Ad hoc Working Group on Mandate Implementation Review - Informal Consultations, General Assembly, 81st session

Thank you. Good morning, good morning, friends and colleagues. I invite you to take your seats so that we can begin. I call to order the meeting of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Mandate Implementation Review. Excellencies, distinguished delegates, friends and colleagues, Let me start by warmly welcoming you. It feels like a long time since we have been together, and we haven’t really met since July, which is a long time for this working group. My co-chair is regrettably out of town and is unable to join us today, and she’s asked me to convey her apologies and to offer her best wishes for a productive meeting. Now, we are very, very conscious that we are meeting in the midst of committee season, so I'm very grateful that you're taking the time to be here with us, and we will try to make this, as usual, as efficient as possible. But although we haven't really gathered in this format for a while, our engagement with the membership has been ongoing. We have been actively engaging with delegations, including the main committees and their leadership, on the implementation of resolution 80/251. The committee is itself an important part of that implementation, as delegations consider the mandates, reporting requirements, and review provisions in the resolutions before them. Today gives us an opportunity to take stock together. to hear your reflections on the developments since July, and consider how we can support the next stage of our work. Since our last meeting, we circulated the Co-Chair’s draft report on criteria and modalities on 14 August, together with the Mandate Implementation Review checklist and an indicative timeline. On 22 October, the Secretariat’s note on possible review mechanisms and implementation models for clustered and collective mandate implementation reviews was also circulated. These are important contributions to work stream 2 of the UNAT initiative. The task now is to make its provisions useful, that is, the provisions of resolution 8251, useful in the day-to-day work of Member States, including by equipping delegations to examine how mandates are being implemented and what would help them deliver their intended results. Our report offers guidance for that examination, centered on agreed principles, together with flexible approaches that can be adapted to different mandates and bodies. The Secretariat’s note helps us consider how such approaches might work in practice. Taken together, they provide a basis for a more concrete discussion of the choices before us. We will hear shortly from the Secretariat on the note, as well as on the digital tools being further developed to support our work. Let me briefly recall the purpose of the co-chair's draft report. It reflects what we have heard from delegations and offers practical guidance to support Member States and inform our work in the coming months. The criteria and modalities are not prescriptive requirements, nor are they automatic triggers for changing or retiring mandates. Today, we are inviting your reflections on their usefulness and application, rather than seeking agreement on every formulation in the report. We expect to continue refining them through our discussions and experience with implementation, including potential pilots, to further help us understand where mandate implementation needs to be strengthened, including where inadequate resources are part of the difficulty. Decisions on mandates remain the exclusive prerogative of Member States in accordance with resolution 82/51 and the authority of the bodies concerned. On pilots and on the next phase of our work, I would particularly welcome your reflections today on the pilot program proposed in our report. The pilots offer an opportunity to test the criteria and modalities in a limited area of work and see what they can contribute to our consideration of mandates. Practical experience will help us understand which approaches are useful, where they need refinement, and what Member States what support Member States require to apply them. An exercise might, for example, examine related reporting requirements to assess whether they could better serve delegations’ needs, or consider a small group of mandates together to better understand their contribution to a shared objective. The subject and approach would be developed with interested Member States and the relevant bodies, taking account of their particular circumstances. We are conscious that the main committees are already well into their work, and that dedicating time and attention to a pilot during this period would be challenging. Smaller delegations that may wish to participate must have a meaningful opportunity to do so. The scope, working arrangements, and timing of any exercise will therefore need careful consideration, informed by your feedback and the support available. Today's discussion can help us lay that groundwork. We would welcome ideas on where a pilot could be useful, the questions it might examine, and the practical obstacles we would need to address. An initial idea or expression of interest need not be accompanied by a fully developed proposal at this stage. We as co-chairs will be pleased to explore these possibilities with delegations. There will naturally be questions about the evidence required, participation, workload, and how findings would be considered. Some of these can only be answered as specific proposals take shape. At this stage, your reflections can help us identify what would make an exercise both manageable and worthwhile. Let me be clear: The pilots will not prejudge the future of any mandate. Any proposals arising from them would remain for consideration and decision by the full membership of the competent intergovernmental body. Their value to this working group would be the experience they generate and the lessons we can draw for the wider application of the criteria and modalities. We envisage convening our final meeting for this year in late November or early December. I'm going to ask you to pencil in the 30th of November into your calendars, but we will confirm that. This will provide an opportunity to hear delegations' reflections on implementation during the main committee season, to receive further updates from the Secretariat, and to take stock of preparations for the pilots. Those exchanges will help inform the next phase of our work and help us to determine how to carry it forward best. I'm going to now invite the Secretariat to prepare to present on the digital tools being developed to support our work. I think we have with us Ayaka Suzuki, who is joining us remotely. Ayaka, you have the floor.

