Informal Ad hoc Working Group on UN80 initiative - General Assembly, 80th session

Good morning, colleagues. May I ask you please to take your seats so that we can begin?

All right. Good morning. Good morning, colleagues. I call to order the informal meeting of the Working Group.

Thank you so much for being with us today. It's very good to see such a good turnout. On behalf of Ambassador Schwalger, allow me to express our appreciation for your ongoing constructive participation in the production phase of the informal Ad hoc Working Group on the mandate implementation review. Thank you. Also to those who attended our 23rd of February oral briefing to introduce the revised version of the resolution Mandate Creation, Implementation and Review for an efficient and effective United Nations.

As you're aware, the REV one is a response to your feedback shared with us on the 0 draft on 19 January, during the hybrid workshops, in your written submissions and at the various regional meetings, cross regional and trilateral meetings we have had with you since entering the production phase. For those who were unable to attend last week's oral briefing or who wish to better understand our thinking behind the Rev1, we have made available a copy of our notes from that meeting on the UNITY website alongside the Rev one. We'd also like to take this opportunity to thank the experts who attended yesterday's online briefing on the proposed concept note detailed in operative paragraph 7 of of the Rev 1. Thanks also to the Jamaican and New Zealand teams for pulling that briefing together so quickly. In response to interest from Working Group members, we very much look forward to your feedback on the Rev1 at today's consultations.

We would appreciate hearing from you those elements in the Rev1 which meet your satisfaction as well as those areas which which you assess still require further clarification. Following today's general statements, we will advise you how we intend to use the remaining few weeks we have available to complete our work as the informal ad hoc Working Group. As you are aware, decision 79.571 mandates that we must complete our work by the end of this month. And as previously notified by way of a letter from the Co Chairs, the President of the General assembly has tentatively scheduled a General assembly plenary meeting to adopt the resolution on the 31st of March of this year.

Given the spirit of the exercise we are engaged in, we intend to meet this deadline, maximizing the time we have available to achieve the highest level of ambition. We will continue to strive for consensus to ensure the process remains transparent and inclusive, and continue to meet with you in the format which is most comfortable for you. Before I pass the floor to Ambassador Schwalgo to take the statements from you, I just wanted to offer in advance a little bit of an explanation on one of the paragraphs that has been generating some interest. This is on OP25 just to explain our thinking behind the insertion of the language in that paragraph. And so if you bear with me, I will just take a few moments to explain Mandates that are Norm Setting of Universal Character this refers to mandates through which the General assembly establishes principles, standards and values that are of universal application.

These are mandates that form the normative backbone of the UN's work and guide the organization across all peace and security, development and human rights. Typically, they would affirm or elaborate universally accepted norms such as human rights, self determination, sovereign equality, non discrimination, et cetera. They may establish global frameworks with broad political ownership, such as the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, or they may provide enduring guidance that is not tied to specific operational tasks or time bound activities. These are mandates that are recognized as foundational. While all mandates remain formally within the purview of Member States, norm setting mandates are generally not candidates for streamlining or consolidation as they articulate the shared values that underpin the UN system.

On Mandates that are institution creating these constitute the organization's structural architecture, including those through which the General assembly has established UN bodies, organs, funds, programs or mechanisms. These mandates define the existence, purpose and governance arrangements of major UN entities. They carry long term programmatic, administrative and budgetary implications and they anchor the UN's operational capacity in areas such as development, humanitarian action, human rights and peace building and some examples of those would include mandates establishing undp, unicef, unhcr, et cetera. These mandates are considered as structural and enduring they would therefore not typically be subject to review unless Member States explicitly seek institutional reform. This protection safeguards their stability and ensures continuity in the UN's ability to deliver on its core functions and on mandates relating to ongoing political situations with implications for international peace and security.

This is a category that covers mandates that address active unresolved political situations where the UN plays a continuing role in in monitoring, diplomacy or in conflict prevention. These mandates often concern issues that remain on the agenda of the General assembly or Security Council due to their potential impact on regional or international stability, and these may be the kinds of mandates that support mediation or negotiation processes, that maintain international attention on protracted conflicts, that guide or authorize special political missions, or that address situations where tensions persist and where the UN's engagement contributes to preventing escalation. At heart, these mandates are recognized as politically sensitive where any attempts to review them without explicit Member State direction could risk altering delicate diplomatic balances or sending unintended political signals. As such, they are generally not considered suitable for technical mandate review exercises. This draft GA resolution aims to enhance coherence, efficiency and impact while fully respecting the prerogatives of Member States.

These three categories help to clarify which mandates are foundational or norm setting, structural or institution creating or politically sensitive, and therefore not typically candidates for consolidation, rationalization, or retirement within a technical review process. This framing ensures that the resolution remains focused on implementation and coherence, while safeguarding mandates that embody the UN's normative identity, institutional architecture, and political responsibilities.

With that, I pass the floor to Ambassador Schwalger.

Thank you, Ambassador Walsh, and good morning, everybody. It's now my pleasure to open the floor to general statements. Please remember, colleagues, that the time limit for interventions is limited to five minutes for statements on behalf of groups and three minutes for statements in your national capacity. If you are speaking on behalf of a group this morning, please identify yourself to the Secretariat.

Okay, with that, it is now my pleasure to open the floor. Pass the floor to the Permanent Representative of Uruguay, speaking on behalf of the G77. Please go ahead.

Excellencies, Co Chairs, I have the honor to deliver this statement on behalf of the group of 77 and China, as the Group remains engaged in internal consultations on the revised draft. The Group will offer preliminary comments at this juncture and will subsequently provide additional input through a written submission. At the outset, the Group wishes to convey its appreciation to the Co Chairs for the work undertaken to advance the mandate to implementation review under the Unit Initiative, for the continued engagement with delegations throughout this process, and for their committed work on the revised draft resolution presented on the 23rd of February. The group fully supports the objective of striving for consensus in the deliberations of this Working Group. In that same spirit, we trust that the views and perspectives of our Group will be given careful and balanced consideration as the process moves forward.

The the Group welcomes the recognition that any decisions on mandates are the exclusive prerogative of Member States, which is basic to preserving the intergovernmental nature of decision making. The Group believes that the resolution should safeguard the authority, procedures, decisions, and establish practices of relevant intergovernmental bodies. On the issue of the diversity of mandates, membership and governance structures. The Group welcomes the elevation of respect for and preservation of their distinct nature to the level of principle. The Group believes that the same recognition should be granted to the diverse financial administrative arrangements across the United nations system.

In the same vein, the Group reiterates its position that system wide initiatives should be implemented based on accurate data and evidence while recognizing mandate diversity. The Group therefore encourages the use of stronger language that recognizes the differentiated nature of the Organization's work as a core characteristic and stresses that efforts to improve the mandate life cycle should preserve it. At the same time, the Group stresses that approaches derived from best practices across the UN system may be applied throughout the mandate life cycle to maximize impact and efficiency, while recognizing that no one size fits all formula will help address the diverse nature of mandates. On mandate creation, the Group supports practical improvements that can facilitate better informed negotiations without prejudice to intergovernmental negotiations on a given mandate. In this regard, the Group reiterates the importance of safeguarding the ability of Member States to exercise their sovereign right to draft proposals and bring issues to the UN ensuring that such improvements do not inadvertently constrain that prerogative.

On mandate implementation, the Group welcomes the recognition that implementation assessments should be grounded in outcomes and impact rather than solely in activities and outputs. The Group also supports encouraging to review the frequency of resolutions and decisions consideration within the respective intergovernmental bodies. Additionally, the Group supports a set of practical requests to the Secretary General to continue to provide administrative and technical Secretariat support to Member States upon their request. The Group is of the view that this should be done by minimizing its budgetary implications regarding institutional follow up. The Group takes note of the proposal to continue the work of the informal ad hoc Working Group on the mandate implementation review as the Working Group on Mandate Reform as outlined in Article 34 of the draft.

At this stage we wish to inform delegations that the Group remains engaged in internal deliberations on this matter. Excellencies Co Chairs the Group recognizes the progress reflected in the revised Draft and is of the view that a more balanced approach is required regarding the role of Member States in the Mandate's life cycle, particularly the creation and review processes and the need to ensure that the objectives of this resolution are pursued without prejudice to the mandating body's rules of procedure, financial and administrative arrangements, as well as their distinct governing structure across the system. The group of 77 and China remains ready to engage constructively to ensure that the outcome of this process strengthens mandate delivery, enhances transparency and coherence, and preserves the intergovernmental nature of the United Nations. I thank you.

I thank the Permanent Representative of Uruguay speaking for the G77 and I now give the floor to the European Union.

Thank you. Madam Co Chair Distinguished Co Chairs Dear Colleagues, I delivered a statement on behalf of the European Union and its Member states. The candidate countries North Macedonia, Montenegro, Albania, Europe, Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova, as well as Armenia, Andorra and Monaco align themselves with this statement. We thank the Co Chairs for producing this revised text of the resolution and we really appreciate the significant effort that has gone into the preparation of this revised draft. We would like to thank the Co Chairs for your meticulous coordination and steering of this Working Group and the collaborative approach taken.

Let me offer some main observations on the revised text. First, the EU acknowledges that the Co Chairs have taken on board many comments made during the workshops and in the written contributions, such as a strengthened focus on efficiencies and effectiveness throughout the text as well as the more detailed section on principles in OP1. Notably, we acknowledge the commitment to upholding balance across the three pillars and ensuring the full and equal participation of all Member States as well as references to future generations. However, we still miss references to systematic consultations of external stakeholders including civil society, academia and affected communities, as we have consistently raised for enhanced inclusivity of use and informed decision making. Moreover, we would like to see the integration of explicit links in the resolution to the need to ensure coherence and increase system wide efficiency in other ongoing reform tracks including the General assembly and ECOSOC revitalization, the humanitarian reset and the reform of the development system.

Second, on mandate creation, we strongly support the introduction of measures facilitating the drafting, adoption and implementation of clear, concise and effective mandates taking advantage of Secretariat support. This should include signalling potential overlaps or collisions with previous decisions of Member States while maintaining Member States oversight and ownership of UN mandates. We believe that Concept Notes represent an extremely valuable tool for Member States during mandate creation. Moreover, Secretariat support is essential at each stage of the mandate life cycle. We strongly support the enhanced emphasis on digital tools as crucial elements for improving transparency, system wide coordination and Member States oversight of existing mandates.

However, we recall the need to request the Secretariat to provide justification at the mandate creation stage whenever a mandate cannot be executed within existing resources, as well as to grant greater flexibility to the Secretary General. And third, we appreciate the further details provided on the mandate implementation review and mandate review review in OP8 to OP27, which must be treated as an integral part of mandate lifecycle for both new and existing mandates. We strongly support the proposal to transition towards the biennalization and trianalization of resolutions traditionally considered annually or biannually. However, we recall our suggestion for a default review cycle of three to five years as well as for automatic review cycles for open ended mandates. We would also like to include clear firm and explicit links between mandated tasks, results and resources.

And in this context, Madam Cochere, we really appreciated just hearing the further details on the rationale and scope of OP25 on the exclusion of certain mandates from review. That was very helpful. Thank you. Finally, we support the proposed new Working Group on mandate reform in OP 34. We suggest indicating that the development of the modalities to guide the review of the existing stock of mandates should be concluded by the end of June 2026.

Dear colleagues, we look forward to continuing this constructive approach with a view to successfully concluding our work on this resolution by the end of March. The European Union and its Member States are committed to ensuring that this resolution further deepens the essential foundation for a more effective, transparent, accountable and responsive organization. And I thank you.

I thank the representative of the European Union and I now give the floor to the representative of Nepal speaking for the LDCs. Excuse me, the floor is yours.

Co Chairs I have the honor to deliver this statement on behalf of the Group of Least Developed Countries. The Group aligns itself with the statement delivered on behalf of G.77 in China. The Group commends the Co Chairs for the revised draft resolution and for steering this process in a transparent and inclusive manner. Consistent with the objectives of Unity Initiative. The LDC Group approached the Mandate Implementation Review with one overriding concern.

Reforms must strengthen and never dilute the United nations capacity to deliver on development commitments to those farthest behind. In this regard, the Group offers the following reflections. First, on principle 1L, the group strongly supports the clear recognition that mandates must be adequately resourced in line with established program planning and budgetary processes. For LDCs, the central challenge is not an access of mandates, but a persistent gap between mandates and resources. Implementing this principle in practice is essential for delivering on the commitments made over the years in support of LDCs.

Second, on paragraph nine, the group holds the view that the notion of similar or duplicative activities must be approached with caution. Different Charter bodies, governing organs and specialized agencies have distinct mandates and comparative advantages. What may appear overlapping on paper often plays mutually reinforcing roles in practice, especially where tailored support frameworks for LDCs are concerned. Efforts to address duplication must therefore avoid weakening LDC specific mechanisms and be guided by nuanced evidence based analysis of impact in full consultation with LDCs. Third, on paragraph 10, while we recognize the important coordinating role of the Secretary General, many institutional lead roles are explicitly accorded by Member States through General assembly resolutions and other intergovernmentally agreed mandates.

