Summary: EU Presidency Statement - Mandate Review: UN General Assembly Consultations (14 December 2005: New York)
EU Presidency Statement on UN General Assembly Mandate Review, by the UK Mission to the UN, on behalf of the European Union, New York
Context:
The Summit outcome document requires that - to strengthen and update the UN's programme of work in order to respond to member states' present requirements - "the General Assembly and other relevant organs will review all mandates older than five years originating from resolutions of the General Assembly and other organs".
The Secretary General is asked to facilitate this review "with analysis and recommendations, including on the opportunities for programmatic shifts". This material is to be provided in the first quarter of 2006. "The Assembly and the other organs should complete and take the necessary decisions arising from this review during 2006".
The Secretariat has suggested that it would envisage the results of at least the GA's review feeding into the proposed strategic framework for the 2008 - 09 biennium. This would require the GA review to be completed and decisions taken by about the end of June 2006. At all events, decisions would presumably be necessary no later than October 2006 so that those with budget implications could be reflected in the autumn session's First Performance Report.
Some EU Guiding Principles:
Action by the General Assembly, Security Council, Trusteeship Council, ECOSOC, and the Secretariat should all be included in the mandate review. Where the Principal Organs have created mandates involving action by UN funds, programmes and agencies, this activity should also be covered.
It is clear that each organ must review its own mandates. It would not be for the GA to review, let alone take decisions on, the mandates of ECOSOC or the Security Council or the Trusteeship Council. Each organ should conduct its own review of its own mandates according to its own agreed procedures.
Consideration of the recommendations of the Principal Organs should take place in such a way that it is clear to all that this process of review is inclusive, transparent, and one that all parties come to with no preconceptions.
Mandate review should respect the procedural rules of this Organisation. For example, where any budgetary implications arise from decisions flowing from mandate review, these would be handled through the Fifth Committee in the normal way.
To ensure that the GA process is well managed, the Assembly should take a focussed approach and follow an agreed set of timelines for our work. It is important to the EU that the results of our work on mandate review are reflected in the next strategic framework that the Secretariat will soon start preparing. In order for this to be a possibility, we accept that the next meeting of the Committee on Programme Co-ordination should be scheduled later than June 2006.
The EU has no fixed views so far on what kind of mandates or area of mandates or clusters of mandates might be addressed first next year. It is tempting to look for some early wins by considering anachronistic mandates that in theory should be of no importance any longer to anyone. But, somehow, every mandate always seems to be important to someone. It is tempting to look at mandates where there is a clear overlap or even duplication between the mandates given to different bodies. But again
there will be difficulties. We probably need further discussion about this early next year.
Objectives for the Mandate review process:
The Summit outcome document states that "We resolve to strengthen and update the programme of work of the United Nations so that it responds to the contemporary requirements of Member States."
The EU wants a review that leads to as much increased UN efficiency as possible. We do not see this as a cost-cutting exercise, nor is it aimed at reducing UN activity. To achieve this, the EU believes that the Secretariat's recommendations should focus on anachronistic action, duplicative action, and unfunded but mandated action.
Mandate review should be a continuing process. The scale of the task before us is too great for conclusion in one 'big bang'.
Going forward, we should accept that all new mandates should be time-limited, introducing review after a period of 5 years. We should agree that mandate review is a continuing process, and not something that we ignore until the Organisation is stretched to breaking point.
Information that Member States will require from the Secretariat:
The Secretariat has asked the General Assembly to define within what parameters they should do their analysis and make their recommendations.
The EU wants the Secretariat to analyse and make recommendations on all mandates launched before September 2000 by the GA, Security Council, ECOSOC, Trusteeship Council or Secretariat, even if the mandate has since been renewed. Only by considering all mandates will it be possible for each organ to judge whether there is, for example, duplication. So, we also need information on all mandates more recent than September 2000 in order to judge whether there is duplication.
To enable Member States to consider programmatic shifts, as provided in the Summit outcome document, it will clearly be essential for the Secretariat's analysis to include an assessment of the resources allocated to existing mandates. Without such information we will not be able to have a meaningful discussion about programmatic shifts to new and emerging priorities.
Once the Secretariat has provided the General Assembly with its analysis, Member States will be able to judge whether any further information or recommendations are required to allow Member States to make decisions during the resumed sessions in 2006.
| Top |
European Union Member States
Alerts by email
Email this page
Print this page