Great. Thank you very much, Ambassador Wallace. So during the last ad hoc working group meeting in July, I briefed members of this working group about an update on several requests contained in resolution 80/251, namely improvements in reporting in accordance with paragraphs 8 and 16 of the resolution and on our plans for digital tools and data analytics to support the mandate implementation review. So for today, I would like to highlight two progress areas. First, yes, of course, I will get to the digital tools, but since this is the first time there is a meeting of the working group since we submitted a note just recently, we wanted to just quickly give you an update on that as well. So this was done in response to paragraph 18 of the resolution. There was a note that was submitted last week, I believe, on possible review mechanisms to inform the working group and to help advance the planned pilot exercise, which Ambassador Wallace just spoke to. So secondly, after that, we would like to speak a little bit about the enhanced version of the UN Mandate Registry, which delivers on our commitment to connect information on mandates their implementation, their resources, and results so that you can review mandates and their impact more easily. Resolution 80/251 requested information on possible mechanisms for collective mandate implementation reviews and clustered mandate implementation reviews. For the purpose of responding to this request, We're using the following working definitions of clusters and collective reviews. A clustered review brings together mandates based on shared common characteristics, such as a theme, function, programmatic area, or implementation modality. And a collective review refers to the review conducted across intergovernmental organs, including subsidiary organs. while respecting the authority and decision-making prerogative of each organ. In response to the request, we reviewed existing practices across intergovernmental organs and identified some good practices from the General Assembly, C-34, ECOSOC, UN Environment Assembly, as well as from regional economic commissions. The summary of these practices is detailed in Annex A and B of the note, so that the upcoming exercises could be informed by the past lessons learned and best practices. Also, in the note, we sought to describe a range of possible and practical approaches to clustering mandates and undertaking collective reviews. We highlighted some key factors that member states may wish to consider when you design a review exercise or pilot reviews. The point here is that we aimed at presenting information for your consideration to support flexibility rather than suggest a single approach to mandate implementation reviews, in line with the guidance provided by the report that the co-chairs have provided, as was mentioned by Ambassador Wallace just now. Now, the types of collective review mechanisms are quite straightforward. The note outlines three illustrative approaches. First is the committee-led review, or single body-led review. So that would be an intergovernmental body reviews. So that would be a process by which an intergovernmental body that reviews mandates within its own area of competence. This remains the principal and most common review mechanism as defined in the co-chair's draft, co-chair's report in August. The second would be the coordinated multi-organ review. So this is two or more intergovernmental bodies reviewing related mandates with a coordinated approach, while retaining their independent decision-making authority. And third, parent organ review. Here, a parent organ reviews implementation across multiple subsidiary bodies. Multi-organ, parent organ reviews may be particularly useful to assess coherence and coordination across a broader institutional architecture. In terms of clustered mechanisms, we have identified five ways of clustering mandates, namely by themes, program, functions, reporting, and periodicity, as presented in the table on the screen. These options should help design a review process that is adapted to different mandates, mandate clusters, and institutional context, which may lend themselves to different cluster review mechanisms, collective review mechanisms, or combination of both. For instance, thematic clustering may help assess relevance, coherence, and impact across mandates contributing to the same objective, while other approaches may contribute to identifying opportunities for reinforcing complementarity, alignment, or efficiency. To have credible review processes and pilot exercise, the note also provides key factors for designing a review process, supporting arrangements, and potential evidence basis in its chapters three, four, and five for your consideration. So now, turning to the update on the digital tools for broader mandate implementation review. As you recall, in my briefing in July, we presented our plans to digitally connect four key aspects of mandate implementation lifecycle: information on mandates; information on their implementation through UN programs; data on resources in these programs; and information on what results are being achieved. We're making progress in operationalizing the digital tools needed to support it. The new version of the mandate registry, which was launched on 12 October, delivers much of this vision. While we continue to work on its improvement, The Mandate Registry, and as a reminder, you can get there by mandates@un.org, now puts everything delegates need to understand, review, negotiate, and oversee mandates at their fingertips in one place. For each mandate, you could see its evolution over time. Have the resolutions gotten longer, shorter? Are they different? Are they similar? You can see which UN entities are working on it, what resources they have, either regular or extra-budgetary, and you can see all reports on mandate implementation in one view. What's truly new and different is that you can see both the mandate and the resources clearly linked together on a single platform. As part of this enhancement, We also added a new focal point directory, which you can click, and it provides direct access to experts across the UN system who can support delegates with mandate-related questions, as requested in resolution 80/251. We have joined co-chairs briefings to the main committees and undertook a technical briefing to the experts on these tools yesterday, which was very well attended. And the recording of the technical briefing will be made available to all of you shortly. Let me now present some screenshots to showcase these new features. So for example, once you click a resolution on disaster risk reduction, this is just as an example, illustrative purpose, you will see the list of resolutions adopted on the same topic over time. including, you could see the length, how it's gotten longer over time. You see the entities which are working on this mandate, parts of this mandate, the reports, and the full text. Furthermore, by clicking this compare button, you will immediately see what has changed from the previous resolution. This could not be done so easily before, but rather you would have to do it manually or really painstakingly go line by line. So I hope you can see that on the screen. And as I mentioned earlier, you can find the list of focal points by clicking this tab at the corner. And here, you can search focal points by keywords as well. I think it's a very useful feature. In the coming months, we will continue to support the work of this ad hoc working group. We will work on launching the remaining tools, such as open.un.org, I mean, it already exists, but enhanced version of it, results.un.org, which aims at providing additional transparency in the area of resourcing and impact. We will also actively follow up internally within the Secretariat to fully implement the new reporting guidance and continue to support the implementation of the Working Group guidance note on the concept note and other matters transmitted in the letter dated 29th of May. Lastly, to make our secretariat support more effective, your feedback is very welcome on these tools, as well as on what data you need to make mandate implementation review a success. We therefore look forward to hearing from you, and thank you, and thank you to the co-chairs for this opportunity to updating you on our work. Over to you, Mr. Co-chair.

Thank you very much, Ayako. Thanks for taking the time to join us from your location. Colleagues, we have been working very closely with the Secretariat in the development of these tools, and I have to say that we are very, very pleased with the collaboration, the level of dedication, interest, and innovation that we have seen from the Secretariat. I'm now going to open the floor for your reflections on the co-chair's draft report, the Secretariat's note, and the implementation work that is underway. We would also welcome any early experience from the committees that could help inform the working group's next steps. On the pilots, I invite you to consider where a limited exercise could be useful, what question it should seek to answer, and what would enable delegations to participate. We would be equally interested to hear what difficulties you foresee, so that we can take them into account from the outset. With that, the floor is open. And I give the floor, first of all, to the distinguished Permanent Representative of Uruguay on behalf of G77 and China.