Any change to such mandates or to do the distribution of functions among entities must remain firmly within an intergovernmental member State led process conducted in an inclusive and transparent manner. Fourth, on paragraph 15, the LDC group reiterates that periodicity and frequency should be determined primarily by the status of implementation, not by a uniform drive to reduce documentation. Where implementation lacks significantly below behind agreed targets, including for LDC focused mandates and programs of action, more frequent reporting and reviews are necessary to maintain political attention, identify bottlenecks and mobilize resources. Where implementation is on track, longer reporting cycles may be appropriate. Fifth, on paragraph 16, the group supports better use of collective and clustered mandate implementation reviews where they genuinely enhance coherence and impact.

However, as with para. 9, clustering must not dilute the visibility of LDC specific mandates or blur the distinct needs of countries in special situation. Regarding para. 26, on reviewing the frequency of agenda items and resolutions, we stress that for mandates addressing structural vulnerabilities and resilience in LDCs less frequent consideration risk reducing political momentum and resource mobilization. We also underscored that mandates pertaining specifically to groups in special situation require coordinated implementation by the full event development system.

The Group notes that OHR LLS was established precisely to support such system wide coordination for dedicated programs of action and this role should be fully reflected and reinforced in follow up to rev.1, including in any cluster reviews or coding coordination mechanisms. Finally, for broad mandates such as Doha Program of Action and other dedicated programs of action for countries in special situation, the role of intergovernmental organs across the UN system is indispensable to provide a comprehensive picture of implementation. We therefore encourage stronger system wide coordination as envisioned in Rev.1 so that reviews fully capture UN support to LDCs and informed, more coherent and impact oriented decision making. Co Chairs the LDC Group stands ready to engage constructively to ensure that unity and the mandate review process strengthen rather than weaken the organization's capacity to respond to the complex development, resilience and sustainability challenges facing the world, particularly LDCs. I thank you.

I thank the representative of Nepal speaking for the LDCs and I now give the floor to Tonga speaking on behalf of the Pacific Island Forum.

Co Chairs, Excellencies and colleagues. I'm honored to speak on behalf of the Pacific Islands Forum members based in New York. The informal ad hoc Working Group offers a key opportunity to make the UN more effective, efficient and accountable. This is especially important for small island developing States including those in the Pacific region. We welcome the significant improvements in the revised draft and comment the Co Chairs, one from our Pacific Region and one A fellow sids.

For listening closely to SIDS and small States, we consider the draft of Bennett's reflection of Member views. We support the Brief Preambler section and Expanded Principles and appreciate the Co Chairs responsiveness to the wider membership. We welcome in particular principles 1e, 1g and 1j which safeguard the development and human rights pillars, ensure full and equal participation and call for discipline in exercising sovereign prerogatives. The restructured text improves clarity by grouping Member States actions and Secretariat requests. These proposals strengthen mandate effectiveness, improve engagement and enhance accessibility for small delegations.

On mandate creation, we support the Concept Note requirement and welcome expanded Secretariat support for drafting. We strongly support operative paragraph seven, committing to more discipline in mandating meetings, reports and activities. The current workload is overwhelming and must be streamlined so even the smallest States can participate fully. We support requesting the Secretary General to provide enhanced information and resources at all stages of the mandate cycle. For small delegations, a centralized resource hub as outlined in paragraph six would be extremely valuable.

Fifth, Members are open to increase Secretariat resourcing if it improves Member States decision making. Separate mandate implementation review from mandate review is held helpful. We welcome implementation reviews in paragraphs 12 to 14 together with paragraph 11's focus on improved delivery. On the ground, we agree existing mandates should be reviewed while recognizing the complexity and need for detailed modalities. We value language clarifying that certain mandates would would be excluded unless Member States decide otherwise.

The balance between respecting the authority of each UN organ and the need for system wide coherence is appropriate. At the same time, we reaffirm the need to address duplication across the un. We support the creation of a Working Group to follow up on actions committed to past the end of March. This is a worthwhile investment in long term UN effectiveness and in our collective capacity to focus on global challenges. We appreciate the Co Chair's innovative and collaborative approach.

The high level discussions were a light touch, yet effective way to build shared understanding and reflect Member State priorities in a revised draft. PIF members do not favor line by line negotiations as small missions with limited capacity. We need to focus on our core priorities. We encourage the Co Chairs to retain the pen proposed solutions on remaining issues and enable the Working Group to conclude by the end of March. It is imperative that all Member States work constructively to achieve consensus on this important resolution.

To conclude, we look forward to working closely with all Member States at this process. As this process continues, I thank you.

I thank the Permanent Representative of Tonga speaking for the PIF and I Now give the floor to the representative of Singapore speaking for the Small States Group.

We have microphone for Singapore. Thank you.

Thank you. Co Chairs, I have the honour to deliver this statement on behalf of the Small States Group, a cross regional grouping of small States comprising both developed and developing countries. The list of 52 countries that have aligned with this statement will be made available after this meeting. Co Chairs, we thank you for your efforts to produce the Rev1 of the draft resolution. Its new title more accurately captures our intention to achieve not only an effective but an efficient organisation.

The diversity of ideas presented at the hybrid Workshops and submitted as written input demonstrate our collective resolve to clarify and improve the mandate lifecycle both substantively and procedurally. We commend the Co Chair's innovative and consultative approach. The latest draft reflects their continued efforts to balance a high ambition outcome with pragmatism and accountability. Allow me to make three key points on Rev 1 of the draft resolution. First, the SSG supports the continued inclusion of principles and proposals that promote transparency, evidence and results based on based decision making, effective information management and digital tools and stronger Secretariat support for Member States.

These are critical to empowering Member States to make more informed decisions on mandates. We appreciate the reorganisation and streamlining of the text which maps Member States commitments and requests to the Secretary General under the respective stages of the mandate lifecycle, as well as the creation of new sections on system wide issues and next steps. These provide more structure and focus to the text while succinctly capturing the constructive ideas arising from this Working Group. Second, we continue to support the proposal for a concise concept note to accompany the creation of new mandates. While we reaffirm the sovereign right of every Member State to bring new mandates to the un, we also believe that there is a corresponding responsibility of ensuring that proposals are clearly articulated.

New mandates should also consider existing related initiatives within the UN system to avoid duplication and improve the efficiency of mandate delivery. These concept notes, written by the mandate proponents with the support of the Secretariat, do not and should not limit the ability of Member States to propose new mandates. Instead, we believe it can empower all Member States, including those with small delegations, to have a clearer understanding of what new mandates entail. In this regard, we welcome the Co Chair's proposal to provide a model reference. Third, the SSG supports the important distinction made in the draft resolution between mandate implementation review and the review of mandates.

We are in favour of strengthening the capacity of mandate implementation review and the focus on outcomes and impact rather than only on activities and outputs. This will facilitate evidence and outcomes driven decision making which will empower Member States to better assess the implementation of mandates and determine necessary follow ups. We thus welcome the request for the Secretary General to strengthen and harmonise management of results mechanisms throughout the UN system. We also appreciate the acknowledgement of the diverse nature of mandates and and further underscore that there should not be a one size fits all approach to mandate review. Co Chairs to conclude, the latest draft provides a good basis for our work with its focus on delivering concrete and actionable steps to strengthen the mandate life cycle and a proposal to chart the next steps.

As the work of this Working Group comes to a close on 31 March, the SSG looks forward to working closely with the Co Chairs and Member States to to achieve a meaningful and consensus outcome. We remain committed to participating constructively in the process so that we can build a stronger and more effective UN that delivers for all our people. Thank you.

I thank the representative of Singapore speaking for the Small States Group. I'm now going to give the floor to the Syrian Arab Republic speaking for the Group of Arab States, to be followed by Australia speaking for Cannes.

As we understand it, those are the last two Group statements, but if you are speaking for a Group, please let us know. Permanent Representative, please go ahead. Thank you. Madam Chair, Excellencies, Co Chairs, I would like to deliver this statement on behalf of the Arab Group. The Group aligns itself with the statement delivered by the group of 77 and China.

First, the Group thanks the Co Chairs of the Informal Working Group Under Work Stream 2, His Excellency Ambassador Waltz of Jamaica and Her Excellency Ambassador Zhualger of New Zealand. Thank you for convening this meeting and for organizing the workshops of the Mandate Lifecycle which did indeed provide a conductive environment to discuss mandates and to hear Member States and their observations regarding the content of the draft resolution on mandate review. The Arab Group welcomes the reaffirmation that decisions relating to mandates remain the exclusive prerogative of Member States and values. The recognition of the diversity of mandates across the United nations systems in a manner that preserves the balance amongst the Organization's pillars, in particular in support of development efforts and peace building in developing countries. The clearer explanation on the framework for mandate review, including objective criteria and safeguard, and specifically the exclusion of charter based mandates and those of a universal normative nature from automatic review, constitutes an important addition for the Group that enhances legal clarity and institutional stability.

From a broader perspective, the Arab Group would like to make the following observations. While effective implementation and impact are legitimate objectives, impact should be understood through a multidimensional lens. Many mandates relevant to developing countries, particularly in the areas of development, capacity building and conflict resolution conflict prevention, generate a long term structural benefit that cannot be measured exclusively by short term quantitative indicators. Any enhanced role for the Secretariat in identifying duplicative or inactive mandates should remain purely technical advisory in nature, with the final decision remaining in the hands of Member States. In this context, the Arab Group underscores the importance of streamlining agendas and reducing doppelganger duplication across the United nations system and of enhancing transparency in the information available to Member States regarding mandates in order to support decision making, strengthen coordination and reduce duplication of efforts.

The Arab Group emphasizes the importance of preserving multilingualism as a fundamental value of the United nations, given its role in promoting inclusivity and enabling Member States to participate effectively in in the follow up and implementation sorry of mandates. As the existing stock of mandates is reviewed, it will be important to ensure that streamlining efforts do not disproportionately affect mandates that address development gaps or specific regional vulnerabilities and the context remains a central element in that track. The review process should also be deliberate and well framed, taking into account first and foremost the interest of the countries concerned as well as the changes these countries have undergone. The implementation of mandate reform measures, including digital tools and review mechanisms, should be accompanied by capacity building support and equitable access arrangements for such measures, particularly for developing countries. The Arab Group also emphasizes the first the importance of safeguarding multilateralism and respecting mandates as decided by Member States commitment to transparency and accountability in the management of resources the rejection of a zero growth approach if it would negatively impact the mandate implementation and the affirmation that any savings should not lead to scaling back of programs that are the priorities of developing countries.

In conclusion, the Arab Group reaffirms its commitment to continue engaging constructively with a view of regional consensual outcomes within the import with this important track. I thank you and if Madam, I might add a simple addition with my national capacity just to say thank you for the inclusion of in paragraph 23 that deals with mandates that are impacted by overtaken or overtaken by events or changed circumstances as these impact situations such as the ones in Syria. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the distinguished Permanent Representative of the Syrian Arab Republic and I now give the floor to the Permanent Representative of Australia speaking for Cairns. Thank you very much indeed.

Co Chair and Co Chairs, Let me personally convey my appreciation for the tremendous progress that I think we're making on behalf of Cairns. We welcome the enhanced ambition and clarity in the revised draft. Our workshop discussions and written submissions have been well reflected in the revised document. The text provides strong detail on our shared objectives and represents a major step toward achieving consensus. I'd like to make five key points today.

First, we reiterate our call for Member States to agree on bold and tangible outcomes to improve mandates and create a more effective United Nations. The principles and practical actions in Rev 1 strengthen mandate effectiveness, improve engagement between Member States and the Secretariat and enhance accessibility for smaller delegations. We also appreciate the addition of multilingualism as a principle. We endorse the clarification of the concept, note requirements to outline timelines, impact activities and the wider mandate landscape, and the inclusion of retirement clauses and expected funding arrangements in resolutions. Second, we support the request for the Secretary General to provide Member States enhanced information and resources when drafting mandates, such as links to established rules and practices, the Technical Secretariat focal point and indicative financial implications.

This information and resources will help Member States create more impactful and less duplicative mandates and support effective implementation. Third, Member States need to agree a clear, robust and accountable review mechanisms. We value the clear distinction between mandate implementation review and mandate review in the revised Draft. We believe the Secretariat has an important role to play in reviewing mandate implementation in consultation with Member States. While mandate review and decisions on mandate futures belong to Member States informed by Secretariat advice, we support retaining the review of existing mandates while acknowledging the need for Member States to finalise modalities.

We welcome paragraph 25 to protect important norm setting mandates like the Declaration of Human Rights and we welcome the information provided this morning to help Working Group members develop a shared understanding of the norm setting mandates. Fourth, we appreciate the resolution's enhanced focus on strengthening system wide coordination. The actions in this new dedicated section would strengthen cross pillar coherence and oversight while respecting the decision making authority of individual organs. In implementing these actions. We support encouraging the Secretariat fully to use existing mechanisms and resources, but also remain open to resourcing increases where justified and aligned with Member State priorities.

