraph 21 of resolution 80 slash 251 point us in a clear direction by stating that we should formulate clear and objective criteria that serve as a guideline for decision making.
Here, the key element of this mandate is the need to be objective.
That same logic should be applied to the review modalities.
In that sense, The drafting of clear and objective criteria should be based on a technical focus that helps us identify in the most objective way possible, the necessary elements to evaluate the decision making process on behalf of member states.
Some elements that can be technically objective have been mentioned.
We believe that one of those elements that could be used is the budgetary impact based on all of its sources that is generated by each mandate and specifically when there are new standing structures or activities created, as well as duplications or overlaps that could be identified in consequence.
When it comes to elaborating criteria and review modalities, we should take into account something that the resolution establishes in paragraph 20.
Which is to say, once mandates are approved, they continue to be valid until they have been comprehensively applied.
That is also another objective element.
Another key element in order Another key element, I apologize, would be correctly implementing the provisions of operative paragraph number 25 in resolution 80 slash 251 and specifically in terms of the review modalities established in OP 33 D four.
We believe that we must avoid politicizing criteria and modalities, as well as dichotomies within certain agendas that on the basis of who is introducing them, we could argue that they are duplicative, or from another standpoint, they are called cross cutting issues.
Another element to bear in mind, which is very important is the diverse thematic nature of the GA in terms of its different special committees, and the actual plenary.
Finally, We consider that the Secretariat reports, which will be very useful for our work, but will also guide our debate should be technical, objective, and impartial.
When it comes to the review modalities, they should truthfully and correctly include the provisions in operative paragraph number 25.
I thank you, co chair.
I thank the Representative of Argentina and now give the floor to the representative of South Africa to be followed by the representative of China, South Africa.
Thank you, Madam Co chair and co facilitator.
We appreciate this opportunity to engage on this matter and would like to start out by indicating that we align with the statement made by the group of 77 in China and we'd just like to add one or two additional points in our national capacity.
Madam co facilitator, we noticed from your letter that you actually referred to paragraphs 33 D one, three, and four.
But we don't see any reference to paragraph 33 D five.
Um, that being said, when South Africa voted in favor of this, one of our main points that we made as to our motivation for voting in favor of this resolution was that this resolution should not be about mandate review.
It should be about mandate implementation review.
And we've heard a lot today about objective criteria which we totally agree with, but finding that criteria is quite tricky.
We need to be careful not to venture down a road where we're going to create mistrust and we're going to end up politicizing an issue and end up where we were in 2006.
So why we believe it's important to look at mandate implementation review, we believe that will guide us as to whether some of these mandates are really still being implemented.
We can look at the reasons why, if not, and maybe very quickly come to a situation where we say, this batch is really it's not relevant anymore to the time frame that we're finding ourselves in and in a certain time frame, they were really relevant, but not anymore, or some of them are still relevant, but the implementation should guide us and we fully agree with other points that have been made looking at impact, looking at the money that we spend, whether that relates to impact.
We do believe that paragraph five is also important to link it to your other points that you have made because we have asked the Secretary-General to give us advice.
We've also asked him to cluster these.
So because we're not going to be able, I think, to do a one by one assessment, but if he clusters it and then explains to us the implementation impacts and also the difficulties maybe that the Secretariat experiences or that time has passed for some of these.
But it related to the implementation, I think that will also help guide us in terms of trying to make an objective decision because mandates are sensitive.
We are all married to those that we have worked on a long time and that's why we see them coming back year after year, but we need to find a way to be comfortable with each other and saying, time has passed for this one or that one or this or that mandate has to be updated.
I'm just going to keep it to that, but I think it's important for my delegation that we also look at 33 D five.
Thank you.
I thank the representative of South Africa.
I now give the floor to the representative of China to be followed by the representative of the United Kingdom, China.
Chair.
Thank you, Chair.
China aligns itself with the state by Uruguay and on behalf of Group seven and China, Group 77, China.
Mandates constitute the foundation for the work of the UN.
China supports the steady advancement of the mandate implementation review in accordance with Resolution 80 slash 251.
To enhance the effectiveness of mandate implementation and strengthen the organized past responsibilities with regard to critical modality.
China considers the for print to paramount.
