EU Statement – General Assembly: UN80 Workstream 2: Criteria and modalities

Distinguished co-Chairs, colleagues,

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union and its Member States.

The European Union remains convinced that our objective should be to develop a practical,action-oriented and experience-driven toolkit that supports the implementation of the culture shift envisaged in resolution 80/251, and start implementing it incrementally, as soon as possible.

On criteria, a practical checklist approach can provide a useful tool to guide review discussions across the United Nations system.

Such a checklist must help answer straightforward questions, including whether a mandate continues to be actively implemented; whether it still generates measurable outputs or reporting requirements; whether its objectives have already been achieved; whether substantially similar activities are covered elsewhere; whether developments since its adoption have affected its relevance or implementation; and whether budgetary implications associated to this mandate remain relevant in the context of the availability of resources. Mandates whose objectives have been fulfilled or which no longer provide added value should be considered for sunset or termination.

The purpose would be to help ensure that mandates remain impactful, cost-effective, relevant and fit for purpose by continuously assessing and improving their performance. However, it is not unlikely that thorough reviews will also lead to a reduction in the overall number of mandates by reducing overlap and duplication and by retiring outdated or ineffective mandates. That would be welcome since it will reduce the burden on the system and help make the UN more effective. We also reiterate that any criteria should be clear, objective, and evidence based.

Turning to modalities, in order to move towards practical testing and experience-based learning, we support the proposal for a pilot exercise. We should use pilot reviews of mandates from all pillars to test methodologies in a low-risk environment, build confidence among Member States, identify challenges and generate practical lessons before considering wider application. We could start by identifying “low-hanging fruit” or theme that could help kickstart this process by identifying areas where early progress can be achieved, helping to build the trust and momentum needed to scale up the process. One idea could be to look at all United Nations Observances, including International Days and Weeks, International Years and International Decades, as well as UN Anniversaries, as a pilot “theme” or category. Such a pilot exercise can eventually be a basis for both the modalities for the existing stock review and the review criteria.

At the same time, we should not wait for every element to be fully developed before beginning this work. The urgency reflected in resolution 80/251 calls for an agile and incremental approach. Pilot exercises, Secretariat analysis and the development of review methodologies can and should evolve in parallel.

On thematic or clustered reviews, exploring related mandates within a broader thematic landscape may help identify duplications, gaps and opportunities for greater coherence while reducing politicisation. At the same time, it will be essential to fully respect the principle of balance across the three pillars of the United Nations. The review process should remain comprehensive and should neither focus disproportionately on, nor have a disproportionate impact on, any one pillar. In our view, the mandate landscape review offers a great opportunity for such clustered reviews. Moreover, individual Member States or groups of Member States can always initiate proposals to review certain clusters of mandates.

Another area where we heard strong convergence concerns the role of the Secretariat.

A successful review process will require reliable, objective and data-driven information. Such information should, where possible, include implementation status, reporting requirements and indicative resource implications, thereby allowing Member States to take more informed decisions. We therefore encourage continued efforts to strengthen the Mandate Registry and develop it into a more comprehensive tool capable of providing a clearer picture of the mandate landscape, performance indicators and overlaps. Technical briefings and practical demonstrations of these tools could also help build confidence among delegations.

Finally, on institutional arrangements, we see merit in the Working Group serving as a reporting hub that promotes coherence across review efforts. The expertise of the Main Committees and subsidiary bodies will remain essential, but there is value in ensuring that lessons learned, methodologies and review outcomes are shared across the system.

I thank you.