I thank you, Mr. President, also for the report today, presented today. I have the honor to deliver this statement on behalf of the Group of 77 and China. The group thanks the co-chairs for their continued leadership and takes note of their draft report on criteria and modalities and the Secretariat's note on possible review mechanisms. We offer the following preliminary observations without prejudging our position on the proposed framework. The group reiterates that mandate texts are political instruments agreed upon by member states. All reviews must remain fully member state-led, with decisions taken by the competent intergovernmental bodies. Mandates should be reviewed primarily by the bodies that originated them, respecting their working methods and decision-making arrangements. This does not preclude coordinated or cross-cutting assessments that may help Member States identify opportunities to improve coherence, reduce duplication, and strengthen implementation across the system. The working group should facilitate coordination and lessons learned without duplicating existing reform processes or displacing those bodies' authority. We welcome the draft report's recognition that mandates remain valid until fully implemented, expired in accordance with the terms of the resolutions that establish them, or otherwise change or retire by member states. We also appreciate its distinction between complementarity and functional duplication. It's recognition of the consequences of inadequate resourcing and it's reaffirmation that the proposed criteria and checklist serve only as qualitative guidance and should not trigger the automatic adjustment or retirement of mandates. The core criteria of relevance, impact, and coherence could provide useful guidance if applied flexibly, transparently, and consistently, ensuring an objective, impartial, and balanced approach. As reflected in the agreed principles set out in paragraph 1B of resolution 80/251, there can be no one-size-fits-all approach. Assessments must respect the diverse nature and context of each mandate, take into account its objectives, substantive implications, and resource requirements. The relevance of a mandate should not be determined solely by its age, and weak mandate implementation attributable to under-resourcing may point to the need for strengthened implementation. The development pillar must maintain its priority under UN80, with a focus on enhancing support to developing countries. Whenever possible, efficiency gains should be redeployed to development activities in program countries. Reviews should strengthen impact on the ground while preserving balance across the three pillars. The Secretary's distinction between clustered and collective reviews usefully clarifies the available options. Thematic reporting and periodicity clusters may offer practical opportunities, provided individual mandates remain traceable and substantive coverage and access to information are preserved. Coordinated reviews across bodies must respect each body's authority. Program-based clustering must not allow budgetary structures or resource constraints to determine substantive priorities. The group would welcome further details on the proposed pilots, including their selection, scope, participation, evidence requirements, resource implications, and reporting arrangements. Participation should be inclusive, and pilots should provide opportunities to test methodologies, identify practical improvements, and draw lessons to inform the incremental refinement and wider application of the review framework, subject to consideration by Member States. Finally, we would appreciate an updated timeline clarifying how the pilots, refinement of criteria, and consideration of the Secretary-General's advice under paragraph 16, 18, and 24 will interact. Adequate time must be provided for consultations. The proposed framework remains guidance under consideration, and its application should not anticipate agreement by member states. The group stands ready to engage constructively to strengthen mandate implementation, maintain momentum in implementing resolution 80/251, and advance the priorities of developing countries. I thank you, Mr. President.

I thank the distinguished Permanent Representative of Uruguay on behalf of G77 and China. I now give the floor to the European Union.

Thank you, distinguished co-chair, and dear colleagues. I have the honor to speak on behalf of the European Union and its member states. The European Union would like to thank you, dear co-chair, for convening this meeting. It has been a while indeed. It's good to have everybody back. and for your continued efforts to advance the work of this ad hoc working group. And we also thank the Secretariat for the comprehensive and useful note and just the presentation by Ayaka on the possible review mechanisms and implementation models for clustered and collective mandate implementation review. We welcome the work undertaken so far, including the co-chair's report on criteria and modalities, which provides a useful and balanced framework for taking forward the implementation of General Assembly resolution 80/251. We'd like to make three points. First, on the overall approach. We believe that it is important to maintain a clear focus on the ultimate objective of this exercise. improving the effectiveness, coherence and impact of UN mandates, and ultimately ensuring better delivery on the ground. The ambition of the Mandate Implementation Review must be to ensure that the UN system is focused on the objectives where Member States expect it to deliver. And in this regard, the criteria of relevance, impact and coherence provide a useful basis for assessing not only whether mandates are being implemented, but also whether they are collectively contributing to the intended results. At the same time, applying these criteria consistently will require a shared understanding of how they are measured, and we would welcome further guidance, informed by the pilots and with support of the Secretariat, on the evidence needed to assess relevance, impact, and coherence, and on how to distinguish functional duplication from complementarity. Second, on the review mechanisms, we see considerable value in exploring collective and clustered approaches, particularly where mandates contribute to shared objectives across different parts of the UN system. The Secretary’s note offers useful examples of how different approaches could be combined, including thematic clustering, coordinated multi-organ reviews, and common evidence frameworks. We would encourage us to make full use of this flexibility. And in particular, we should look beyond institutional and committee boundaries, where this can provide a more comprehensive understanding of how mandates interact, where complementarities exist, and where implementation could be made more effective. And third, on the pilot program, we believe this offers a particularly important opportunity to translate our discussions into practical experience. This should be a collaborative and comprehensive exercise, bringing together Member States across different regions and working across all three pillars of the United Nations. We would therefore encourage the co-chairs to consider a cross-cutting, cross-regional approach, whereby different UN missions work together on the pilots, drawing on expertise and perspectives from across the membership and across the pillars. We see merit in ensuring that the pilots are not developed as separate, siloed exercises, but rather as part of a coordinated effort, with opportunities to identify linkages and lessons across thematic areas. Individual pilots could retain a manageable thematic scope while contributing to a broader and more comprehensive assessment of mandate implementation across the UN system. Such an approach would also allow us to test how different review modalities can work in practice, including how mandates originating in different bodies can be examined collectively, how evidence and analysis can be shared, and how complementarities and potential overlaps can be better identified while safeguarding essential functions. Importantly, we would like to see Member States from different regions actively working together on these exercises, and this would help foster collective ownership, build confidence in the process, and ensure that the lessons learned are relevant across the membership. We believe that the pilot should be practical and help us understand where the UN makes a difference and where improvements are needed. Their findings should inform possible mandate rationalization efforts and feed into the further refinement and codification of the criteria and modalities, as well as their broad replication. We hope that this pilot phase can start as soon as possible around a first limited set of thematic priorities, and we will support the co-chair's proposal and leadership in this regard. Also, as the pilots are envisaged for the main part of this session, we would welcome an update from the co-chairs on the next steps. An early launch would allow their findings to inform our consideration of the Secretary-General’s report on inactive, duplicative, and fully implemented mandates, as requested in paragraph 24 of our resolution 82/51, which is expected by the end of December. And finally, Mr. Co-Chair, we would underline the importance of maintaining momentum in the implementation of resolution 8025/1 during the current committee season. The use of concept notes, review clauses, and more systematic consideration of existing mandates should become an integral part of our working methods. And to this end, we would encourage the co-chairs to continue the work you're doing in listening closely with the chairs liaising closely with the Chairs and the bureaus of the main committees to gather clear data on how resolution 80/251 has been applied during this session. For example, how many resolution processes started with a concept note? Or how many resolutions included a review clause? Sharing this overview in the working group would give us a factual basis for assessing progress and identifying where further support is needed. Dear co-chair, colleagues, the EU stands ready to engage constructively also in this next phase of the work, including in the development and implementation of the pilot exercises. And I thank you.