Finally, can supports the Working Group transitioning to a new phase of its work and appreciates the clearer parameters and timeline for the proposed additional tasks outlined in paragraph 34. Addressing actions which cannot be fully carried out in this first stage of the Working Group will embed the cultural shift needed to to drive lasting improvements across the mandate lifecycle. We believe this work is an investment in the UN's long term effectiveness. Co Chairs, we value your innovative and consultative approach to date. Line by line negotiations would not have produced this substantial Progress.

It's essential that all Member States now come together to agree a transformative outcome. Thank you.

I thank the Permanent Permanent Representative of Australia, speaking for Cairns and I'm now going to pass the floor to the Permanent Representative of the Republic of Korea, to be followed by China and Germany. Korea, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Co Chairs, at the outset, my delegation wishes to express our sincere appreciation to you in preparing the revised draft capturing the essence of views and proposals express expressed by Member States today, I'd like to share four points. First, we appreciate that the revised text maintained the core improvements of Mandate Implementation review, such as the inclusion of Mandate Implementation Review Clauses and Mandate Retirement Clauses in all UN renewing mandates and the Support Secretariat across the entire mandate are life cycles. These elements constitute the backbone of a more information based, efficient and systematic approach to mandate. Second, we welcome the device drift clarifies a number of previous ambiguous elements.

Greater clarity regarding the concept note and the Working Group of Mandate Report allows us to translate broad ideas in into concrete actions. Third, while we regret that the language on greater flexibility to the Secretary General in resource allocation has not been included, we support that the discussions on resources must continue to be anchored in the established program planning and the budgetary processes. We should focus on strengthening the existing mechanisms to ensure mandates are properly resourced and priorities are clearly established within the purview of the Secretary General. Finally, we are convinced that digital tools, including artificial intelligence, can significantly strengthen our capacity to manage mandates throughout their life cycle. Leveraging digital solutions can improve institutional memory, quality of data analysis and evidence based deliberation.

In this regard, my delegation stands ready to engage actively in future discussions on the issue of digital technology within the United nations system in a responsible and transparent manner. Distinguished Co Chairs, we support this revised draft and your leadership in the discussion on mandate Implementation review. But delegation remains committed to engaging constructively in our future engagement. Thank you.

Thank the Permanent Representative of the Republic of Korea and I now give the floor to the Permanent Representative of China, to be followed by Germany and Tajikistan.

Thank you, Co Chairs. China aligns itself with a statement delivered by Uruguay on behalf of G77 and China. I thank the Co Chairs for their efforts on the Draft and wish to highlight three points. First, Mandate Implementation Review concerns all Member States. The central role of Member States must be fully reflected and the concerns of all countries, particular developing countries must be given adequate attention.

This is a prerequisite for the broad recognition and effective implementation of reform outcomes. We appreciate the Co Chairs responsiveness to various concerns in refining the draft while noting room for further improvement, we trust that the CO Chairs will properly balance effective positions, balance different positions and advance consultations in an inclusive and transparent manner. Second, the diversity of mandates and the mandating bodies must be fully respected. Decision making should adhere to the mandates and rules of procedure of each man body on the consensus and the case by case basis. Mandate review should adopt a pragmatic and forward looking approach that draws on lessons learned and takes into account factors such as time, capacity and resources.

In this process, the three pillars must be advanced in a balanced manner with special attention to avoid any adverse impact on the implementation of development mandate. Third, reform. Our mandates should stay true to the original intent of UN80 striving for streamlining and efficiency, avoiding renewed duplication and preventing additional financial and administrative burdens on Member States. On whether to establish a new follow up mechanism, careful study and prudent decision making are needed. Especially on questions about its mandate being overly broad, potential overlap with existing processes and the possible disruption to the work of various bodies.

We encourage full use of existing mechanisms and the processes to advance implementation. In conclusion, we support the CO Chairs in continuing broad based consultations to build consensus on the draft that that balances ambition with pragmatism towards early harvest and the visible outcomes. China remains ready to play a constructive role to this end. Thank you.

I thank the Permanent Representative of China and I now give the floor to the Permanent Representative of Germany to be followed by Tajikistan and then Norway.

Thank you very much Co Chairs. Germany aligns itself with a statement made by the European Union. First of all, thank you very much for your leadership and for your guiding us through this process. We commend you for compiling now revision one, which from our point of view is a good basis for our further work. And thank you for clarifying in the beginning on paragraph 25.

This was very helpful. Many of our priorities are well reflected in the text. But let me make four short points. First, the introduction of a concept note as outlined in Para 2 is a huge step forward. It's important that this Note contains the indicative financial implications of a new mandate, while fully respecting the existing budgetary processes including ACABQ 5th Committee, etc.

This also applies to this resolution itself which establishes a number of potentially cost relevant requests to the Secretary General. Second, the inclusion of mandate implementation review clauses in all new and renewed mandates is another necessary and decisive measure to improve our mandates. Yes, there is no one size fits all solution, but still every mandate needs to contain a section which clearly defines the intended future of the mandate. Moreover, the term mandate implementation review should be defined more clearly with regard to its analytical content, the Secretariat's input and Member States decision authority. Third, while being aware that we are talking about a GA resolution here, we fully support your paragraph's on the necessity for better system wide coordination and coherence.

One of the strengths of UN80 is its system wide approach. This dimension clearly needs to be reflected in the outcome product of this Working Group. Also as a reference point for other governing bodies and fourth, regarding next steps and the Working Group on mandate reform, it is important that this resolution lives up to to the standard it promotes in terms of transparency and clarity. In closing, let me underline the following One can always wish for more ambition, but we are realistic and do appreciate your efforts in balancing the various positions expressed by colleagues in the workshops and because we are deeply guided by the wish that UN AT must unite and not divide the membership, I would like to underline this. In the end, it is not the paper that counts, rather it is the practical implementation and this rev one is showing the direction for the change of attitude and methods we collectively need.

So Co Chairs, let me again thank you for your dedicated leadership. We have full trust in you, holding the pen and reflecting the joint will of the membership in the best possible way. Thank you very much.

I thank the Permanent Representative of Germany and I now give the floor to the Permanent Representative of Tajikistan, to be followed by Norway and Bangladesh.

Thank you Excellencies. Co Chairs, I would like to begin by thanking you for your steady leadership, transparency and inclusive approach throughout this process. For my delegation, reform must be guided by one simple it should strengthen the UN system, not weaken it. This reform must ultimately enhance delivery by reducing duplication and fragmentation across the system, improving coordination across pillars and ensuring that Member States receive timely and comprehensive analysis when taking decisions on on mandates. Co Chairs, we see many positive elements in the Draft and consider it a good basis for our deliberations.

First, we welcome the emphasis on greater transparency, improved information management and stronger Secretariat support throughout the mandate life cycle. Tools that enhance visibility of the mandate landscape, including further development of the mandate registry and interoperable digital platforms, can empower Member States, particularly smaller delegations, to engage more strategically and avoid overlap. Second, we see merit in encouraging clear articulation of new mandates, including greater clarity regarding objectives, scope and implementation arrangements. When properly supported by impartial Secretariat expertise and analysis, this can strengthen negotiations and improve coherence across the system. Third, we support the increased focus on implementation assessment grounded in outcomes and impact.

For many developing countries, what ultimately matters is whether mandates deliver tangible results on the ground, a stronger culture of result based management can help ensure that resources are directed where they are most needed. Co Chairs at the same time, certain elements would benefit from further clarification. In particular, provisions relating to indicative financial implications, expected funding arrangements and clear budgetary implications deserve careful consideration. While these requirements aim to promote informed, informed and responsible decision making, we must ensure that they do not create unintended obstacle Unintended obstacles For Member States with limited analytical or financial capacities, Co Chairs this reform offers an opportunity to build a more agile, coherent and responsive United nations, one that maximizes impact while preserving inclusivity and fairness. We remain committed to working constructively toward a balanced and consensus outcome that strengthens the system and enhances its ability to deliver effectively for all our peoples.

I thank you,

I thank the Permanent Representative of Tajikistan and I now give the floor to the Permanent Representative of Norway, to be followed by Bangladesh and Ecuador.

Good morning colleagues and thank you Co Chairs for guiding us in this very inclusive and effective process and for presenting Rev1 I think you have clearly heard us now I could perhaps have saved us all some time. Having listened in the room, I could align with several statements, in particular actually the statement by the Pacific Island Forum, but since we're not from a Pacific island, I will make four points. Norway strongly supports the system wide application of the resolution and we thank you for the clarification and confirmation provided on this point. We strongly support also the introduction and system wide implementation of a standardized concept note and we thank you for the two page preview provided to experts Monday. I think it helps clarify what this could look like and it gives us comfort about the work involved hearing the experience of your two smallish delegations in completing it.

Secondly, reform will require genuine confidence cultural shift. Mandates must be clearer, more strategic about what we aim to deliver while allowing greater flexibility in how the results are delivered. As such, we would have welcomed an even stronger and more empowered role for the Secretary General in enabling this. We do, however, appreciate the clarity of the text on the Secretary General's functions relating to mandates, which we now see reflected in Rev.3. Norway also firmly supports an enhanced role for and systematic involvement of the Secretariat in supporting Member States through the entire mandate life cycle.

Thirdly, Norway sees a real potential here for a paradigm shift in mandate management and we see this as intimately linked to digital coherence. The UN's fragmented digital landscape, however, remains a concern and we would have appreciated a more concrete and operational discussion around unifying digital platform platforms. Then finally, on process, Norway strongly supports transitioning to the next phase of this Working group. We need a space to follow up on the important work we have done in the last months that is integral to unity. We must seize the momentum and constructive spirit created in this work stream, not defer responsibility to others at a later stage.

So coaches, we are in your hands. We remain realistic about the time frame we have to work with and encourage colleagues to be pragmatic as we move into this final stage of this process so that we can set a strong precedent for reform across the UN system. So you have our full support. Thank you.

I thank the Permanent Representative of Norway and I now give the floor to the Permanent Representative of Bangladesh to be followed by Ecuador and then Lichtenstein.

Thank you. Co Chairs Bangladesh aligns itself with the statement delivered by Uruguay on behalf of G77 and China at the outset. We deeply appreciate you, the Co Chairs for the revised draft and your sincere efforts to advance a balanced and forward looking text. Distinguished Co Chair we support the emphasis on efficiency, accountability and evidence based decision making. At the same time, we underscored that reform initiatives must maintain equilibrium across the three pillars and and should not diminish political attention on critical development related matters.

In formulation of mandates, we believe in ensuring centrality of equitable development perspective. New and renewed mandates should promote inclusive and sustainable development with a particular focus on unique needs of countries in special situations like the least developed countries, landlocked developing countries, small island developing States and climatically vulnerable countries. Mandate review process must reinforce and not detract from the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. Distinguished Co Chair we welcome the development of objective criteria to guide the decisions on mandates. In this regard, clarity in defining duplication is essential.

Objective and transparent benchmarks will ensure the rationalization efforts to enhance coherence without undermining substantive commitments or negotiated outcomes. Mandate review should not weaken the normative foundations of previously agreed intergovernmental frameworks. We reiterate the importance of inter inclusive and equitable geographical representation across the United nations system. Fair representation enhances legitimacy, strengthens ownership and contributes to balanced intergovernmental processes. We appreciate the provisions on enhanced reporting and improved tools, including the strengthening of the Mandate Registry.

In this regard, technical and analytical support for developing countries must be critical to ensure meaningful participation across the life cycle. Finally, we support the efforts to foster system wide coherence and continuous improvement, provided these efforts remain firmly within the guidance given by Member States. Distinguished Co Chair My delegation remains committed to constructively engage in the work of the Working Group. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished Permanent Representative of Bangladesh.

I give the Floor now to the distinguished representative of Ecuador.

Co Chairs, Distinguished colleagues, we have taken note of revision one and express our support for both the overall direction of the text and the initiative. This process reflects a shared commitment to advancing common interests. Enhancing the clarity and coherence of the mandate cycle will strengthen the United nations capacity to deliver on Member States priorities, improve coordination, reduce duplication and sharpen the focus on results. We welcome the proposed principles as a sound framework for this work and emphasize the importance of a balanced approach that preserve all the pillars of the organization. In this context, the explanation on OP25 clearly reflects, in my opinion, the careful consideration that the Cocheres have given to this process.

My understanding of the explanation given by the coutures is that this will avoid the selective use of the incorporation by reference doctrine. I will be glad to expand this in our complete statement. We also support the concept note and related tools designed to support more informed negotiations as well as efforts to strengthen implementation through a more concise and user friendly focused reporting. Having followed the process closely and listened carefully to today's interventions, we recognize the sensitivities and differing perspectives involved in this context. We encourage delegations to engage with flexibility, focus in areas of convergence and work constructively to our consensus where possible.

