02 September 2010
























tool by hioxindia.com


 

Update on Mandate Review: New “Way Forward” Discussed in General Assembly

New York, 18 October 2007 – The new President of the General Assembly, Srgjan Kerim, has yesterday announced the two co-chairs of the Mandate Review process and circulated a set of proposed parameters to take the Mandate Review process forward in the 62nd GA Session.

The co-chairs are Ambassador Kaire Mbuende of Namibia and Ambassador Rosemary Banks of New Zealand. Namibia served as a co-chair of the process (along with Ireland) in second half of the 61st Session (after Pakistan became chair of the G-77 and relinquished the Mandate Review co-chair role).

The current focus is on mandates that are older than five years and have been renewed. In the 61st Session, the informal working group agreed to review mandates according to thematic clusters, beginning with the cluster of mandates on drug control, crime prevention and combating international terrorism. Three meetings were held on this cluster but no mandates were formally reviewed. On 14 September 2007 the GA president notified Member States that “collective efforts have not succeeded in reaching an agreement on the parameters for the review of mandates.” President Kerim’s document is an attempt to create agreement on the needed parameters for proceeding.

Kerim reviewed his parameters document at a plenary meeting yesterday, 17 October. He stressed two elements in particular – the need for caution in approaching “politically sensitive” mandates, and the need for more participation and information from the Secretariat. The former point echoes the

concerns of the former co-chairs that in order to advance, the process needs to be better informed. Of particular importance is engagement from the Secretariat, which they said “has a unique perspective on the implementation of the mandates and the existence of overlap and duplication.” With regard to the structure of the review, and the sequence in which mandates will be reviewed, his document does not mention the thematic cluster approach but says, “the sequence of the issue areas to be addressed should be agreed upon according to established practice, taking into account previous contributions by the Secretariat.”

Several ambassadors attended the meeting. A total of 20 speakers gave preliminary responses to the document, which he called “The Way Forward on Mandate Review.” Major groupings – the European Union, Non-aligned Movement, and Joint Coordinating Committee (NAM and G-77) – said they would debate the proposed parameters within the month and submit responses to the President.

The response to the parameters in yesterday’s meeting was generally positive, with the document being described as a good basis for advancing mandate review efforts. A few delegations offered notes of caution, and several made specific requests of the Secretariat and the Co-chairs.

Click here to read “The Way Forward on Mandate Review” (17 October 2007).

Comments on the Parameters and Overall Mandate Review Process

  • States said that these parameters offered a fresh start for the process, which stalemated.

  • Several States expressed support for the Mandate Review process overall. They voiced desires to: make sure all mandates are relevant and being pursued effectively, improve implementation of mandates, use limited resources as well as possible, and implement fully the reforms committed to in the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document, which included GA Mandate Review.

  • One delegation was concerned that no financial savings have shown up as a result of management reforms so far and wondered how those funds can be directed towards development.

  • One delegation commented that this “way forward” proposal goes one step beyond the

    “way forward” agreed in 2006. (Aspects of the 2006 document are stated more strongly and given more detail in Kerim’s document, including the involvement of the Secretariat and the need for a systematic input from main committees and regional organizations.) It also was described as more inclusive than the previous process.

  • The parameters are sufficiently broad, said a few delegations.

  • Some States described the parameters as “criteria” for the review.

  • The specific proposal on the role of the Secretariat was welcomed. (“The Secretariat plays a crucial role in mandates review and its continued support will be essential. The mandate registry should be maintained and strengthened for the ongoing review of mandates.”) Delegations described the Secretariat’s active support and involvement as needed and indispensable.

  • At least two delegations were wary about the July 2008 deadline (“The Working Group should report on results and submit proposals with regard to the current review by the end of July 2008.”) With approximately 9000 mandates to be reviewed, delegates said it may not be realistic and that Member States would need to work efficiently.

  • Currently the Security Council is also reviewing its mandates, one delegation stated, and it will make its final report available soon.

Comments on the Three Principles

  • Delegations supported the principle of reinvesting freed-up resources into development-related activities. Several delegations said that this addressed their concerns that through the review, development mandates – and funds – would simply be cut, with no additional support for development.

  • Delegations also welcomed the wording regarding politically sensitive mandates, and the importance of respecting the countries involved. These elements were described as “the right formula.”

  • Some States agreed with the main objective of the review: to strengthen the UN, to update its programme of work and to improve the effective and efficient allocation of scarce resources.

Requests of Secretariat and Co-Chairs

  • Update the mandate registry: Several states noted the particular need for the Secretariat to update the electronic database of mandates and their status, which was created last year but not maintained satisfactorily.

  • Circulate additional information: A “compendium” to the registry reportedly exists, including more information on reasons that mandates have not been completed, etc. This should be circulated more widely.

  • Manage the process inclusively: The facilitators of the Mandate Review process should conduct all consultations inclusively, giving all States the opportunity to participate.

  • Focus on methodology: Now that the President has proposed “criteria” for the review of mandates, the President and Co-chairs should attend to the methodology of the review.

Next Steps

By the end of October, the President hopes to reach a “common understanding” on how to proceed.

Documents

Proposed "Way Forward on Mandate Review" from President of GA (17 October 2007)

Letter from GA President on Co-Chairs for Mandate Review (Namibia and New Zealand) (17 October 2007)

Invitation to Plenary Meeting on Mandate Review (10 October 2007)

Letter from PGA on Mandate Review Status (14 September 2007)

Letter from Co-Chairs on Mandate Review – Status Update (16 July 2007)

Non Paper: Way Forward on Mandate Review (8 September 2006)

The e-Newsletter of ReformtheUN.org is a free service. To subscribe, go to http://reformtheun.org/mailman/listinfo/latestdevelopments. Please forward this announcement widely to individuals and organizations that have expressed an interest in UN reform.