I thank the European Union. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of China, to be followed by the United States.

Thank you for convening today's meeting. China aligns itself with the statement delivered by Uruguay on behalf of G77, China. China supports the UN's efforts to renew itself and keep pace with the times, and support member states in steadily advancing mandated implementation review in accordance with General Assembly resolution 80/251. We also thank the co-chairs and the Secretariat for their work. We have carefully studied the draft report on review criteria and modalities. We appreciate that the draft reflects rather comprehensively the views and suggestions of Member States. In particular, the emphasis on such crucial principles as member states' leadership, no one-size-fits-all, balance across three pillars, distinguishing complementarity from duplication, and respect for existing structures. These principles should be strictly observed throughout the process. We also thank the Secretariat for preparing the note on possible mechanisms for clustering and a collective review, which takes stock of relevant practices and experience. We note that the draft report proposes three criteria: relevance, impact, and coherence, which could provide some reference for Member States' discussions and decision-making. At the same time, recognize that mandates vary greatly in their nature and context, and may involve multiple complex factors. Member States may also hold different views on the specific connotations of certain criteria and whether a given mandate meets the criteria. We reiterate that review should always serve the goal of enhancing mandate implementation and the UN's capacity to deliver. It should take a case-by-case approach, uphold the principles of transparency, inclusiveness, and consensus, and respond to the concerns and needs of member states, especially developing countries. The review process should be action-oriented and results-driven, avoiding formalism and bureaucracy that may further increase the burden on member states. We also note the co-chairs' proposal on pilot reviews and would appreciate more information on the details of the proposal and how such pilot projects would operate. We are of the view that any possible pilot should be conducted at the ad hoc working group level and led directly by co-chairs. In determining the subject, theme, and scope of the pilots, The co-chairs should, in accordance with resolution 80/251, consult fully with member states and strive for consensus. Pilots should be open to all member states, ensure transparency, inclusiveness, and equitable geographical representation, and give particular consideration to the views of the proponents of the mandates concerned. The process should also avoid duplication or conflict with existing review processes of the main committees. Co-chairs, resolution AT/251 sets a clear timetable for the ad hoc working group. We hope the working group will take an efficient and pragmatic approach, focus on common ground, and develop a principled guiding framework for the reference and adaptation by the GA main committees and subsidiary bodies in light of their actual circumstances. We hope the Secretariat will uphold objectivity and neutrality, and on the basis of sufficient evidence, put forward analysis and recommendations to provide a sound basis for Member States' discussions and decision-making. We stand ready to continue working closely with all parties to support the Ad Hoc Working Group in completing its tasks on schedule, on schedule, and delivering concrete results. and to help the mandate implementation review move forward steadily in the right direction. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of China. I give the floor now to the United States, who will be followed by New Zealand on behalf of CANS.

Thank you. Thank you, Ambassador Walls. In particular, thank you for your leadership, and I know the Ambassador of Norway, your co-chair, is not here today, but appreciation to her as well. I think the report that you’ve given us captures the broad agreement that we collectively have built over the past several months. We also thank the Secretariat for its note on possible review mechanisms, which gives us practical, concrete options for putting this framework to work. When this process began, we said every mandate should face one simple test: Is it delivering the results we expect? And is it still needed? The criteria before us now give us that test structure. Relevance, impact, and coherence are the right measures. We especially welcome the focus on outcomes and impact rather than activities and outputs. A mandate doesn't succeed because it produces meetings and reports. It succeeds because it results in positive changes on the ground. We commend the Secretariat for its work to digitize mandates and related information. The strengthened mandate registry dashboards and mapping tools give member states a common evidence base and a clear view of the full mandate landscape. Tools like these help us find overlaps, track implementation, and decide based on data rather than on habit. We encourage the Secretariat to keep building them with strong human oversight. We're already seeing real momentum for change. Across the main committees and other bodies, delegations are consolidating resolutions, adjusting how often items come up, and streamlining meetings. Each of these steps lightens the load on delegations so that we can focus our time and expertise where they matter most. These changes show that the system can reform itself when member states choose to act. But we can’t stop at how mandates are created. We must also review how they're implemented. We will approach the pilots this fall with ambition and as a demonstration of what we can collectively achieve. And here I just, I want to acknowledge and thank, and I hope I'm not putting them on the spot, but Sweden for the work that they’ve been doing to try and consolidate the many humanitarian resolutions that exist throughout the system, and I think there are other examples as well, many of which are highlighted in the report that we received from the Secretariat. When the Working Group turns to inactive, duplicative, and fully implemented mandates next year, we must all be ready to make hard choices. In the end, this is about impact. A leaner, more focused organization will be more effective, more credible, and more trusted by the people it is intended to serve. The United States stands ready to work with all delegations to make that happen. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the United States and now give the floor to the distinguished DPR of New Zealand.