This process calls for a sense of opportunity and a vision of common interests which should guide us in this final stretch towards the end of March. You can count on this on us for this objective, a maximum level of ambition is desirable with a good dose of realism. My delegation remains fully committed to engaging in this process with a view to achieving a balanced, workable and results oriented outcome that strengthens multilateralism and the effectiveness of the organization. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished permanent representative of Ecuador.

I give the floor now to the distinguished permanent representative of Liechtenstein, followed by Malawi and then Finland.

Thank you, Co Chairs. I want to thank you again for leading our process in such a transparent and inclusive manner and we are very strongly supportive of your overall approach in producing a ref one that keeps us within reach of a transformative resolution which is what we are aiming for. We recognize that the changes that you have made are the result of a truly consulted process and that you indeed have been listening to the membership very well. We support a system wide application of the resolution and the language that you've inserted to that end and I'm echoing previous speakers in this respect, including most recently Norway. We recognize amongst the principals A strengthened former OP9 and note that this para 1M describes a legal obligation and would continue to emphasize the importance of reflecting it as such.

We recognize in 1n one of the elements in the text that make it clear that we are doing a mandate implementation review and not a mandate review. This is an important distinction and we appreciate the clarity that the text is providing on it. Regarding OP2, we look forward to seeing your concept note for this text which will no doubt provide a template for others. We also thank you for the changes to Parap. 4 on the mandate registry.

One thing that could help is to ask specifically for financial information so that we can ensure we know what mandates cost, something that can feed into the overall trend toward clear cost estimates that we think is necessary. We appreciate the use of the term retirement clauses, which we believe is a good way to describe a concept which has been addressed in varying forms of language. The section from 19 to 25 strikes a very important balance. We are not averse to the SG reviewing mandates, in particular the existing stock that are not otherwise subject to review. How this interacts with the prerogatives of states, for example, as resulting from the language in 23 and 27 is something that will be important to consider.

Of course, states can always vote to reinstate mandates where appropriate. We would be interested to hear from you in particular some examples of mandates that might be covered by para 25. We agree with you on the need for greater coherence and coordination across the system, in particular in the Paris 29 to 33 in line with my previous comment on the need for a system wide application of this text. We also appreciate the increased clarity in the scope of the Working group set out in para. 34.

The idea that that it would function as a clearinghouse for coordination amongst all intergovernmental organs would perhaps be useful to reflect in a text. We thank you for the efforts you have made to specify terminology as you laid out in the briefing that you have offered last Wednesday. We feel that the process is in very good hands and we look forward to taking this over the line with you with within this month's time. I thank you so much.

I thank the distinguished Permanent Representative of Eastenstein.

I give the floor now to the distinguished Permanent representative of Malawi followed by Finland and then Mexico.

Thank you Chair Malawi statements as aligned with the statement delivered by Uruguay on behalf of G77 and China and statement delivered by NEPA on behalf of LDC Malawi thanks the Co Chairs for presenting the revised draft resolution. We appreciate the inclusive consultations that have led to this far as a listed webbed country and landlocked country Malawi approaches the UN 80 mandatory reform process guided by our National Development Blueprint, the Malawi 2016 Foreign Policy and the Africa Vision 2063, all of which prioritize economic transformation, regional integration, infrastructure development, resilience to climate shocks and effective multilateral engagement. From our perspective, mandatory reform must ultimately strengthen the United nations capacity to deliver measurable development impact. We wish to highlight several elements of the draft that Malawi views positively and encourage other member states to do to endorse.

First, the clear articulation of principles across the mandate's life cycle. These principles align closely with our Malawi 2063 emphasis on results, performance management and prudent use of of public resources. A culture of continuous improvement of the UN system to ensure its cost effectiveness mirrors the reforms we are pursuing at the national level. Second, the strengthened approach to mandate creation, including the requirement for concise concept notes, is we need greater clarity at the outset which will help ensure that mandates addressing development challenges are actionable and realistic. Third, the emphasis on improved reporting, user oriented formats and enhanced data use in mandate implementation para.8 for Malawi, evidence based reporting, quality data and measurable indications indicators are essential.

Fourth, the commitment to mandate implementation review process with clear objectives, timelines and indicators para. 12 regular structured reviews can help ensure that mandates remain relevant to evolving global dynamics and realities. At the same time, Malawi wishes to underline the following considerations. Mandatory reform must preserve the development dimension of the United nations and maintain balance across three pillars as reflected in para. 1e.

For LDC and LLDCs, which Malawi is one of them, development cooperation, trade facilitation, infrastructure financing and resilience building are not peripheral issues. They are central to our national structural transformation and to the realization of our vision and the Africa vision. In reviewing or clustering mandates paras. 16 to 2423, care must be taken to ensure that mandates addressing special needs of LDCs and LLDCs are not diluted or deprioritize in the pursuit of efficiency. Streamlining should enhance impact.

Malawi also believes that mandate reform should more explicitly address the structural constraints facing LDCs and LODCs, which Malawi is also one of them. Malawi further underscores the importance of state strengthening system wide coordination at the country level. In this regard, the Office of the United Nations Resident Coordinator should be further empowered and adequately resourced to work closely with national governments, particularly NEODC's area ODCs and across Africa.

And looking ahead to the transition of the informal Ad Hoc Working Group into the Working Group on Mandatory Form, Malawi encourages the an inclusive and transparent process that ensures full participation of member states including LLDCs, LDCs and seeds practical user friendly toolkits that support smaller missions and a balanced approach that strengthens the UN's delivery capacity on the ground. In conclusion, Malawi supports the objective of building a more agile, coherent and effective United Nations. We are going to send a full statement afterwards. Thank you very much.

I thank the distinguished Permanent Representative of Malawi.

I give the floor now to the distinguished Permanent Representative of Finland, to be followed by Mexico and then Timor Leste.

Thank you Co Chair and Co Chairs for your excellent work and for the innovative, inclusive and interactive process that you have so skillfully guided. Why is this so important? Because it's all about ensuring the relevance of the UN and the results and impact of its work. Of course, it's also about efficient use of scarce resources. With the new revision one, I'm convinced the quality of new mandates will improve.

We can have more effective, concise and action oriented mandates focused on content clear in objectives. It is also important to address the vast amount of mandates and resolutions that are old and do that soon as possible when the Committee decision gets going again. Time gets short. The committees and their bureaus, while also looking at revitalization matters, would play a key role supported by the sg. Old resolutions accumulated over years and decades need to be carefully looked at with their relevance, clarity and frequency in mind.

We have all drafted resolutions and co sponsored them. It is time to reflect together this vast textual set against our common core objectives at the UN today. We hope mandates and resolutions would be more concise, better structured and readable with a clear distinction between general observations and principles followed by clear set of action oriented paragraphs supported by follow up for results and impact. Concept notes would help clarify our thinking on key objectives and impact. Frequency can save money and energy.

We need to learn to trust that we do not need to repeat everything every year. Mandates are still in force. Review clauses and expiration clauses would also help ensure relevance and the mandates need to be looked at across the UN system, not only in New York or in the ga. While there always are major resolutions we all have to pay attention to, it is also good to ask ourselves how many committee or GA resolves have we all actually read? I am afraid they get less attention than we would hope.

Maybe this is partially the reason why the expression UN bubble is sometimes used. Better resolutions also enable meaningful participation of smaller member states to the activities of the UN. As to para. 34, we support the ad hoc working group becoming more permanent with a review clause. Of course we are talking about a significant cultural change here and I believe such a forum is meaningful for active Member States participation also in the future.

We also thank the Co Chairs for recognizing the diversity of mandates and the importance of maintaining the balance of the three important pillars, including development, of course, and thank you for your clarification of paragraph 25. To conclude, let's keep up the momentum and make a real difference together. Thank you, Co Chairs.

I thank the distinguished Permanent Representative of Finland. I give the floor now to the distinguished DPR of Mexico, followed by Timor Leste and then Pakistan.

Distinguished Couture's Excellencies Mexico would like to express its most sincere gratitude and appreciation to the Co Chairs and the Teams of Informal ADOC Working Group on Mandate implementations for presenting Rev.1 of the resolution on mandate creation, implementation and review. We sincerely appreciate your efforts to reflect this revised resolution. Most of the requests and concerns of Member States Mexico takes note again with appreciation of the revised draft resolution and wishes to comment the following first, mention of compliance with financial obligations under multilateral treaties such as US Assessed contribution will appear to fall more appropriately within the scope of work stream one rather than within the mandate cycle as mentioned in subparagraph M. Second, the reference to stakeholders in subparagraph D requires further precision to avoid confusion. Third, we welcome operative paragraph 9 as it contains elements that more clearly link mandates with the budgetary process. Fourth, we also welcome clearer parameters for the concept, noting para.

5 and we believe it should include a time bound criteria for the withdrawal or review of mandates. Fifth, regarding paras. 4 and 6 related to the mandate registry and digital tools creation, Mexico believes that those tools should be open and more unrestricted access to strengthen transparency and accountability. Sixth, regarding intention to reduce meetings and reports, the language proposed could be more precise and clearer to reinforce the imperative to rationalize meetings and reporting. 7 In terms of reporting on mandate implementation in Prevs.

8 and 15, we welcome measures related to improving reports and suggestions to combine and change its periodicity. However, Mexico believes those criteria should go beyond the Secretariat, including through collaboration and coordination with agencies, funds and programs of the UN system. 8 concerning of parity par. 33, a clear call should be made for the entire United nations system to apply the principles and provisions of this resolution. It should be reiterated that for Mexico, the guidelines of the resolution apply to all organs and bodies of the un, including the Security Council.

Finally, and from a financial perspective, we take note that the Secretariat is assessing the potential budgetary implication of the implementation of this resolution. Clarification will be appreciated as to whether the corresponding financial is impact will be covered within the regular budget or whether extra budgetary resources will be required Co Chairs Mexico trusts that these new proposals represent a good step in the right direction and overall promotes a cultural shift within the organization and in the Member States decision making process. The text before us is holistic and balanced. Mexico reaffirms its sincere support to the negotiation process and once again congratulates the Co Chairs in producing a bona fide proposal on a complex matter under a time of constraint. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I thank the distinguished DPR of Mexico. I give the floor now to the distinguished Permanent Representative of Timor Les the be followed by Pakistan and then the Russian Federation.

Dear Co Chairs Timor Leste aligned with the statement delivered by Uruguay on behalf of G77 China and statement delivered by Nepal on behalf of LDCs. We commend the Co Chairs for their dedicated leadership in guiding the consultations on this important resolution on mandate creation, implementation and review. Through an inclusive and transparent process, they have helped advance a shared objective, a United nations that is more coherent, efficient and responsive to the needs of its Member States.

My delegation expresses its sincere appreciation of their efforts. Co Chairs Excellencies this resolution is both timely and necessary. Over the years, the UN's mandate architecture has expanded significantly. While this reflects the organization's involvement, responsibility, responsibilities, it has also led to overlaps, duplication and mandates that are not systematically reviewed. By emphasizing evidence based decision making, clear objectives, measurable benchmarks and cost transparency, this resolution introduces practical tools to ensure that mandates remain relevant, effective and aligned with the purposes and principles of the charter.

For LDCs such as mine, these reforms are particularly important. We depend on a strong and well functioned multilateral system to deliver across the three pillars, namely development, peace and security and human rights. When mandates are fragmented or outdated, limited resources are stretched thin and critical priorities for vulnerable countries may not receive adequate attention. Greater coherence and regular review therefore serve not only institutions institutional efficiency but also development equity. We particularly welcome the Secretariat's strength and role in supporting mandate formulation and review.

Clear analytical input, realistic implementation frameworks and transparent budget implications will allow Member States to take informed decisions for small delegations with limited staffing capacity. Simplified documentation, user friendly digital tools and multilingual accessibility are essential to ensuring meaningful participation. Efficiency must also be accompanied by strategic prioritization. We support clearer, more concise mandates, sunset provisions, cluster reviews and mechanisms to retire inactive mandates promptly. These measures will help redirect attention and resources to our high impact activities while reducing unnecessary reporting burdens and meetings that can overwhelm smaller missions.

At the same time, reform must preserve balance across all pillars. Mandates related to sustainable development, climate resilience and the implementation of the 2030 Agenda remain central to LDC's interests. Likewise, mandates that safeguard universal norms and peace building efforts must be reviewed carefully and fairly, ensuring that efficiency strengthens the UN's core commitments. Dear Co Chairs, we support the continuation of the Working Group to monitor implementation and refine practical guidance, including tools that take into account the specific needs of LDCs like ours. This resolution represents a constructive step toward a stronger, more agile United Nations.

My delegation stands ready to support its implementation and calls for continued consensus in advancing these reforms for the benefits of all Member States. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished Permanent Representative of Timor Leste. I now give the floor to the distinguished Permanent Representative of Pakistan, who will be followed by the Russian Federation and Portugal.