First, as mandates are each member states, the review must remain firmly member state driven adherence to principle of transparency, inclusiveness, and accessibility and reflecting the collective views of all member states.
Second, the fundamental objective of the view should be to strengthen the role of the UN, faithfully upholding the per principle in Charter.
Peace and security, development, human rights, and the three pillars must be advanced in a balanced manner.
Third, review Development remains the most concerned the vast majority of member states, developing countries, review should reflect the needs of prior to member states, pay particular attention to impact on development pillar development related mandates, ensure robust support for the implementation of the 2030 agenda through institutional arrangements and resources creation.
Fourth, the review issue focus mandates that genuly warrant streamline avoid formalism and bureaucracy and reductions for their own sake, nor should they be politicized.
Or is this true to weaken or even eliminate existing mandates.
Fifth, the review should draw on past experience proceeding a gradual and prudent manner.
Take a case by case approach, respect the diversity of the mandates nature and background, respect the authority and decision making mechanism of intergovernmental bodies, and respect the existing intergovernmental review process.
A size fit approach or duplication should be avoided.
Sixth, The review should be comprehensive and objectively should comprehensive and objectively assess the various factors affect demand implementation, focus on addressing difficulties and obstacles facing implementation and take improved effectiveness as one of the key criteria for the review.
We hope that the Secretariat in accordance with the relevant mandate about the principle objective and impartiality in providing evidence analysis and recommendations with informed discussions and decision making by the member states.
China looks forward to working with all parties to advance the mandate implementation review process slightly in the right direction to genuine serve the objective of strengthening the role of the UN and common interest of all member states.
Thank you, Chair.
I thank the representative of China and now give the floor to the representative of the United Kingdom to be followed by the representative of the United Kingdom.
Thank you, Ambassador.
Can I first thank you for the finalized package of the mandates templates and guidance and the clauses, which were very helpful and which I hope we can start using as soon as possible to help to improve our work.
We appreciate this opportunity that we have today to share our views on the criteria and modalities for the existing stock of GA mandates review.
Similar to others, we are really keen that the criteria modalities look across all three pillars of the UN's work holistically and with objectivity and that the criteria and modalities tackle duplication while promoting efficiency and coherence and our focus is on implementation and impact.
This is where the registry is important.
We can undertake a full stock take across mandates and comprehensively assess which ones are genuinely unique versus those which overlap or compete with each other.
We should organize the registry in a way that clearly identifies the mandate and scope, the intended outputs, outcomes, and impact, timelines, accountabilities, and resourcing.
We're also open to other means of bringing mandates into scope for review.
For example, those that don't receive budgetary support or those that have been inactive for over 20 years, for example.
We of course need to look carefully at those, so we guard against any unintended consequences, but I think we have that openness.
We agree with suggestions that others have made to consider where existing mandates and reporting on similar topics could be merged or clustered, could be removed if issues are already being addressed in depth elsewhere, and also where periodicity could be lengthened.
We look forward to continuing to work with you on this.
Thank you.
I thank the representative of the United Kingdom and now give the floor to the representative of Japan to be followed by the representative of Pakistan, Japan.
Thank you, Madam Co chair.
To begin, Japan welcomed the successful completion of the template development process in this working group last month.
We anticipate these templates will be put to effective use in the drafting and adaption of future resolutions and decisions.
We particularly appreciate the removal of two options from template B, which were previously designated thoroughly for review and not intended for consolidation or retirement.
Furthermore, we welcome the significant addition to concept notes mandate landscape, which will now include information on how proposed mandate will be differentiated from existing ones.
This addition Japan believes will enable us to effectively address the issue of overlapping mandates.
Regarding today's agenda item, the development of criteria and modalities, we will offer further input once the co chairs non paper becames available.
For now, we would like to share some preliminary comments reflecting our current views.
Confining criteria, Japan supports the development of clear criteria for decision making in mandate review.
Resolution 80-251 adopted by an overwhelming majority provides the foundation for such clear and objective criteria.
Specifically, paragraph 24 identifies the items in inactive, duplicative, or fully implemented to guide the Secretary-General review.
Based on this resolution, the criteria should be clear and objective applicable not only to existing mandates but also to future ones.
In this regard, it's also essential that Secretariat first identify those inactive, duplicative, or fully implemented mandates by the end of December as stipulated in paragraph 24 of the resolution.