Thank you, co-chair. I have the honour, as you mentioned, to speak on behalf of Canada, Australia, and my own delegation, New Zealand. CANZ thanks the co-chairs and the Secretariat for their very useful reports. These documents, we believe, provide a useful framework for the next phase of our work, which is advancing the mandate review pilots. Our message today is simple. The responsibility now lies with Member States to implement this framework through evidence-based reviews of existing mandates. As you've made clear, this is not a de facto reprioritization exercise. It's not about targeting mandates we like or that we don't like. Rather, it's about better aligning mandates with limited resources. And it's, above all, about strengthening mandates by ensuring clearer objectives and greater coherence, and by getting genuinely serious about advancing implementation and achieving impact. First of all, CAMS welcomes the criteria for reviewing mandates. The criteria outlined in the Co-Chairs' report reflects the broad convergence we believe was achieved amongst Member States. The core criteria of relevance, impact, and coherence, alongside the supporting considerations, provides a practical basis for considering the renewal, adaptation, merger, replacement, or retirement of mandates. Secondly, Member States have the modalities and tools now to conduct systematic evidence-based reviews. New Zealand supports the modalities set out in the co-chairs' report: committee-led reviews, thematic clustering, adjustments to periodicity, consolidation where appropriate, and sharing lessons learned through this working group. We also welcome the four-stage review cycle outlined in the Secretariat's note: selecting an appropriate review mechanism, assembling the evidence base, assessing mandates against the agreed criteria of relevance, impact, and coherence, and then determining appropriate follow-up through the competent existing intergovernmental processes. To support this cycle, the Secretariat's note provides a helpful overview of the evidence sources available to Member States. And we particularly welcome its emphasis on technical analysis, mandate mapping, registries, and digital tools to help identify linkages, duplication, reporting burdens, and opportunities for greater coherence across mandates. In this context, we welcome continued strengthening and socialization of the mandate registry, as we heard about earlier today, including the enhanced performance information. We encourage the Secretariat to continue providing this analytical support, which is vital for these reviews. The checklist in Annex 1 of the Co-Chairs' report complements these tools by helping Member States identify and collect relevant evidence and apply the agreed criteria consistently, while remaining flexible and non-prescriptive. Third, the priority now, we believe, is implementation. CANS welcomes the pilot programs as an opportunity to test approaches, to learn from experience, and to refine methodologies over time. Pilots should be experiments from which we can learn, not exercises that need to be perfect, nor should they delay implementation. As you have emphasized, co-chair, and as others have noted in their interventions, this is not about imposing solutions or predetermined outcomes on member states. These pilots cannot and should not attempt to make decisions on the mandates under review. Rather, their goal should be to prepare analysis and suggestions for consideration by the competent intergovernmental bodies. Member States should already be making full use of these tools developed under resolution 80/251. This includes review and retirement clauses, concept notes, more disciplined mandate creation, longer review cycles, and clearer, more concise, and implementable resolutions. As we move into action, we must ensure our reviews are balanced across the UN's three pillars. In pursuing greater coherence, we must also protect normative mandates. Finally, time is short. With this working group set to conclude in April 2027, We encourage timely delivery of the remaining Secretariat reports and early consideration of how this important work can be carried forward and how implementation can be encouraged, supported, and assisted, including through stronger linkages with General Assembly revitalization efforts. And if I may, co-chair, I'd like to just add a couple of comments in my national capacity as New Zealand. New Zealand recognizes the need to move forward with these pilots as a matter of urgency. We recognize that the co-chairs will want to move forward on the basis of a balanced package of pilots and involving a broad range of Member States. New Zealand, as has already been stated, sees this as an opportunity to strengthen mandate implementation and impact, particularly for resolutions which we regard as our highest priorities. But we need to get them right. We therefore would like to signal our willingness, as New Zealand, to play an active role in these pilots in whatever way you see fit, as leads or as active contributors, once the co-chairs determine the focus of these pilots and their approach in taking them forward. And we will encourage other delegations who feel similarly about this process to also approach the co-chairs to signal their willingness to do so. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished DPR of New Zealand. I now give the floor to the distinguished DPR of France, to be followed by the DPR of Croatia.

Thank you very much, co-chair and dear colleagues. First, France supports the intervention made on behalf of the EU and its member states, and would add the following remarks in its national capacity. Allow me first to thank both co-chairs. although Ambassador Barrelet is not here today, for guiding us methodically through the application of the General Assembly resolution 80/251 on mandate creation, implementation, and review over the past six months. Through this resolution adopted in March, an overwhelming majority of Member States expressed their desire for a new working method at the UN. One that makes better use of our resources, targeted on our political priorities, and based on a clear sense of our collective impact. France is glad to see that these collective commitments are bearing the first fruits, notably in committees, through a more systematic attention to the added value of new proposals and genuine efforts to rationalize working agendas. We'll come back to that, as we heard, so end of November, beginning of December. Under your guidance, and with the support of the Secretariat, we are now ready to move to the next phase of this work by reviewing mandate implementation in a comprehensive manner. The case is compelling. The mandates registry compiled by the Secretariat shows that over 43,000 documents establishing mandates are active, and over 2,700 of these documents are cited by UN entities to justify their activities and budget. This points to overlaps and duplication across mandates, which generate inefficiencies in the delivery of the organization's work and use of its resources. Their co-chairs put together your report and the Secretariat's note to provide us with a precise operational toolkit we needed to assess the UN's impact across the mandates identified, in full respect of Member States' prerogatives. This work is fundamental to understanding our efficiency and accounting back to our constituencies. It is fundamental for a strengthened UN over the decade to come. France therefore expresses full support for the work done so far and calls to initiate pilot reviews as soon as possible, taking technical and consensual topics as a starting point. There were a couple of very good examples already cited previously in the previous meetings. And we fully trust the co-chairs to initiate this work and stand ready to do our part with the Secretariat's support in providing all the necessary evidence for solid implementation reviews. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished DPR of France. I now give the floor to Croatia, to be followed by Timor-Leste.

Thank you. Thank you, co-chair, for convening this timely meeting.

We appreciate the Secretary General's note and the co-chair's report.

They are useful documents that we have studied with interest.

We align ourselves with the statement delivered by the European Union, and I would like to add four recommendations in my national capacity. First, the pilots should help us learn and let them test different approaches. Thematic reporting and periodicity clusters suit early testing. At least one pilot should use a program-based or functional cluster.

At least one should try a coordinated multi-organ review, with shared evidence but separate decisions by each body.

This will show us which approaches fit which review questions.

Second, we need a shared evidence base.

The Strengthened Mandate Registry should link mandates to outputs, outcomes, resources, and reporting cycles. And the Secretariat should support it with impartial mapping and analysis. And the Human Rights Council mapper shows us what is possible. Where artificial intelligence is used, human oversight must remain.

Third, each review should follow a clear cycle: frame the question, assemble the evidence, judge it against relevance, impact, and coherence, and decide through deliberations.

Weak implementation caused by under-resourcing calls for better resourcing or adjustment, and findings should reach the competent bodies as options. And fourth, we should start now in the committees of the 81st session. Let us move beyond automatic readoption by using concept notes, review clauses, and registry data. And let us also adopt a common vocabulary for implementation status, as the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations has done. Lessons learned should be shared in this working group. The more complex questions on inactive or duplicative mandates can be taken up from March 2027. I thank you, co-chair.