Coaches, we align with the statement of G77 and China and we commend you for producing the revised draft, which is a step in the right direction. However, our delegation has a couple of significant concerns on some sections on mandate creation. For example, OP2 on concept note requirements and OP5 on resolution requirements could disadvantage developing countries and require adjustment on mandate review. At the risk of repetition, we feel compelled to recall that this was not the original intention and not how the Secretary General had presented and clarified this at various occasions. We therefore question whether initiating a 2006 like exercise is the best use of our collective time and resources.

We are similarly concerned by OP24. While we welcome the safeguards in OP25, they would require further strengthening if some continue to persist. In applying this entire exercise and its follow up to existing mandates. We remain concerned about collective mandate implementation reviews in Op 16 and 17. Our request for clarification and examples have not been answered.

OP23 coaches is difficult to support, particularly the reference to mandates overtaken by changed circumstances, which is extremely vague. Perhaps the coaches can provide examples of which mandates fall into this category. More broadly, we are not convinced by the tasks assigned to the Secretariat through Ops 23 and 27. Asking them to judge which mandates to retire or adjust puts them in a difficult position requiring political judgments. Requests to the Secretariat need more careful framing, realism and clear timelines on the Working Group's continuation.

We need clarity of purpose and scope. For example, are the tasks like negotiating concept note templates or model resolution clauses the best use of our time and resources for the next year and a half? In light of the distinction between Ops 22 and 24, it should be clarified that the Working Group can only examine GA mandates and why retitle it to mandate reform. Most fundamentally, establishing a new Working Group contradicts the unity's spirit of reducing duplication and signals business as usual rather than genuine behavioral change. Instead, we should examine how to utilize the various existing mechanisms.

Thank you very much.

I thank the distinguished Permanent Representative of Pakistan. And I now give the floor to the distinguished distinguished Deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation.

Dear Chairs, I would like to thank you for your tolerance and patience. I also would like to thank you for the new draft. First of all, I would like to note some things that we're welcoming. It's important that the text reaffirms the exclusive role of the Member States and the prerogative in taking decisions on mandates, as well as their right to determine their content, scope and duration. Second, we support the provisions stipulating the decisions on the renewal, consolidation and retirement of mandates are to be taken exclusively by Member States and intergovernmental bodies.

We also underline the importance of multilingualism as an essential condition for the equal participation participation of Member States. I would like to emphasize that any additional tools, including concept notes, registries, digital platforms and analytical mechanisms, must remain strictly auxiliary and informational. They should not create new filters or procedural obstacles at the stage of drafting and negotiating resolutions by Member States. And we hope that they would not require new resources and new contributions from Member States.

I would also like to state that we're not supporting the expansion of Secretary General prerogatives.

As an example, in paragraph 23, as mentioned by other colleagues as to AI tools, we see that the provision is added about human oversight, but it's not only the human oversight, but the human accountability, what is needed, and namely the Secretariat's accountability. We also feel there's a need for a safe singling out of monitoring the activities which are executed at the voluntary contributions to implement the mandates, because this is something which is certainly a big share of what's happening under the roof of the mandates. And we also would like to say that.

The topic of verified reporting, really verified, should be addressed in the resolution as the basis for Secretariat recommendations. As to the proposal to establish a standing Working Group, we believe it's not going in the spirit of the Resolution 79, 318. We think it is a risk of duplicating structures and not in the spirit of streamlining the structures. A number of tasks related to analysis, review and formulations is already performed by different bodies, including giu, and we're thanking the Chairs that they included the GIU provision in the draft resolution. And last point, I was flabbergasted to hear that there are delegations who object against line by line negotiations.

I think that if we don't have line by line negotiations, we don't have a consensus and if we don't think that we need the consensus on that critical resolution, the resolution which is critical for the future of the un, then I don't know what we're doing here. Thank you very much.

I thank the distinguished DPR of the Russian Federation. I give the floor now to to the distinguished representative of Portugal will be followed by Iran and then France.

Thank you, Chairman. Portugal thanks the co facilitators for the progress reflected in Rev 1 and for their steady effort to balance ambition and feasibility. We see this text as a meaningful step towards a more coherent and results oriented mandate life cycle across the United nations system. We support the guiding principles, particularly the preservation of balance across the three pillars and the emphasis on a culture of continuous improvement, accountability and efficiency on mandates creation. Portugal welcomes the repairment sorry the requirement for concise concept notes and indicative financial implications.

Greater clarity and discipline will enhance transparency, avoid duplication and improve predictability. With regard to mandate review, we believe the exercise must be genuinely applied consistently and coherently across the UN system, including two already existing mandates. We support the systematic inclusion of clear review clauses with defined objectives, criteria, indicators and timelines. And in this context, we also support the proposal to transition towards the bienalization and trienalization of resolutions traditionally considered annually. In the same sense, we see merit in exploring the possibility of establishing a default review cycle of three to five years where appropriate.

We would also like to seize the opportunity to highlight the added value of the Secretariat where feasible, providing indicative assessments of the cost of inaction. Such analysis would assist Member States in better understanding the financial and operational implications of maintaining outdated, overlapping or duplicative mandates and would support more informed and strategic decision making in the mandate life cycle. Regarding the continuation of the Working Group, Portugal supports its maintenance under a clearly defined mandate and within a limited time frame, as outlined in the Next Steps Section. Its core purpose should be to accompany and monitor the implementation of this resolution, develop practical tools and ensure coherence across program processes. Portugal stands ready to work constructively towards an ambitious consensual and operational resolution, one that advances meaningful reform with real impact.

Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Portugal. I give the floor now to Iran, followed by France, the United Kingdom and then Switzerland.

Thank you, Chair. And thank you, Co Chairs, for convening this meeting. We would like to thank you for your continued efforts and engagement with delegation throughout this process. We also express our appreciation to the Secretariat for their support. The importance of negotiation and establishment, implementation and review of mandates is underscored alongside a continued commitment to constructive engagement aimed at strengthening the effectiveness and and efficiency of the United nations in full conformity with the Charter.

At the same time, we consider it important to underline that efficiency and reform must be pursued in a balanced manner and should not come at the expense of the intergovernmental nature of the Organization or the exclusive prerogative of Member States in decision making. In this regard, while the revised text reflects certain improvements, we note that a number of changes have shifted the balance toward more generalized and operational approaches with less explicit reference to the institutional safeguards and established processes that are essential to preserving confidence among the membership. With respect to mandate creation, we would have preferred language that more clearly emphasized that facilitative and functionality voluntary nature of proposed tools and procedures and that ensured they would not in practice create additional procedural expectations, new administrative structures or influence intergovernmental negotiations. Greater clarity in this connection would help safeguard for all Member States, including the developing countries. Further, the decision not to include a provision requesting the SAFE Secretary General to assist Member States in meeting their assessed contributions raises a practical concern.

While the Charter of the United nations requires contributions to be paid in full and on time and this applies in particular to the largest contributor whose areas have for the time being placed the organization at the risk of collapse, one sided enforcement may impose undue burdens and escape state as facing genuine financial or other extraordinary difficulties regarding mandate implementation. While we acknowledge the need for improved coordination, we believe that clearer assurances would have been useful to reaffirm that resource related decisions and prioritization remain firmly under the authority of intergovernmental bodies and establishments. Budgetary processes Such clarity is important to avoid differing interpretations and to ensure that coordination efforts complement rather than substitute existent intergovernmental oversight. We also note that the provisions related to mandate review taken as a whole appear more far reaching than initially envisaged. Although important safeguards have been included in some parts, the cumulative effect of the language and reviews criteria and modalities may give rise to concerns regarding the gradual expansion of system driven approaches.

From our perspective, mandate reviews should remain firmly anchored in Member State led processes. In conclusion, we look forward to continuing our engagement in a constructive spread as this process moves forward. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Iran. I give the floor now to the distinguished representative of France, followed by the UK and then Switzerland.

Dear Co Chairs Dear Ambassador Schwalger, their Ambassador Wallace, their colleagues France supports the intervention delivered by the EU delegation in the name of the EU and its Member states and would like to add the following remarks in its national capacity. First, we welcome this Rev1 under your guidance, which we believe further consolidates and clarifies the efforts to be led at each step of the mandate's life cycle for an improved working method at the UN, allowing me to focus on five points. First, overall, the construct of this Rev1 helps assess what will be expected respectively from Member States and from the Secretariat. At each stage. France is supportive of maintaining a high level of ambition when it comes to cultural shift in organization, as would be achieved by concrete elements including accompanying concept notes, user oriented reports and review mechanisms of each mandate.

Second, France welcomes the inclusion of multilingualism among the principles driving on new working methods.

It is also an opportunity to better leverage innovative tools and technologies that help us our resources, that will help us to make our resources better used. This should be also stressed in its System Wide Coordination and Coherence section following the 5C recommendations to ensure we deliver results on all these counts. Third, France notes that the prerogatives of Member States were recalled on several occasions on this rev 1 as only Member States can take a decision on mandates. Yet the responsibilities and prerogatives of the ZEKETARIAT must, however, be expressed as clearly, especially when it comes to the Secretary General's ability to decide and not just facilitate the assignment of implementation responsibilities within the framework delineated by member states. Fourth, as UN80 should also help us design a new approach to funding mechanisms in a constrained context, the mandate implementation section should better reflect the consensus achieved last year in the Fifth Committee that resource implications of new mandates could be absorbed within existing resources when appropriate and after internal reallocation of resources by the Zecharitariat.

As a first option, yes, the mandates shall be adequately financed and yet questioning the automaticity of presenting a new PBI or revised estimate whenever we create a new mandate, as well as granting some margin of maneuver to the Secretariat in this regard, are indispensable elements if we are to build a more financially sustained UN over the long run. We therefore believe that paragraph 9 of this resolution should be redrafted along the lines set in paragraphs 15 and 36 of the 2026 bill budget resolution 8242 in a sense of consistency with already agreed language. Fifth and finally, France strongly supports the perspective of a review of the stock of mandates based on the principles encompassed in the resolution and to be informed by the Secretariat proposals. To make it simple, the review will be a full success if we terminate a substantial number of mandates and if we introduce termination or exit clauses for future mandates, as was the case in the zero draft, France would support setting closing dates to conduct this review. It should also be the central task of the Working Group on mandates to be established, along with a simple and clear monitoring of the implementation of this resolution.

The Eco Chairs France will remain engaged at your sides in order to adopt an ambitious resolution at the end of this month. We thank you once again.

I thank the distinguished Deputy Permanent Representative of France. I give the floor now to the distinguished DPR of the United Kingdom, to be followed by Switzerland and then Algeria.

Thank you Co Chairs for your continued leadership of this ad hoc Working group, including the productive workshops that you jointly ran.

You took an innovative, inclusive and consultative approach and the REV one demonstrates that model worked well. The United Kingdom remains strongly supportive of the Secretary General's UNAT reform initiative at the heart of the work on mandates. As with other elements of unat, we should keep a focus on working towards a UN system that is more effective, efficient and coherent across its three core pillars. And we welcome the amendments to the draft resolution that does more to uphold the balance across the three pillars. I'll make three substantive points in relation to our comments on Rev 1, the first relating to the Working Group, the second on the review of existing body of mandates and the third on the role of the Secretariat.

Firstly, we support the extension of the Working Group on a time bound basis which will help maintain focus and momentum as well as the clarity you have provided around the remit for the Working Group. To maintain progress. We recommend the Working Group provides an initial update to the General assembly before the summer. Secondly, we welcome proposals to review the body of existing General assembly mandates in OP21. In undertaking such an exercise, we will want to be objective, ensuring that any exclusions do not undermine the tackling of duplication or enhancing of efficiency, while also ensuring we don't disadvantage any one pillar.

And we welcome the additional clarifications you provided this morning in that regard. Such a review will require a timeline for implementation to maintain momentum. We also welcome the call on the UN's other intergovernmental organs to undertake similar reviews given the other tracks of reform and revitalization work that are ongoing. We echo calls made by others to reference the need for links and complementarity between these tracks. Thirdly, we welcome proposals that foresee an enhanced Secretariat role with administrative technologies, technical and substantive to support to Member States.

We are encouraged that Rev1 requests the Secretary General to draw on existing mechanisms and resources in considering how to provide Secretariat support, But we think Rev1 could go further to make use of recent fifth committee agreements on efficiency, including the early notification of PBIS and encouraging the absorption of new mandates which within existing resources. We look forward to participating in the process as it nears its conclusion and hope we can agree to keep our ambition high at this critical juncture. Thank you.

I thank the Distinguished Deputy Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom. I give the floor now to Switzerland, to be followed by Algeria.

Distinguished Co Chairs Dear Colleagues, Switzerland welcomes the revised draft of the the resolution which strengthens the text while maintaining a healthy level of ambition. We also express our appreciation for the working methods chosen by the Co Chairs which have fostered informed, constructive and forward looking discussions. The revised draft incorporates several key suggestions made since the publication of the zero draft, including by our delegation. We particularly welcome the strengthened emphasis on on the regular evaluation of mandates, as well as the clearer distinction between implementation review, mandate review and mandate retirement, as well as the importance of reviewing mandates across the life cycle. The text better reflects that reviews must focus on outcomes and impact rather than process alone and that all mandates must be adequately resourced.