Japan underscores the importance for Secretariat providing the current status of existing mandates, including budget and post.
Member states need to understand how resources are allocated to implement them.
Therefore, comprehensive information and robust support from the Secretariat are crucial.
Turning to modalities, Japan welcomes their development to guide the review of existing mandates.
At the same time, we need clear guidance on what modality entails.
Clarifying the meaning of modality will lead to a more productive discussion.
Japan remains committed to constructive engagement and looks forward to achieving concrete results in this ad hoc working group.
I thank you.
I thank the representative of Japan and now give the floor to the representative of Pakistan to be followed by the representative of Brazil, Pakistan.
Thank you, co chairs.
We align with the g77 and China statement and would add the following remarks in national capacity.
On criteria, we state the following.
We need to uphold the following principles contained in resolution 80 slash 251.
Namely, first, there is no one size fits all approach and the diversity of mandates must be respected and preserved.
Second, the safeguards in OP 25 need to be strictly applied, and we need a common understanding on which mandates fall under this carve out before embarking on any review exercise of GA mandates.
Third, mandates remain valid until fully implemented or expired as provided for in their original resolution.
Generally, we believe that equal importance should be given to both the UN's normative and operational role and that the development pillar should not be excessively targeted.
We agree on the need for our efforts being supported by clear and impartial data and the role of the Secretariat is key in providing this basis.
But the question is, how can we ensure that the data provided by the Secretariat is comprehensive, clear, objective, and consistently applied? We do not want to be in a position where we disagree with the proposals put forward by the Secretariat, and this is why we would support engaging as early as possible with the Secretariat in terms of understanding the thinking behind how they are going to formulate their recommendations so they can seek some advanced feedback from member states.
In terms of the efforts to be provided by member states, we believe double standards should be avoided.
While criteria like avoiding duplication sounds ideal in theory, we also know there is no common understanding on what constitutes duplication between member states.
What is duplicative to some is cross cutting to others, and this is where we often run into deadlocks.
We also wish to state that there is no agreement on the age of a mandate or mandates being categorized as outdated, obsolete, or mandates being classified as not being impactful.
There's no criteria on these three issues being used as a criteria for the review of a mandate.
For example, certain mandates which might not be fully implemented, is because it's not because there is an issue with the mandate, but rather because resources have not been provided for its implementation or it is politically not popular with some.
We do understand the desire to focus on mandates with budgetary implications, but the question is, what do we do with those funded through voluntary contributions? Of course, focusing the review exclusively on those with budgetary implications means that this is essentially a cost saving exercise.
On modalities, we stress that we should avoid duplication with the 2006 exercise as well as ongoing processes in GA committees.
Instead, this working group could become a place where the substy bodies of the GA, which are the committee should come and report on how they have reviewed their mandates and this working group could focus on mandates which are not reviewed by any other committee.
For example, the plenary mandates don't really have a home for regular review currently.
To keep the exercise simple, we would also not suggest clustering across bodies as yet.
Each body serves distinct purposes, and if we begin this exercise by attempting to look at duplication across bodies, whether it is between the HRC and the GA or it's between the GA and EcoSOC, we might run into a deadlock very early on.
We have seen this already in discussions in the ECSC HOPF review and in second committee discussions and often in third committee discussions as well.
As a starting point, we think clustering within the GA is a good one and could lead to less controversy.
But it would really require impartial data as well as an impartial clustering by the Secretariat.
On collective review mechanisms, we reiterate what we said during our deliberations in the previous resolution.
From our perspective, there are no existing mechanisms for collective review of mandates, so we need to see the advice of the SG in disregard before embarking on any endorsement of this mechanism.
I confess, perhaps we also need clarity on whether we are looking at resolutions or whether we are looking at mandates.
There is a distinction between the two sometimes.
I thank the representative of Pakistan.
I now give the floor to the representative of Brazil to be followed by the representative of the Republic of Korea, Brazil.
Thank you very much, Madam Co Chair.
I think this is the first meeting I attend under your leadership, so my congratulations for your appointment and my renewed thanks to the PR of New Zealand for having led us so ably in the previous stage.
Madam Co Chair, first of all, obviously, I associate myself with the statement delivered by Uruguay on behalf of G 77.
China, I do think that there is good material there that can help us clear our thoughts and make progress.