I thank the distinguished DPR of Croatia, the charge. I give the floor now to the distinguished PR of Timor-Leste.

Thank you, co-chair. We align our statement with Uruguay's statement on behalf of G77 and China. We thank you for your leadership and the Secretariat, including Ms. Ayako Suzuki, for her helpful briefing and analytical presentations that have informed today's discussion. We appreciate the continued efforts to develop practical, methodologies and innovations for mandate implementation reviews, including the proposed criteria of relevance, impact, and coherence, as well as the exploration of clustered and collective review approach. In our view, these criteria provide a useful framework for assessing mandates. At the same time, review should seek to understand why certain mandates might not have achieved their intended results. Challenges may arise from mandate design, resource limitations, evolving circumstances, or implementation constraints. Distinguishing among these factors is essential for the review process to generate meaningful, actionable outcomes. Co-chair, Timor-Leste also sees merit in the approaches outlined today regarding clustered and collective reviews. As the Secretariat's briefing highlights, such approaches may enhance coherence, identify synergies, and reduce unnecessary administrative burdens. However, their value should ultimately be assessed by their contribution to more effective implementation and delivery of mandates, while preserving the specific objectives entrusted by members. In this regard, we welcome the proposed four pilot exercises. These pilots can provide valuable evidence on how different methodologies work in practice, help identify implementation challenges, distinguish genuine duplication from complementary activities, and generate lessons to inform future reviews. Co-chair, dear friends, as this process moves forward, we believe it should clarify not only where mandates can be streamlined, but also where implementation needs strengthening. Both objectives are important and reinforce each other. Ultimately, we will measure the success of this exercise by whether it enhances the effectiveness, coherence, and impact of the United Nations, while maintaining the integrity of the mandate entrusted to it by member states. We look forward to continuing our constructive engagement as the working group advances its works towards the next phase of the mandate implementation review process. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished Permanent Representative of Timor-Leste. I now give the floor to Iran, followed by Egypt.

Thank you, Chair. Good morning. In the name of God, the most compassionate and most merciful, Islamic Republic of Iran aligns itself with the statement delivered by Uruguay on behalf of Group of 77 and China. We thank co-chairs for the draft report on criteria and modalities, and also thank the Secretariat on possible review mechanisms and on the briefing on mandate registry. We welcome efforts to enhance the effectiveness, coherence, and transparency of mandate implementation. However, the central question should not be how many mandates can be reduced, consolidated, or discontinued. but whether they continue to serve the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter and respond with greater quality and clarity to the pressing priorities and needs. All reviews must remain fully Member State-led and within the authority of the competent intergovernmental bodies. Mandates should be reviewed primarily by the bodies that originated them, respecting their respective mandates and working methods. Modifications to working methods that affect mandates or functions cannot be regarded as merely administrative. The criteria of relevance, impact, and coherence may provide useful guidance if applied objectively, taking into account each mandate's context, objectives, and resource requirements. A mandate's age alone should not justify its discontinuation, nor should inadequate resourcing be used to justify its retirement. The Secretariat's role must remain neutral and impartial, providing reliable evidence and timely comprehensive information to inform member states' deliberations. Efficiency gains should reinforce that rather than undermine multilateralism, institutional continuity, and accountability. At the root of the effective mandate implementation is the fulfillment of obligations by all member states. All member states must fulfill their obligations under the Charter and pay their assessed contributions in full, on time, and without conditions. Finally, we support inclusive and transparent trial exercises ensuring the full, equal, and unhindered participation of all member states. These exercises should have a clearly defined scope and reporting arrangements, with adequate time provided for consultations and consensus. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Iran. I give the floor now to the distinguished representative of Egypt, who will be followed by Mexico.

Thank you very much, co-chair, Excellency Ambassador Wallace. Egypt aligns itself fully with the statement by Uruguay on behalf of the group of G77 and China. We congratulate you, co-chair, and the other co-chair on their reappointment to lead the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Mandate Implementation Review. We are confident in your ability to advance further progress under this work stream based on strong consensus and sustainable understandings. We take note of your report circulated on 14 August, as well as the additional information shared by the Secretariat earlier this week. We appreciate the co-chair's keenness to engage with a number of the main committees of the UNGA at the inception of their work during UNGA 81. We welcome the progress made by the Secretariat on establishing and refining the Mandate Registry platform. Co-Chair, Egypt reaffirms the set of solid principles agreed under paragraph 1 of UNGA resolution 80/251. We appreciate that the summary in your report ensured highlighting the fundamental importance of the intergovernmental and state-led character, the sovereign discretion of Member States, the respective mandate and jurisdiction of each of the governing bodies, that no one-size-fits-all, the specificity of each mandate, and the balance between the three pillars of the United Nations. We equally appreciate that the co-chair wisely elected to refrain from presenting prescriptive ideas and proposals. Egypt is of the view that attaining further progress under this work stream would require a gradual and consensual approach that bases itself on evidence and data, thorough consultations with Member States, a limited scope and focused exercises within respective single bodies, and on the basis of mandates of substantive relevance and/or timeline of reporting requirements. We consider this approach valid for both renewal, adaptation, merger, replacement, or retirement of mandates, as well as for the review of existing stock of General Assembly mandates. Without prejudice to any existing or potential progress during the ongoing Main Committee season, Egypt sees that the proposal of pilot programs will be best served by an intersessional work to be led by the Bureau of some of the Main Committees. with a view of stimulating structured and specialized discussions within their jurisdiction, and solicit consensus with a view of recommending possible measures concerning reviewing the existing stock of mandates, and avail them to the consideration of the co-chairs of the ad hoc working group. This inclusive approach is consistent with the current experimental phase and corresponds to all the agreed principles. Co-Chair, we conclude with few questions. One, what is the current status of the expected relevant UNSG reports pursuant to AD/251? How would the interplay between these reports and the working group's discussions look like? Two, do you think it would be useful to host a series of informal presentations on hypothetical demos for each of the outlined approaches to clustered and collective implementation review, with a view of adding a layer of practical understanding to each? Three and last. What would be the procedure, criteria, and modality to identify the norm-setting of universal character, institution-creating or related ongoing political situations with implications for peace and security mandates, which were exempted pursuant to paragraph 25 from the reviews addressed by the UNGA resolution? I thank you, co-chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Egypt. I give the floor now to the distinguished representative of Mexico, who will be followed by the Bahamas.