Switzerland strongly supports the operational paragraphs regarding enhanced and and impartial Secretariat support to Member States and the reference to existing entities such as the Joint Inspection Unit, to which one might add others such as the SDG System Wide Evaluation Office. We also appreciate that the role, mandate and timeline of the new Working Group on Mandate reform are now clearer. It is indeed important that this resolution leads by example when creating and tasking new working groups. Rev 1 provides a solid basis for our continued work. Certain issues remain the section on Principles has become quite extensive and we may wish to assess whether all elements are required.

We regret that the ambition to provide the Secretary General with greater flexibility in managing resources is no longer explicitly reflected. As a multilingual country, Switzerland strongly supports the new operative path paragraph on multilingualism. Our shared commitment to multilingualism must be reflected not only in our resolutions but also in our practice such as interpretation of meetings, including the one today. In conclusion, Co Chairs, we are convinced that we have a solid basis for an actionable and ambitious outcome by the end of this month and we wish to reiterate our full support in getting there under your leadership and your pen. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished Deputy Permanent Representative of Switzerland. I give the floor now to Algeria, followed by the United states.

Thank you, Mr. Co Chair. I thank the Co Facilitators for their dedicated efforts in preparing Rev1 Algeria aligns itself with the statement delivered by Uruguay on behalf of the group of 77 and China as well as with a statement delivered by Syria on behalf of the Arab Group. Allow me to highlight the following points in my national capacity.

The Rev.1 represents clear progress. It is noticeable the will of the CO facilitator to reflect careful consideration of delegations concerns and to strike a careful balance between ambition and practicality. We particularly welcome the reaffirmation that decisions on mandates remain the exclusive prerogative of Member States. We also appreciate the recognition of the diversity of mandates across the UN system and the strengthening language ensuring that no pillar is disadvantaged. For Africa, where mandates often address interconnected development and peace building challenges, this balance is essential.

Also, the clearer framework for mandate review, including objective criteria and safeguard, particularly the exclusion of charter based and norm setting mandates from automatic review add important legal clarity and stability.

From an African perspective, we would offer the two following reflections. First, while efficiency and cost effectiveness are legitimate objectives, impact should be understood in a multidimensional manner. Many mandates relevant to Africa, especially in development, capacity building and conflict prevention, generate long term structural benefits that cannot be measured solely through short term quantitative initiatives. In addition, any enhanced role of the Secretariat in identifying duplicative or inactive mandates must remain strictly technical and advisory. Final determination must rest with Member States.

In conclusion, Algeria remains committed to engaging constructively for a consensual outcome of this important process. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Algeria. I give the floor now to the distinguished Permanent Representative of the United States.

Thank you. Thank you. Co Chairs. Thank you, Brian and Carolyn for your very hard work on this important initiative. I wanted to come and address this body today to let you know that the United States welcomes this revised resolution.

It's a strong and balanced framework. It will strengthen how we create, implement and review mandates across the United nations system. And it reflects extensive engagement, I think, as we're all seeing here today, by Member States and a shared recognition that effectiveness depends not on the number of mandates, not on the volume of mandates that we adopt, but on ensuring that they are clear and that they're coherent and they have impact. We support strongly the resolution's core principles of continuous improvement, evidence based decision making, cost effectiveness and delivering measurable results. And I underline and underscore that we need to see results for the people that the United nations serves.

We also welcome the reaffirmation that mandates remain the prerogative of Member States, supported by a professional and impartial Secretariat analysis. We believe that the tools outlined in this Resolution can help ensure that mandates remain living instruments, that they do not become ossified over time, that they respond to evolving realities. We all know that the world is changing quite rapidly, and we need tools to make sure that the mandates can evolve with it, rather than just accumulating over time without a re look, without reassessment. We attach particular importance to the provisions on collective reviews of mandates along those lines. And these reviews include across governing bodies.

Too often, duplication arises across different organs and entities. I say again, duplication arises across different organs and entities. Each of these, we believe, are acting with good intentions, but yet often produce overlapping requests. They produce duplicative reporting burdens. And the result is we have very fragmented and often less than effective implementation.

This resolution recognizes the need for greater coordination across the entirety of the UN system. Collective reviews can identify where consolidation is possible, where synergies can be captured, and which entity is best placed to lead based on comparative advantage. Such reviews are not about reducing needs or reducing ambition. They are about increasing the effectiveness that was often intended behind the mandate. So by streamlining and clarifying leadership, we can free up resources that are increasingly scarce for delivery on the ground.

And that's what we're looking for, colleagues. We're looking for delivering results on the ground rather than unnecessarily feeding bureaucracy and bureaucratic overlap. So once we free up those resources by streamlining the mandates and by having periodic reviews, we can strengthen the coherence of the United nations system as a whole. And I want to address that head on. The United States is looking to strengthen the United nations system, and in doing so, make it more effective for the people that we all serve.

So, Co Chairs, we believe that the real test of this resolution will not be whether we agree on a text. It will be whether we have the political will to apply the principles that we just outlined, to exercise discipline and mandate creation, to align resources with our priorities, and to make difficult decisions when mandates are duplicative, when they are outdated, when they are no longer delivering results. Implementation, not adoption, will determine success, we believe, and I applaud you for providing a resolution that provides a political roadmap. If, if we apply it faithfully, with discipline, with transparency, with coordination across institutional boundaries, we can strengthen the effectiveness, the credibility, and the impact of the United Nations. We can make the United nations great again.

The US Stands ready to work with everyone here, with all delegations, to ensure that this effort delivers real improvements for how we serve member states and the great people that we represent. Thank you, Co Chairs. I thank you again for the hard work on this. We believe that this hard work will make the UN stronger and more sustainable over time and that sustainability piece is absolutely critical. From our perspective, as we go back to the American people, as we go back to the Congress that represents them from a funding perspective, we can look them in the eye and saying their dollars are being well spent.

Thank you Co Chairs.

I thank the distinguished Permanent Representative of the United States. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Zimbabwe, followed by Zambia and then Japan.

Thank you Co Chairs. Thank you for convening this congress consultations on Rev1 of the drought Resolution My delegation aligns itself with the statement delivered on behalf of the G77 in China and offers the following remarks in a national capacity. Zimbabwe approaches this process from a perspective of a country coming from a region that depends on a strong, responsive and development oriented United Nations. Mandate reform must ultimately be measured by whether it improves delivery and produces tangible results for our people. We welcome the reaffirmation of the Charter and the recognition that mandate decisions remain the exclusive prerogative of Member States.

Intergovernmental oversight is essential to legitimacy and accountability. We also underscore the need for balance across the three pillars with development recognized as an enabler of sustainable peace and to that end we call for the strengthening of operative paragraph 1e. Clarity and discipline in mandate creation are important. Concise concept notes and clearer implementation roadmaps will enhance transparency. However, new documentation requirements should not burden small delegations.

Secretariat support and capacity building must accompany such measures. Zimbabwe supports the establishment of a comprehensive mandate registry and the use of interoperable digital tools to reduce duplication and strengthen coherence. At the same time, digitization, including references to artificial intelligence, must be accompanied by safeguards, equitable access and technical assistance for developing countries. On mandate implementation, we welcome the focus on results and impact. We support stronger results based management and user friendly reporting.

Predictable and timely financing remains indispensable to effective delivery. Periodic and evidence based reviews are appropriate, but development oriented mandates, particularly those benefiting least developed countries and landlocked developing countries, must be treated with sensitivity. Biennialization may reduce overload, but at the same time we must guard against reducing political attention to issues that require sustained visibility. Streamlining efforts should be strategic and not mechanical. In conclusion, Co Chairs, my delegation is of the view that we are making good progress and remains committed to constructive engagement to ensure that mandate reform strengthens effectiveness, accountability and development delivery.

I thank you. I thank the distinguished Permanent Representative of Zimbabwe. I give the floor now to the distinguished Representative of Zambia followed by Japan and then Rwanda

Excellencies Co Chairs I have the honor to deliver this statement in my national capacity at this consultative meeting of the Informal Ad Hoc Working Group on Mandate Creation, Implementation and Review for an efficient and effective United nations Under Work Stream 2 of the UN80 initiative. Zambia aligns with a statement delivered by the group of 77 and China. My delegation would like to make the following remarks in our national capacity Co Chairs My delegation commends you for their dedication in advancing the mandate implementation review under the UN8 initiative initiative and for the inclusive consultations that have informed Rev1 of the draft resolution that was circulated on 23 February.

The draft resolution highlights key principles for Member States. It recognizes that UN mandates and governance structures differ and that decisions on mandate lies with Member States States Excellencies Zambia underscores this principle which is the sovereign authority of Member States should guide the stages of the mandate life cycle. As we strengthen coherence and efficiency across the UN system, we must equally safeguard established procedures and the integrity of intergovernmental bodies. My delegation acknowledges that reform cannot be approached through a one size fits all lens. Accordingly, mandates should be addressed on a case by case basis due to their uniqueness and the different institutional settings in which they operate.

My delegation supports practical measures that enhance clarity, transparency and information flow and we will come the emphasis on the outcomes and the impact rather than activities alone. My delegation supports the functionality of the mandate registry and use of digital tools to strengthen decision making across the mandate life cycle. We acknowledge from Member States for the Secretary General to remain responsible, responsive to requests from Member States and to provide them with ongoing guidance and training so that they can make full and effective use of the digital tools. Zambia supports clear and objective criteria for review mandates while upholding each organ's mandates, procedures and sensitivities of each situation. My delegation support the use of existing mechanisms such as the Joint Inspection Unit to ensure a practical and responsible review process regarding the future institutional arrangements.

My delegation takes note of the proposal for the work of the informal Ad Hoc Working Group on the mandate review on the mandate Sorry Mandate Implementation review to transition to a Working Group on the mandate reform. We will continue consultations with a group of 77 and China as we consider the scope of modalities for this next phase. Excellencies Zambia remains committed to ongoing constructively towards a balanced and forward looking outcome, one that strengthens mandate delivery, enhances system wide coherence and transparency and preserves the intergovernmental nature of the United Nations. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished Representative of Zambia, I give the floor now to Japan, followed by Rwanda and then Sri Lanka.

Thank you, Co Chairs. Japan generally supports Rev1 as it reflects a balanced approach and makes a genuine effort to incorporate the views of Member States. We therefore look forward to continuing constructive engagement reach agreement by the end of this month. That said, Japan's comments on Rev1 remains largely the same as those we made on the Zero Draft, but some of these points do not appear to have been fully reflected. First, regarding paragraph nine, Japan believes it's essential that any new mandate with budgetary implications should be considered in light of possible reprioritization of existing and similar or duplicative mandate.

Such consideration should take place at the mandate creation phase rather than at the implementation phase. For this reason, paragraph 9, or at least a paragraph to the same effect, should be placed under the section on mandate creation. Second, with respect to the paragraph 20 and paragraph 34C Roman 5, which tasks the Working Group with developing objective criteria, Japan considers this is neither practical nor necessary. Expecting a Member States to agree on such criteria would highly hinder the Working Group's ability to carry out its primary responsibility, namely reviewing the existing stock of mandates and taking decisions under paragraph 21. Given the inherently political nature of mandates, consensus on objective criteria would be extremely difficult.

We instead believe it would be sufficient for the Secretariat, which has a comprehensive overview of all mandates, to present technical criteria that SIG would apply in identifying inactive, duplicative or fully implemented mandate as part of his regular reviews under paragraph. We strongly support this review function. Member States, for their part, should focus on the substantive review and decision making process outlined in paragraph 21. Furthermore, with regard to paragraph 22, the meaning of modalities remain unclear. This lack of clarity should not become obstacle to the implementation of the priority task under paragraph 21.

We therefore believe that further clarification is necessary to that end. Finally, we express our gratitude to the Co Chairs for their dedication and tireless efforts. Japan remains committed to engaging constructively in the discussion. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Japan.

I give the floor now to the distinguished representative of Rwanda, followed by Sri Lanka and then Argentina.

Thank you, Co Chairs. Rwanda appreciates your continued readership in advancing this mandate centered process. We align ourselves with the statement delivered by Uruguay on behalf of the G77 and China and wish to offer the following remarks in our national capacity. Cochairs Rwanda strongly believe that the process on mandatory review is as important as the outcome we reaffirmed the decision concerning mandates remain the exclusive prerogative of Member States. We welcome the recognition of diversity of mandates, membership and governance structures as reflected in the paragraph 1b as well as the emphasis on paragraph 1e on maintaining the balance across the nature across the pillars, the three pillars of the United Nations.

We also appreciate the commitments in paragraph 1L and paragraph 9 regarding the need to ensure that mandates are adequately resourced for effective implementation. In this regard, Rwanda wishes to provide three comments. First, as discussions progress on mandatory review and potential retirement, including the provisions reflected in paragraphs 20 to 23, we underscore as that efforts aimed at improving efficiency and rationalizing mandates should be carefully calibrated and implemented on a case by case basis, taking full account of the diverse nature and context of mandates. Standardized or one size fits all approach should be avoided in that regard. Second, regarding the proposals on adjusting periodicity of resolutions and reporting as referenced in paragraph 26, Rwanda notes that any review of frequency should be undertaken within the respective intergovernmental bodies.

