EU Statement – UN General Assembly 2nd Committee: First Informal Dialogue on the Revitalization of the Second Committee
Excellencies, distinguished delegates,
I have the honour to deliver this statement on behalf of the European Union and its Member States.
The Candidate Countries North Macedonia, Montenegro*, Albania*, Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova and Bosnia and Herzegovina*, as well as Andorra align themselves with this statement.
Mr. Chair,
Thank you for the draft roadmap and for convening us today to discuss how to proceed with the revitalization of the UN’s Second Committee.
Mr Chair, as underlined by yourself and others, this dialogue is not taking place in a vacuum: It is part and parcel of a larger process involving all the Main Committees of the GA. Thus it must be in line with and contribute to the revitalisation of the functioning of the UN General Assembly.
The dialogue also needs to take into account and contribute to the discussion on ECOSOC and HLPF review to ensure an overall more coherent and impactful UN on economic and social matters. This is a priority if the UN is to play a meaningful role in global economic and social affairs, beit in global economic governance or in delivering tangible impacts for people and planet.
And, finally, it runs in tandem with and should support and be complementary to the UN80 Initiative to help deliver a more efficient, adaptable, and impact-driven UN.
In short, Mr Chair, revitalisation is long overdue. If the Second Committee is to remain relevant, we must get serious about improving its working methods to deliver more focused, streamlined and impactful results.
We should thus approach revitalisation with three key objectives:
-
To enhance the effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, inclusiveness and impact of the Committee's work
-
To make more focused and action-oriented the operative outcomes of the Committee, and their follow-up more structured and their impact more measurable
-
To ensure greater transparency and predictability in the Committee’s working methods
Mr Chair, rhetoric is important, as is being clear about the objective of revitalisation. But now is the time for action.
Your roadmap is concrete and clear. The EU and its Member States support it.
Furthermore, we offer the following additional remarks and suggestions.
As a related request: We would appreciate additional guidance from yourself, the bureau and Secretariat as to the best format and possible deadlines for additional detailed written inputs, with a view to these being circulated to the Committee to be discussed at subsequent dialogues.
As to the content of the dialogues, we agree with areas you have indicated to be covered, and offer a few pertinent examples of what should and could be discussed. In addition to these we would like to send further inputs and concrete ideas and look forward to hearing other members’ feedback.
Regarding the agenda, programme of work and resolutions: the Committee's agenda should reflect and be fully aligned with the 2030 Agenda and the Pact for the Future, and should contribute in a practical and meaningful manner to their implementation.
With regard to gaps, overlaps, and the periodicity of resolutions, there is a fair amount of duplication of work, between 2C resolutions, but in particular between the ECOSOC and the GA. Meaningful revitalization can be achieved through stronger collaboration and coordination between these essential bodies of the UN. We must reflect on the current division of labour between ECOSOC and the GA, as well as on overlaps across resolutions within the Committee itself. We refer to the EU's contribution and suggestions to the ECOSOC/HLPF review in this regard.
Within 2C, looking across clusters, we should consider specific possibilities for bi- or tri-annualization, as well as sunsetting and merging, of resolutions giving due consideration to the operative outcomes of recent iterations of all resolutions, and while safeguarding the development priorities of all member states. During the dialogues we could also reflect on the merits of introducing a more thematic approach to 2C sessions, like we have for the HLPF.
We should also encourage continued streamlining efforts throughout texts. We understand that strict word, paragraph or page limits might be difficult for some to support. Yet there must be a balance to be struck and if not limits then at least broad principles to apply. There are some excellent examples of streamlining from the 80th sessions that can be replicated or used as inspiration.
Regarding working methods, there are also opportunities to be seized to increase trust and reinforce joint ownership of our work in the Second Committee. While most resolutions are presented by the G77, many if not most of the issues that fall under the 2C mandate are shared, cross regional priorities beyond G77 members. We should thus look more into possibilities for providing inputs in advance or co-authorship of zero drafts as well as more co-facilitation of draft resolutions. Such collaborative approaches will increase mutual understanding, lessen the burden on negotiations under time pressure, and help restore what should be consensus-based decision making in the Committee. Furthermore, based on the experience of the last few sessions, we need to discuss openly the issues of trust, transparency and predictability of working methods in the negotiation, editing and document submission processes.
Regarding reports and documentation we could reflect more on whether we can rationalise the mandating of reports and consider focussing such requests where they are likely to facilitate the implementation of the resolution or add significant value through continued substantive examination. Some reports could be merged including but not necessarily only when accompanied by the merger of resolutions, including across clusters, where applicable. In mandating reports we could also consider focussing them more clearly on the progress in and challenges to the achievement of the SDGs, and request them to provide evidence-based and actionable recommendations.
Regarding the work of the bureau and interaction with the Secretariat, and linked to the need to improve coherence between the work of ECOSOC and 2C, we could consider, for example, use of focal points to identify overlaps, duplications, or areas of collaboration.
It could also be worth reflecting on the handover process between successive bureaux and the management of institutional knowledge, recording of precedents.
Engagement with other relevant parts of the Secretariat can also contribute to informed discussions in the Committee. For example, it may be useful for budget division to brief annually at the start of the session on the budgetary situation broadly, on the mandate related language which creates PBIs and how PBIs triggered in the Committee are dealt with in 5C to ensure that the outcomes we agree can be operationalised.
Mr Chair, these are just a handful of ideas that could be considered during the dialogues. We look forward to guidance on how to submit further inputs.
Finally, chair, a point on how to ensure that the ideas on paper become ideas put into practice. To ensure this will require a formal decision in addition to transparent recording of proceedings and the mandated reporting to the PGA. We suggest to adopt a simple decision, as has been done in previous sessions of the Committee, notably the 65th, 74th and 75th, to confirm improvements to working methods that have been supported. We do not see the need for a long and detailed negotiated outcome negotiated line by line.
Mr. Chair, we rely on your leadership to steer this process. Please rest assured of the EU’s continued and strong support for your efforts in this endeavour. Thank you.
- *North Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina continue to be part of the Stabilisation and Association Process.