I I think it became very clear in the negotiating process of resolution 51, there is a fundamental challenge in our work, which is the inevitable politicization of our exercise.
We are all political actors here, and even in strictly focusing on implementation, there will be, I believe, important differences among delegations as to, for example, the meeting of some of the criteria that some delegations have mentioned.
I think this is inevitable and it's not necessarily bad.
But I think that what we can do at this point in time is to make sure that the Secretariat provides us with the most complete detailed information possible on the implementation of mandates.
Otherwise, even the possibility of us not engaging in over politicization will be lost.
To the best of my ability and I may be wrong, and I already apologize if I'm wrong, Um, the information tools available to us provided by the Secretariat do not have the level of granularity that I believe is necessary for us to be as objective amidst the necessary or the inevitable politicization of our work.
Um, again, if I'm right and if this information at the level of granularity we need is not available, I think this is something that we must work on very early on in the process so that, again, we do not miss any opportunities for us to agree uh, where agreement is a possibility and devote time and energy and political capital to the political, part of the exercise that, again, I think is inevitable.
Um, just one further thought, I think, Listening to colleagues, I think that many of us agree that in that discussion between centralization, decentralization of the review, I think it seems to me at least that there is some solid agreement that we should decentralize the process.
By this, I mean asking the mandate setting bodies to review the mandates and having a centralized in one ad hoc or separate instance.
And finally, on the discussion of clustering or not clustering, I agree that clustering is the way to go, but I'm not so sure that by clustering, we will be able to avoid the specific discussions on mandates individually speaking, if possible, very well, but I'm not so sure that we will be able to do so.
Thank you very much.
I thank the representative of Brazil and now give the floor to the representative of the Republic of Korea to be followed by the representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Korea.
Thank you, Madam Co chair.
First, we thank your work on devising templates and also for convening this meeting.
My delegation would like to highlight two points at this stage.
First on review criteria.
We can once again rely on resolution 80 slash 251 that guides member states behavior across the entire mandate life cycle.
Based on this resolution, proponent of mandate should set clear objectives and expected impact as well as projected timeline since the mandate creation phase.
Uh, this is basically setting up criteria for its own implementation review.
Therefore, we think it is important that the proponent should set quantitative and concrete timeline and objective so that it can be used when reviewing the mandate.
Also on the work of reviewing the existing mandates, efficiency and effectiveness should remain at the core.
It is also important not to repeat past 2006 exercise that wasn't successful.
And in this regard, we would like to propose that we focus on eliminating duplication among existing GA mandates that have budget implication as the first step, rather than starting off by going over the entire existing mandates, while we note that we will receive the Secretariat's review on collective clustering of mandate review and also the status of each existing mandates in the coming months.
Also, we would like to highlight the PPPME regulations and rules governing program planning, the program aspects of the budget, the monitoring of implementation and the methods of evaluation.
In this regulation, there is r105 0.6, and here, Secretariat can propose the termination of program activities and outputs deriving from outdated mandate or mandates that are superseded by new mandates and we propose to revitalize or strengthen this process in our endeavor to review outdated or duplicative existing mandates.
My delegation looks forward to continuing discussion and deciding.
Thank you.
I thank the representative of the Republic of Korea and now give the floor to the representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to be followed by the representative of Liechtenstein, Iran.
Mailman Ibrahim, thank you, Madam Chair.
In our view, the review of the existing stock of the mandates should be guided by the principles of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, and coherence across the work of the United Nations.
Considerations may be given to what extent the mandates, continue to advance the purposes and principles of the charter of the United Nations, respond to the contemporary challenges and deliver tangible benefits to all member states.
In undertaking this review, attention should be paid to the contribution of mandates towards strengthening international cooperation, fostering inclusive and sustainable development, and supporting national capacities in accordance with national priorities and circumstances.
Particular consideration may be given to the ability of mandates to reach and support all member states, especially developing countries and those facing special challenges, including countries hosting large refugee populations and those experiencing economic and development constraints.
The review may also assess whether mandates facilitate equitable access to technical assistance, capacity building, knowledge sharing, and international cooperation, thereby ensuring that no member states is left behind in the implementation of international aggregate development objectives, including the SDG.