Reduced frequency may have implications for political visibility and implementation momentum, particularly in areas where sustained attention remains necessary. Third, while enhanced coordination clustering of mandates as reflected in paragraphs 16 may generate efficiency, it is important to recognize that many mandates operate in complementary and mature reinforcing ways across sectors. Therefore, efficiency gains should be balanced with consideration to impact and respect for distinct governance structures. Co Chairs Rwanda views this initiative as an evolving and iterative process. Any institutional follow up, including the continuation of the Working Group as reflected in paragraph 34, should preserve its intergovernmental characters, avoiding the creation of a new administrative structure and minimizing additional budgetary implications.

In closing, Rwanda recalls expectations pressed on the organization to be matched by our shared responsibility to provide it with predictable and adequate support necessary given the short time ahead. Rwanda calls for flexibility and constructive engagement and we refer more ledness to work to towards a balanced and consensus based outcome. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Rwanda. I give the floor now to Sri Lanka, followed by Argentina and Albania.

Thank you. Co Chairs, we commend your efforts in preparing the revised Zero draft and your leadership in this process. Sri Lanka aligns itself with the statement delivered by Uruguay on behalf of the group of 77 and China and wishes to make these additional points in our national capacity on mandate review. My delegation wishes to emphasize the following points. First, the inclusion of mandate implementation review clauses in all new mandates and review of existing mandates with a view to the eventual closure of mandates where appropriate is essential.

In this regard, we wish to state the following firstly, focusing solely on renewables risks, overlooking the broader universe of existing mandates, existing Mandates extend beyond those currently under renewal and may include long standing or ongoing mandates not immediately scheduled for review. Secondly, the automatic renewal of budgets for existing mandates constitutes a barrier to optimization and risks, bypassing Member States prerogative to review implementation and assess outcomes and effective implementation. Therefore, each mandate should be reviewed on its own merits. Ensuring that continuation is justified as preventing the perpetuation of mandates without a clear foundation is essential to maximize the effective use of UN resources and to enable Member States to make informed decisions. My delegation is also of the view that if subsequent developments have replaced or substantially altered the initial rationale, the continuation of a mandate until its completion or expiration should not be the sole criterion for determining its closure.

It is necessary to determine the necessity to also rationalize if there has been material change in the circumstances that led to the rationale of submitting a resolution. We are of the view that a regular review of mandates by the Secretary General is welcomed. There should also be provision enabling Member States to request reviews in order to remain responsive to their needs and priorities, thereby ensuring timely and targeted oversight while reaffirming that the final decision on mandates are the exclusive prerogative of Member States. From this perspective, the following points are of note in mandate creation. Sri Lanka welcomes the prescription of the necessity of a concise concept note with the rationale PBIS and the implementation needs.

In addition to this, we feel that it is also necessary to include time bound and achievable targets where result based outcomes are envisaged in advance of the commencement of negotiations in order to maximize the effective utilization of limited human and financial resources of the institution. Resolutions should, as far as possible be results based and outcome oriented. Secondly, further, it is essential that prior to tabling Resolutions, an assessment should be undertaken with the support of the Secretariat to ensure that the proposed resolution does not duplicate existing processes or activities within the same or other United nations entities. This step is necessary to avoid strains on collective resources to pursue identical objectives. We believe these approaches will strengthen the overall coherence and impact of the mandates under consideration and therefore encourage Member States to take these points into account in the next phase of this process.

My delegation thanks the Co Chairs for their efforts and look forward to engaging constructively and submitting detailed written inputs on the revised text in due course. I thank you.

I thank the Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka and I now give the floor to the representative of Argentina to be followed by Ethiopia and then Saudi Arabia.

Thank you very much. Good morning distinguished Co Chairs. We appreciate the Rev1 version of the Truffle solution. We note a genuine effort to seek common ground and reach shared understandings. We will make general comments while specific points of interest to our delegations remain under review.

Firstly, we note in a positive way that the Rev1 version seeks to create a better balance between the one size fits all approach which prevailed in the zero Draft, with a more differentiated approach that recognize the functional, political and legal diversity of mandates and intergovernmental bodies of the United nations system. The addition of paragraph 25 is key in this regard and we support its inclusion. Nevertheless, we believe there is still room to improve the wording of some paragraph which remain too broad and could lead to ambiguities in the future. In particular, we are assessing paragraph 1, E1, H1, J5, 12, 16, 20 and 25. As we have stated previously, the review and eventual retirement of mandates is an exercise that requires prudence and it must be clear in advance what and how things will be discussed.

We suggest focusing our efforts on aspects where there is evidence of duplication and overlaps of agendas which also duplicate budgetary expenditures. With regard to paragraph 34 on the continuity of the Working Group, we would like to make the following general comments. If the Working Group continues, we believe it should remain in its current format, I.e. an informal adult working group with a limited period of time and without duplicating existing processes such as the revitalization of the working methods of the General assembly and its committees. At this stage, we believe the focus should remain on implementation review without changing its nature to mandate reform as currently proposed.

This substantive change has not been thoroughly discussed and any clarification on this matter would be welcome. Nevertheless, the Rev1 version provides greater clarity regarding the objectives and scope of the future Working Group which we consider positive and we encourage further refinement of the tax in this regard as we will need to assess whether the assigned tax are appropriate and whether their scope is realistic and not duplicative. In the short term, we believe that a step by step approach with a clear and predictable objectives and frameworks and with sufficient political guarantees will allow the Working Group to move forward confidently, building trust and achieving concrete results. In closing, we hope this draft resolution will bring a positive change in our collective culture of work, moving us toward a more efficient, effective and action oriented UN system. I thank you,

I thank the representative of Argentina and I now give the floor to the representative of Ethiopia to be followed by Mozambique and Indonesia.

Thank you. Co chairs. My delegation comments your tremendous effort in incorporating the wide range of views on the revised resolution. Ethiopia aligns itself with a statement delivered by Uruguay on behalf of G77 and China and by Nepal on behalf of LEDC. We would like to make few remarks in our national capacity.

We acknowledge that the revised resolution has addressed most of our concerns. However, few paragraphs of require further requirement. We have noted that paragraph 2 of the revised resolution treats both mandates and activities required for delivery of mandates as one and the same thing and places obligatory requirements on proponents. Requirements such as indicative financial implications, implementation lead and timeline entail tasks that are beyond capacity of smaller delegations. This could constrain them from exercising their legislative authority of tabling resolution and creating mandates.

Moreover, the requirement of indicated financial requirement implication has a risk of converting discussion on mandate into budgetary negotiation. In view of this, we believe that the Secretariat should continue to review draft resolutions and provide relevant information on mandated activities, including financial implications, as and when requested by Member States. Dear Co Chairs, My delegation recognizes the importance of mandate implementation review to address the issue of duplicative efforts ensuring effective and efficient mandate delivery across all three pillars of the work of the United Nations. However, the process of improving mandate life cycle should not be an excuse to retreat from our collective commitment to implement the Sustainable Development Goals and various programs of action that we collectively endorsed. I would like to conclude by reiterating my delegation full support to your effort in guiding this process.

We remain committed to working constructively with all delegations toward a successful and consensus based outcome. I thank you,

I thank the representative of Ethiopia and I now give the floor to Mozambique to be followed by Indonesia, then Iceland.

Madam Chair and Co Chairs, we commend you and your teams for the considerable effort invested in preparing the revised draft and for process that is a true display of multilateralism in action.

As we hit the one year mark of the launching of the UN80 initiative, we remain committed to concluding this exercise within the timeline set by the ga, and we also take note of the intention of the PGA to convene and take action on this on the 31st of March.

The revised Shwalger Vallas Draft Resolution, as we call it, represents a tremendous progress, particularly in clarifying the mandate life cycle, reinforcing balance across the three pillars, and distinguishing mandate implementation review from stock review. There is a lot that Mozambique backs in this text. At the same time, though, the text has expanded considerably and presents several significant deltas compared to the zero draft. From the outset, Mozambique has favored an outcome that provides a concise direction in discipline without adding new procedural layers. Last October, when the Secretary General met the African group, he pleaded with us to keep our contributions to this reform focused, proportionate and reasonable, so that the outcome remains one we can all live with, rather than an accumulation of 193 narrow national perspectives.

That guidance remains highly relevant at this stage. In that spirit, we should use the precious few weeks left to focus on the operative provisions that will deliver measurable improvements. Three areas merit careful calibration, namely the expanded articulation of the broader mandate stock review modalities, the more detailed framing of Secretariat support functions, and the references to potential structural transformation of this group from an adult working group to a more permanent platform. They introduced new operational and political dimension that must be taken into account. Finally, Co Chairs A word on tools we welcome the Secretariat's progress in strengthening the Mandate Registry over time, though, and as feasible, it should evolve beyond a repository of mandate sources towards a more practical decision support platform, including through implementation tracking features.

Ultimately, mandates remain the prerogative of Member States. The Secretariat implements what we negotiate as the final text is foundational to how mandates will be created, implemented and reviewed across the UN system. And because stakes include transparency, budget implications, mandate discipline and how existing mandates are treated, Mozambique remains committed to a balanced, disciplined and implementable outcome.

I thank you, I thank the representative of Mozambique and I now give the floor to the representative of Indonesia, to be followed by Iceland and the Philippines.

Distinguished Co Chairs Indonesia aligns ourselves with the statement of the G77 and China by Uruguay and wishes to add following points in our national capacity.

Indonesia expresses our appreciation to your leadership and commence your efforts to present the revised draft which reflects the complex task of reconciling diverse perspectives. Indonesia will come key advancements in the revised text among others, we appreciate the recognition that the diverse nature of mandates reflects the unique governance structures across the UN system. We continue to support the provision that proponents of mandate shall provide a concise concept note and welcome the elements that should be included. We welcome paragraph 15, which tasks the Secretary General to identify candidates for combining reports or adjusting their periodicity, as a vital step toward streamlining and avoiding duplication. We also welcome specific emphasis on how results mechanisms across the UN system need to be measured and communicated, as reflected in paragraph 18.

CO chairs further, we wish to offer the following observations to improve clarity of the text on paragraph 1H, we suggest incorporating a caveat such as appropriate as we are of the view that the scope of approaches remains broad if applied as a new standard on paragraph 1i, enhanced feasibility and transparency should not only be framed to ensure coherence and to avoid duplication, but also be linked to ensure that mandates are effectively implemented. We also wish to use this opportunity to seek further clarification on some elements on paragraph 12. We seek clarification on the modalities of the process, specifically whether the action will become the outcome of this ad hoc working group or will fall under the Working group later on paragraph 30. Will the proposed digital tools be eventually centralized or will existing entity specific systems continue to fit into the newly developed tools? Finally, regarding the next steps, Indonesia would like to request a clearer indicative timeline for the Working Group in addition to the time bound element.

This will help us to ensure the feasibility of the proposal. To conclude, Indonesia remains ready to engage constructively to finalize this important initiative. Thank you.

I thank the representative of Indonesia and I now give the floor to the representative of Iceland, to be followed by Philippines and South Africa.

Thank you Madam Co Chair.

First, allow me to join others in thanking the Co Chairs for the energetic, inclusive and imaginative conduct of this process, including the very fruitful workshops Iceland aligns with the statement by Singapore on behalf of foss. It is Iceland's view that while the mandate process must always be Member State led, an engaged, skilled and proactive secretariat is essential to our success if we as Member States are to fulfill our ambitions. This is well reflected in the new draft, which Eisen believes is an improvement in precision and practicality. The level of ambition reflected in the text remains high. In terms of final goals, we fully support the concept behind the Principles section and the additions made in the new draft to that section.

The new chapter on next steps is also an important innovation and reflects the concern of many of us for implementation. Follow up the Working Group on Mandate Reform, which would begin work on 15th of April, would craft the tools for implementing the principles and guidelines agreed in this resolution. The list of tasks allotted to the new Working Group is extensive and some will be complex. Iceland believes it is important to identify those tasks which will allow for the earliest implementation possible of key elements of this resolution. For example, item 34C Roman 2 on developing tools such as concept note templates and mandate models, etc.

Should ideally be in place to be useful for the coming GA81. There is a risk that transferring important implementation steps to a new group with a longer time frame will delay implementation of important elements. Of course, it is not possible to do everything at the same time and important criteria need consideration. However, we should give careful consideration to what might be possible to bring forward rather than kick down the road with a view to early implementation of key elements. In this context, let me recall Under Secretary General Guy Ryder urgent call at our last meeting.

He said, let us seize this unique opportunity to forge a better future for the U.N. not in six months or 12 months, but now. Thank you very much. I thank the distinguished Deputy Permanent Representative of Iceland and I now give the floor to the Philippines to be followed by South Africa and Saudi Arabia. Thank you very much. Co chair s the outset we would like to thank you for your tireless efforts in steering the Ad Hoc Working Group and for the revised draft resolution.