Thank you, co-chair, and we extend our appreciation to the distinguished co-chairs for convening this meeting. Mexico expresses its appreciation on the efforts made by the ad hoc working group for a mandate implementation review. At a moment to reflect on the path towards this trending of resolution 80251, we face at this stage the challenge of continuing the legacy started within the UN80 initiative and shaping our quest for a true culture of efficiency, an opportunity for the organization to become more relevant than ever. Mexico considers that the working group deliverables underscore the importance of applying the great principles of achieving the goals for UN80. broadening the impact of the organization, strengthening its responsiveness and resilience, and fostering the culture of efficiency and non-duplication. The templates, the model clauses, the checklist for the review of the implementation of mandates, and now the Secretary General's note on the review mechanisms of implementation models for cluster and collective mandate implementation reviews are examples of guidelines and tools for the membership to keep up the momentum. Mexico also welcomes the clarification provided by the note of the Secretary General on the scope of the definition of mandates, as well as the delimitation of the elements in both the clustering and collective review. We would like to stress the key importance of the Secretariat's role in ensuring that concept notes are completed and that PBIs are shared with the membership in due time. Their feedback is most important for the design of effective mandates. Distinguished co-chair, without the support and implementation within subsidiary organs, these tools remain merely theorizing exercises. Therefore, Mexico appreciates the dialogues held between the working group co-chairs and each committee to report on the work carried out regarding work stream two. We are convinced that the key to success is good communication and a circular dialogue for mutual feedback within delegation. delegations, it remains our task to make sure that experts from the committees are familiar with these tools and work together towards a feasible implementation within their working methods. It remains essential to take advantage of the good practices already existing on clustered and collective mandate implementation reviews. and to complement them with the exchange of ideas from the dialogues that are taking place within each committee. These good practices can open the opportunity to refine the design of the pilot exercises and to further apply the methodology contained in the note of the Secretary General. As always, you can count on my delegation to remain a committed partner and in the upcoming steps towards the review for an efficient and effective organization. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Mexico. I give the floor now to the Bahamas, to be followed by Argentina.

Thank you, co-chair, for giving me the floor.

The Bahamas aligns itself with the statement delivered by the distinguished permanent representative of Uruguay on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, and we wish to offer a few additional observations in our national capacity. My delegation thanks the co-chairs for their continued leadership in this process and the Secretary for its note on the possible review mechanisms. Throughout this process, the Ombudsman has consistently supported efforts to strengthen mandate implementation. For us, an effective review must consider not only what a mandate seeks to achieve, but also whether the necessary resources have been provided and what constraints may have affected its implementation. Inadequate implementation should not, in itself, be regarded as grounds for discontinuing a mandate. We reiterate our support for strengthening the mandate source registry to improve transparency and access to information, particularly for small delegations covering multiple committees. We also emphasize the importance of identifying resource requirements at the outset and undertaking periodic evaluations through existing mechanisms, while avoiding additional reporting burdens. Decisions to amend or discontinue mandates must remain firmly within the authority of member states. As consideration is given to reviewing related mandates together, we caution against approaches that may obscure the particular circumstances and development priorities of small island developing states. Complementarity should not be mistaken for duplication. Finally, the proposed pilots should provide adequate opportunities for meaningful participation, particularly by smaller delegations. Sufficient information and consultation times will be essential to ensuring that the review process is inclusive and informed.

The Bahamas remains committed to working constructively with all delegations to strengthen

mandate implementation and ensure that the process delivers meaningful improvements for all member states, including small island developing states.

I thank you, Council.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas, and I now give the floor to Argentina, to be followed by Liechtenstein.

Thank you very much, Ambassador, and thank you for the draft document. on criteria and modalities circulated last August, as well as to the Secretariat for the report on models for possible review mechanism, as well as improvement of the digital tools. Regarding the draft document on criteria and modalities, we believe it is a well-balanced text, as it correctly incorporates the principle and guidelines established in Resolution 80/251. and many of the elements of the interventions made by Member States at several meetings. So we thank you again for the constructive approach. In particular, we highlight the principles that there is no one-size-fits-all approach and that mandates remain valid until they are fulfilled. We also note the importance of the full implementation of operative paragraph 25 of resolution 80/251, at all stages of the process related to the review of mandates. With regard to the decision-making criteria, we find the coherence criteria important, as it should allow for an objective identification of areas of duplication and complementarity. We also give importance to the impact criteria. as it will help us to promote a more action-oriented system and with tangible and concrete results. Regarding the relevance criteria, we believe it will require further analysis and conceptual clarity, given that several subjective aspects that could be considered regarding what is and what is not relevant, and how will be established what is relevant and what is not relevant. We support the idea that the relevance of a mandate should not be determined by its age, in the sense that a mandate remains relevant regardless of its age. This idea interacts directly with the principle that mandates remain valid until they are fulfilled, and this principle and interaction must be fully respected. Regarding potential review methods, clustering, or future pilots, we believe it's necessary to move towards a progressive or a step-by-step approach, identifying objective elements that could lead to clustering, such as reports or program budget impacts. Thematic clustering reviews are also interesting proposals. This would allow us to test technically sound methodologies and generate the necessary confidence before proceeding with a decision-making process. Collective reviews between bodies, on the other hand, should respect authority and powers of each body and not give rise to new structures or additional costs to the system. I thank you, Ambassador.

I thank the distinguished representative of Argentina. I give the floor now to the distinguished representative of Liechtenstein, who will be followed by India.