Furthermore, the review process should seek to avoid duplication and fragmentation, promote efficient use of resources, and strengthen complementarity across the United Nations system.
It should remain transparent, inclusive, and member states driven, guided by the principles of universality, objectivity, non selectivity, constructive dialogue, and mutual respect.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I thank the representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran and now give the floor to the representative of Liechtenstein to be followed by the representative of Algeria Lichtenstein.
Thank you very much, co chairs and as I believe this is our first time speaking in this AHWG, thank you very much for taking up this very important role.
We're in very good hands.
Thank you also for the opportunity to exchange on this topic, which is a particularly important outflow of 80-251.
Um, I don't have prepared remarks, but as said by my colleague from the US as well, I'll make a few comments on things that we've been listening to in the room.
The first thing that I think comes to our mind is the need for more information.
I think our colleague from Brazil mentioned it.
Others have talked about what you wrote about in terms of a mandate landscape review.
Clearly, we need more information about what the landscape of mandates looks like and that can be useful for us in terms of where we go from there.
Um, in terms of the review itself, taking into account what is in paragraph 25 of 80-251 that others have mentioned, and I think with the goal of not hindering the UN's ability to deliver, for us, um, What is said in paragraph 13 of AD dash 257 about the default position that mandate should be renewed.
For us, it means that the mandates that are not already subject to regular review are the things that we would like to focus on in this process because they are simply, they're not being reviewed as it stands and we should look at them closely.
We should Also, in particular, look at mandates whose objectives have been completed that are no longer actively implemented, or that potentially duplicate work carried out elsewhere within the UN system.
We see some complementarity, as others have said with some of the other bodies and organs of the UN, ideally, the ideal place to review mandates would be in the body that initially created that mandate.
Of course, we get into questions about mandates that may be duplicative across different bodies and we would need to deal with that question differently.
But we would hope that the adjustments including maybe even potential terminations could be made by those with the most relevant expertise on the creation of the mandate in question.
Um, I wanted to mention at this point, a point that our colleague from South Africa made on 33 D P V.
Part five.
Clearly, there is a need to hear from the Secretariat.
We hope there will be this mutually reinforcing relationship between what the Secretariat gives us and what we are able to do.
Of course, what we're able to do depends very much on what we get from the Secretariat.
Um, so we hope that's a positively mutually reinforcing relationship.
Um.
You know, the EU right at the start talked about cross cutting qualities, questions.
Sorry, I writing it down badly.
Um, instead of maybe thinking about criteria, we thought about something along the lines of a checklist.
So some ideas that will come to our mind, and I can send these into you as well, whether the activities required by the mandate have been completed, whether the mandate is continuing to be actively implemented, whether it continues to generate outputs or reporting requirements, whether there are substantively or substantially similar activities required under other mandates, whether developments since adoption affect the implementation or purpose of the mandate, and whether the mandate was at the time of creation time bound or linked to a specific objective.
These don't necessarily have to be criteria, but they could be a checklist that we look at in the various bodies.
Not to say that this amount of the checklist means that we should retire or withdraw or merge, but just to know that we're looking at similar ideas across the various places in which we implement AT slash 251.
I think that's everything from us.
Thank you very much.
I thank the representative of Liechtenstein and now give the floor to the representative of Algeriia who will be the last speaker unless some of you press the button while he speaks.
Algeria.
Thank you, Madam Co chair.
Algeria aligns itself with the statement delivered by Uruguay on behalf of G 77 in China.
At the outset, Algeria wishes to thank you for convening this initial exchange of views on the criteria and modalities that will guide the review of the existing stock of general assembly mandates in accordance with resolution 80 slash 251.
Madam Co chair, resolution 80 slash 251 provides a clear and balanced framework for this exercise.
It reaffirms that decision on mandates remain the exclusive prerogative of member states, that the diversity of mandates, their context and governance arrangement must be respected.
And that mandates remain valid until they are fully implemented, expired, renewed, merged, replaced, or retired by a decision of member states.
In this regard, paragraph 25 is particularly important.
It clearly provides that mandates which are charter based norm setting of universal character, institutional creating or related to ongoing political situations with implication for international peace and security shall not be subjected to the reviews referred to in the paragraphs 22, 23 and 24 unless member states decide otherwise.