We align with the statement of the G77 and China delivered by Uruguay and have the following comments in our national capacity, we appreciate that the co facilitators took into account some of our delegations, comments and inputs to the zero draft. We are supportive of the title and preambler section on OP1. Rather than agree or decide that the principles in the text be applied across the United nations system, it may be more appropriate to call upon the entities and specialized agencies of the UN system to align their efforts with the principles in the text. Following the language of OP3 in 79, 318, we strongly support OP1B and C. On 1D we'd like to inquire which stakeholders are being referred to in the text and suggest that indispensable be replaced with important we appreciate the insertion at the end of one E that no pillar should be disadvantaged, and this addresses our initial concern regarding the term balance, which in some instances could be subjectively interpreted on 1J and K. We suggest replacing shall with are encouraged to recognizing the sovereign prerogative of Member States when it comes to mandate creation and review in OP2 on the concept note. We would like to inquire if this would apply to existing mandates when they're up for renewal.

There could be disagreements on expected impacts or the lack thereof of different mandates, even the most urgent ones, so we would therefore wish to seek some clarification on the term mandate landscape and note that there are quite a lot of elements being asked for in the concept of note which could be a burden for smaller delegations and run counter to the need for a concise concept note in OP5. It may be difficult for all Member States to commit in a priori manner or in a blanket manner of streamlining preambular paragraphs, roadmaps and retirement clauses, as this may run counter to, let's say, the diverse nature of mandates and situations that require them reflected in op 1B and C. As we have noted before, mandates are often the result of complicated or prolonged negotiations which sometimes require the language to be a bit open to, let's say, different views. To facilitate agreement. In OP8, we would like to suggest adding in a timely manner after user oriented.

In OP9, we believe it would be useful for the Co Chairs to provide examples of reprioritizing existing, similar or duplicative activities moving forward. As the the Working Group looks at further discussing the text on OP12, it may also be useful to reflect if all mandates would require review clauses and clear objectives, timelines, indicators and criteria, as some resolutions are more, let's say thematic and highlight issues in a political manner and are not necessarily strictly operational, technical or procedural, and also for such resolutions, impacts are sometimes very difficult to measure. On OP16, we'd also like to request for further clarification on the collective mandate implementation reviews and how they would be expanded across intergovernmental organs. On OP20, we think that the development of criteria may not always be applicable to all mandates, as Member States should in general agree on adaptation, merger, replacement or retirement of mandates on a case by case basis and to avoid a one size fits all approach. On OP21, while we believe that the GA does have the remit to review mandates under its various Committees, this would take quite a long time and it may also take up a lot of the limited resources that the Organization's already faced with.

Regarding Ops 23 and 27, we believe these are mainly the remit of Member States, but of course the Secretary General could submit recommendations and perhaps that could be spelled out more clearly in the text. On OP30, we would like to also request for more information on the suggested Secretariat support structure. We note the briefings that have taken place, but it would be also useful to know the resource allocation, if any, that would be required to set up such a structure. And then on OP 34, we hope that the suggested templates not be seen as mandatory and as we still believe that Member States should have the freedom and flexibility to propose language attuned to certain contexts and situations in intergovernmental negotiations. In conclusion, Co Chairs, thank you very much and we believe that the Working Group is a focal point for reforming the working culture of the Organization of how and what we adopt, and we do see merit in its continuation as a repository and advocate for good practice, efficiency and improvement, while at the same time safeguarding the right, the sovereign right of Member States to put forward initiatives and mandates they see fit to advance the purposes and principles of the un.

Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Philippines and I now give the floor to South Africa, to be followed by some Saudi Arabia and then Albania.

Thank you, Co Chairs Excellencies. South Africa aligns itself with the statement delivered by Uruguay on behalf of the G77 and China. South Africa would like to make the following comments in our national capacity, the purpose of mandates across the United nations system is to advance the core objectives of the UN Charter and to ensure concrete implementation and delivery at grassroots level. Mandate implementation review fully contributes to the overall goal of the UN80 initiative in a more agile, integrated and effective United nations system. However, we should not detract from the very essence of the United nations serving the most popular vulnerable countries and regions with efficient mandate delivery that speaks to the needs of the Global South.

It is therefore crucial that Member States exclusively decide mandates supported by the Secretary General and the Secretariat. In this regard, decisions to be taken on the creation, renewal and retirement of mandates should remain the exclusive prerogative of Member States. This approach should be applied to the various intergovernmental bodies in order to keep the process all inclusive and fully participatory. However, the timely payment of assessed contributions of all Member States is vital since without the necessary financial resources, effective implementation of mandates will merely remain a desired outcome. Co Chairs South Africa supports the reviewing of the frequency with which resolutions and decisions need to be considered across the United nations system for the purpose of taking a more strategic approach to their periodicity based on their nature and purpose.

However, at the same time, we should not be too prescriptive or have a generic approach to biennializing and tri annualising resolutions, but rather examine them on a case by case basis depending on their context and circumstances. The call for all intergovernmental organs across the United nations system to take a consistent approach to mandate creation, implementation and review by applying the principles and actions detailed in this resolution is of paramount importance. Mandate standardization and harmonization is fundamental to the end goal of work stream 2. However, this should still allow for a degree of flexibility for mandating bodies to make their inputs into these processes within the context of implementing this resolution. In conclusion, South Africa will continue to support the work of the Informal ADOC Working Group with the intention of moving towards the adoption of this important resolution in the General Assembly.

In this regard, we call for a consensus based outcome with the important contributions of the Global south being taken on board. Thank you.

I thank the representative of South Africa and I now give the floor to the distinguished Permanent Representative of Saudi Arabia, to be followed by Albania.

Dear Coaches, my delegations thanks you for your continued leadership and constructive way you have guided consultations to reach RIV one of this important resolution. We appreciate the efforts invested in refining the text. We reaffirmed our readiness to engage in a spirit of cooperation with you and with all Member States. Co Chairs we attach great importance to this initiative. In this vein, we welcome the clear reaffirmation of the Charter and the emphasis on Member States from prerogatives as set out in paragraph one.

We view Rev 1 positively and acknowledge the improvements introduced particularly in the Principal section mandate review and on the next steps of the Working Group. We also welcome the proposed strengthening of the UN Mandate Registry and the development of practices, practical tools and templates to support delegations. These measures, if implemented in a transparent and inclusive manner, can significantly enhance coherence and reduce duplication. At the same time, we believe certain elements would benefit from further clarification. With regard to paragraph 20 and 24C5, which foresees the development of measurable, clear and objective criteria to guide decisions on the renewal, adaptation, merger, replacement or retirement of mandates, we underline that the diversity of political sensitivity of mandates require a cautious and case by case approach.

There can be no one size fits all. With respect to paragraph 25, we take note of the proposed inclusion of certain categories of mandates from review. While we understand the rationale of safeguarding core functions, further clarity would be useful on who and how these categories will be defined in practice and how consistency in interpreting in interpretation will be ensured. In conclusion, we believe RIV1 represent a meaningful step towards a more coherent and effective mandate system. With further refinement, this resolution can make a substantive contribution to strengthening the organization.

Coaches My delegation remains fully committed to engaging constructively in the forthcoming discussions and looks forward to working with all partners to further improve the text. I thank you.

I thank the Permanent Representative of Saudi Arabia and I now give the floor to Albania to be followed by Kenya.

Thank you Co Chair I would like to thank you both Co Chairs for your continued efforts to advance this important process in an open, transparent and inclusive manner. We aligned ourselves with the statements delivered by the European Union and the Forum of Small States and I wish to offer a few remarks in our national capacity.

We welcome several improvements reflected in the revised Draft. In particular, we appreciate the clearer emphasis on on enhancing implementation rather than revisiting existing mandates, which helps maintaining the intergovernmental balance agreed by Member States. We also welcome the strength of focus on system wide coherence, including efforts to address overlap and duplication across entities and reporting frameworks. Furthermore, we see added value in the Draft's recognition of the need for evidence based assessment of mandate delivery, greater transparency in identifying implementation gaps and practical measures aimed at improving efficiency and resource utilization, including through streamlined reporting and better coordination across the UN system. We also welcome the inclusion of language underscoring that the review process should be conducted in a Member State driven manner, supported by technical expertise from the Secretariat while preserving intergovernmental oversight.

At the same time, we believe further clarity would be beneficial regarding the methodology and criteria that will guide the identification of mandates under review, as predictability and objectivity will be essential to ensure confidence and broad ownership of the process. In our view, the mandate implementation review should ultimately contribute to a more coherent, accountable and results oriented United nations, one capable of delivering tangible impact on the ground while making the best possible use of existing resources. We remain committed to engaging constructively as discussions move forward. You can count on Albania support. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished Permanent Representative of Albania and I now give the floor to the Representative of Kenya. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Co Chairs. Kenya aligns itself with the statement delivered on behalf of the group of 77 and China by distinguished representative of Uruguay and wishes to offer a few suggestions in our national capacity. We thank the Co Chairs for their contributions, continued engagement and for the presentation of the revised Draft before us. Kenya approaches this process in a constructive spirit guided by our shared objective of strengthening mandate delivery, enhancing transparency and promoting a more coherent and effective United nations system.

We welcome the clear affirmation that the decisions on mandates remain the exclusive prerogative of Member States. As we continue refining this Draft, it is essential that any improvement to the mandate life cycle fully preserve the sovereignty authority of Member States and respect the distinct governance structures and established procedures of all intergovernmental bodies. Co Chairs concerning the proposed continuation of this process through establishment of our Working Group on Mandate reform as outlined in paragraph 34 of the revised draft, Kenya wishes to reflect further on the necessity of creating a new Intergovernmental Working Group in its current form. While we recognize the importance of maintaining momentum in improving mandates, several of the identified tasks appear primarily technical in nature. We therefore invite reflection on whether such a technical work could instead be undertaken by Secretariat experts within existing structures with outputs submitted for consideration and guidance of the Member States.

In the same vein, Kenya also encourages consideration of whether certain elements of of the proposed terms of reference could be addressed within the respective competent intergovernmental bodies and committees consistent with their mandates and established working methods. Such an approach could help avoid duplication, preserve institutional coherence and ensure that reform efforts remain streamlined, cost effective and firmly anchored in exchange existing mechanisms. I thank you.

I thank the representative of Kenya and I'm now going to give the floor to the Representative of Egypt. Egypt will be the last speaker for this morning's session.

We have about 10 other member states asking for the floor, so we will resume after lunch for I guess what will take about half an hour, and then we will give you some initial simple responses to the some of the questions or the clarifications you've asked of us as well at the end of hearing from Member States. So Egypt, go ahead. The floor is yours.

Thank you very much. Co Facilitators, I would like first to thank you for your efforts throughout the first round of consultations and for drafting the revised version of the draft resolution.

Our remarks and observations on this draft remain preliminary at this stage, pending a more thorough review and consultations with capital and within our groups. First, we believe the revised text remains a lengthy document that could benefit from further shortening and streamlining in the text. We agree to draft shorter and more focused mandates. We could lead by example if we were to adopt a short, focused resolution out of this process. Second, we thank the co facilitators for including some of the points that we've made during the workshops and through the written submissions, as well as some of the inputs by the G77 in China.

We believe these inclusions strengthened the text and made it more inclusive. For the sake of brevity, I will only focus today on where we believe further work could be done. While we remain first, while we remain skeptical of the practicality of the concept notes that are requested to be submitted along with new mandates, we see some value in their submission. Yet we are still not convinced that they should be a mandatory requirement, and we believe the text needs to be less prescriptive as to the contents of these concept notes. In particular, we cannot include any indicative financial implications.

This would turn negotiations over mandates into a budget negotiation focused solely on the cost of a mandate rather than its actual value and impact. Second, on mandate review, we believe that requiring review clauses in all newly created mandates is a one size fits all approach which would not necessarily work well. Rather, we believe that whether review clauses are included or not included in a mandate should remain up to the negotiations by Member States on a case by case basis, depending on the merit of such clauses and the specific context of each mandate. Similarly, on reviewing current mandates, especially dedicated process would risk politicizing reviews and forcing the revision or termination of certain mandates over others. Rather, we believe these mandates should be reviewed on a case by case basis during the natural process of negotiating the renewal or extension within the intergovernmental bodies that established these mandates on the future of this Working group.

We're still not convinced that this Working Group's mandate needs to be further extended beyond the adoption of this resolution, nor does it need to be formally established as a standing working group. Additional tasks, if any, can be taken up by the Working Group on GA revitalization or which can be adapted to accommodate these new tasks. Establishing new bodies is the antithesis of what we are trying to achieve in this process. Lastly, on moving forward with this text, we request the co facilitators to move us to texture negotiations in an inclusive setting, rather than continuing to work in isolated silos in the manner which we've been doing so far. Thank you.

I thank the representative of Egypt. The session of today's consultations are adjourned. We'll see you at three o'. Clock. Thank you.