We develop the criteria under paragraph 2021 and the modalities under paragraph 33, Algeia believes that several principles should guide our work.
First, the criteria must clearly distinguish between duplication and complementarity.
The fact that a situation is considered by more than one United Nations organ does not in itself constitute a duplication.
In many cases, different organs act under distinct legal basis, mandate, and responsibilities, and their work is therefore complementary rather than duplicative.
Second, mandates rooted in the charter or those relating to the maintenance of international peace and security, especially those involving peacekeeping operation or special political mission should not be considered inactive, obsote duplicative, or fully implemented as long as the underlying political situation remain unresolved.
Third, any assessment of whether a mandate has been fully implemented must be based on the substantive achievement of its objective, not merely on the passage of time, procedural fatigue, or the existence of parallel political processes.
Fourth, the review process must respect the competence of each intergovernmental organ.
No mandate should be renewed, adapted, merged, replaced, retired, or altered in periodicity except by the organ that created or renewed that mandate in accordance with its own rules, practices, and decision making procedures.
Fifth, the modalities should include initial screening phase to identify mandates excluded under paragraph 25.
Mandates falling within this protected categories should not proceed to substantive review unless member states through the competent organ expressly decide otherwise.
Finally, Algeria will engage constructively in the development of criteria and modalities that are objective, transparent, evidence based, and fully consistent with the resolution 80 slash 251.
I thank you.
I thank the representative of Algeria.
I see no other requests for the floor, so I think we will all have 1.5 hour Russian Federation, you have the floor.
Thank you very much.
Madam co facilitator.
I'd like to thank you for organizing this meeting.
I have a few questions with regard to the concept note and the examples that we received.
Of course, we see some practical value in work to improve clarity and convenience in the work with mandates.
At the same time, I'd like to get some additional clarification As to the further status and proposed use of the concept note, as well as the other examples of potential language.
We believe that it will be purely informational and voluntary in nature as laid out in your letter.
It would be taken as recommendation templates that would not be set standards.
At the same time, we do not oppose the fact that member states could use them in the future for their work and to facilitate the burden, as you said.
Thank you.
I thank the representative of the Russian Federation for his questions.
I will answer them immediately because you are completely right.
They are um templates that you may use in order to help us implement resolution 8251 because this came out of that resolution.
But it is absolutely true that no one can force any member state to write a concept note or to include a review clause in their proposed resolution.
But then when you come to negotiations, other member states may ask for it if you want the engagement.
This is going to be something that we as member states starting as a way of changing our culture in order to produce clearer mandates.
But it's through our collective work that we do this.
It's not something that we can demand or force anyone to do.
But as Norway, when I'm presented now with a proposal for, for example, a resolution with a mandate and there's no concept note, I will say, well, Where's the concept note? I don't want to discuss this before there's a concept note.
This is what it is, but it's meant to be helpful and I hope you'll see it as helpful.
The first concept note came out today and I was really happy when I saw it.
This goes to all of you.
Please start using it.
It's meant to help us all produce better results.
So with that, before I close the meeting, let me just say that I am really, really grateful for all the reflections that you have provided us with, including all the very concrete ideas that you have shared with us.
We as co chairs, will give careful consideration to everything you have outlined and to aid us in that, we do encourage you, if you have written statements or written notes to send it to us.
At the usual address, which is un [email protected].
Because we will immediately begin our work in synthesizing these ideas into a non paper.
As previously communicated, we aim to share that non paper with you on the 12th of June for discussions in hybrid workshops on the 16 and 18 of June.
I think in our letter of 28 May, we did provide you with the modalities to sign up for those workshops.
And we do hope that these workshops will allow for even more informal and more interactive exchanges before we reconvene in a plenary setting like this on the 26th of June.
We know that these discussions are difficult, and that's exactly why we needed this additional time after the informal ad hoc working group to explore these modalities further.
But unfortunately, we do not have unlimited time.
We are very mindful, both of our deadlines from resolution 8251 and the workload of the assembly and all our delegations leading into the summer.
We will continue to consult and further refine the criteria and modalities with you over the ensuing weeks until the end of July.
And we'll communicate with you next steps on the way forward, and then bearing in mind the usual unavailability of delegations during the traditional break in meetings in the UN in August.
So with that, we look forward to continuing these next steps in our work together, and this meeting is adjourned.