Distinguished co-chair, thank you for convening today's meeting and for the very useful note on possible review mechanisms and implementation models for clustered and collective mandate implementation reviews, an important step in the fulfillment of paragraph 24 of resolution 8251. Thank you also to Ayaka for your briefing this morning. Co-Chair, we can generally subscribe to many of the points already made by others in this room. The criteria of relevance, impact, and coherence is certainly the place to start. In this respect, we see two good ideas that maybe are to some degree in tension. Firstly, that each organ should assert its own ownership over the UNAT process by being able to review its own mandates. time, there should be the space for different bodies to review where there is overlap between their issue areas. This latter consideration may be something for which your mandate, Co-Chair, is particularly valuable, looking not only at the overlaps between mandate, but between the work of the different bodies in overseeing them. In general, this being said, please know that you have Liechtenstein's full support in moving forward with potential pilots. Co-chairs, given that we are now well into the committee season and given the comments you made at the end of your briefing this morning, we wanted to make a quick observation on the implementation of 80-251 across the various mandates that are created at this time of year. We share the concern of some that the ideas put forward in this body have not yet been effectively mainstreamed across all processes and across all committees. Concept notes, review clauses, and standalone resolutions have not yet become the default options for those putting forward mandates. We know, co-chairs, this is certainly not for lack of trying. We really appreciate your efforts to reach all the main committees and to work with the committee chairs and bureau and encourage further steps in this direction. One clear distinction and something I think we would like to talk about further at the next meeting It's an understanding across missions of when and how mandates begin. We see a follow-up resolution as creating a new overlapping mandate rather than revitalizing an old one, otherwise, the new text would not be necessary. We look forward to speaking further with you. and with other delegations in this format as we go forward, including in the meeting that you propose at the end of November.

I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Liechtenstein. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of India, who will be followed by Japan.

Mr. Chair, we thank both the co-chairs for their draft report on the criteria and modalities for the mandate implementation review. We also recognize the Secretariat's efforts throughout this process, including the note on possible review mechanisms. India aligns with the statement delivered by Uruguay on behalf of the Group of 77 and wishes to offer five additional points in our national capacity. First, General Assembly resolution 80/251 calls for developing clear, objective criteria and modalities to review existing stock of mandates and guide decisions on their renewal, adaptation, merger, or retirement. Any review mechanism should be anchored in evidence and data to ensure informed decision-making on mandate’s future. Perpetuating mandate despite evidence to the contrary would undermine the UNHCR’s objective to enhance UN’s efficiency and effectiveness. Second, scope. The exclusion contained in paragraph 5 of your report must be confined to charter mandates and those of universal normative character. No other category should enjoy exceptionalism from the review mechanism. UN structures and mandate landscape must reflect contemporary realities to ensure effective response to current and future challenges. The mandate review process must therefore extend to other principal organs, including the Security Council. Third, relevance and impact must remain the core criteria for decision on renewal, adaptation, or retirement of mandates. Decision on mandates should also make additional considerations. In this regard, mandates original design and cumulative resource expenditure can facilitate an objective assessment of relevance and impact. Mandates that continue to receive resources for decades without producing any tangible impact on the ground should be reviewed and accordingly retired. Fourth, review criteria should also include reaffirmation of the host government's consent on the mandate future. Continuing programmatic activities without host government consent erodes the legitimacy and credibility of the United Nations, and therefore should be avoided. Finally, we welcome Secretary’s information note on possible mechanism for cluster and collective reviews, and look forward to receive additional information on the proposed pilot program, including thematic areas, membership, decision-making modalities, and next step on those pilots. Mr. Chair, India reaffirms its commitment to remain engaged constructively in this process. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of India. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Japan, who will be followed by Malaysia.

Thank you, co-chair. I would like to begin my statement by expressing our deep appreciation to the co-chairs for their dedicated contributions to the August report on Mandate Implementation Review on Criteria and Modalities. In order to focus more on implementing critical mandates while taking into account the limited resources of the United Nations, it is vital to avoid the duplication of mandates and aim to consolidate or discontinue them. In this regard, Japan can possibly consider the core criteria such as relevance, impact, and coherence highlighted in the co-chair's report. With a view to avoiding duplication, Japan stresses the importance of clarifying how these criteria will be applied to multiple mandates. Japan welcomes the implementation models provided by the Secretariat for clustered and collective mandate implementation reviews. Additionally, Japan welcomes the update of the mandate registry, which covers over 40,000 resolutions and decisions. This update and enable member states to easily identify the implementing entities of each mandate and compare mandate language with previous versions. We also highly value the mandatory registry website presented at yesterday's and today's online briefing, which contributes to enhancing the efficiency of member states in various ways, including by linking resolutions with budget allocations. For further discussion on the criteria, it is essential for the Secretariat, which possesses a comprehensive overview of the mandates, to provide technical assistance, including through the mandate registry. Looking ahead to future discussions, we would like to request the Secretariat to provide specific information on the posts and budget allocations associated with each mandate. This will enable member states to grasp the implementation status of these mandates and determine the necessity of their consolidation, termination, or renewal. Co-chairs, the upcoming pilot program will serve as a valuable opportunity to test how the criteria in the co-chairs' report and the secretariat's clustering review methodology can be applied to actual mandates. Japan remains committed to continuing its active engagement in this process.

I thank you, co-chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Japan. I give the floor now to the distinguished representative of Malaysia, who will be followed by the Republic of Korea.

Thank you, distinguished co-chair. Malaysia aligns itself with the statement delivered by Uruguay on behalf of the Group of 77 and China. We thank the co-chairs for their continued leadership and the secretariat for its comprehensive note on possible review mechanisms and implementation models. Malaysia welcomes the progress achieved thus far in developing the criteria and modalities pursuant to General Assembly resolution 80/251. We believe that the framework presented provides a useful foundation in advancing our work. Allow me to highlight three points in my national capacity. First, Malaysia welcomes the identification of relevance, impact, and coherence as the three core criteria for mandate review. We believe these criteria provide a useful basis for assessing not only whether mandates continue to serve their intended purposes, but also how their implementation could be further strengthened. In applying these criteria, it would be helpful to consider the underlying factors affecting implementation. including resource availability, institutional arrangements, and operational challenges. Such an approach would enable member states to identify practical improvements to advance implementation. Second, on the proposed review mechanisms, Malaysia appreciates the Secretariat's clarification of the distinction between clustered and collective reviews, as well as the various models outlined in its note. We see merit in exploring thematic clustering and the consolidation of reporting requirements particularly where these could improve coherence and reduce unnecessary administrative burdens. Nevertheless, we caution against approaches that could inadvertently dilute the substantive objectives of individual mandates. Any proposed consolidation must preserve the original intent of mandates, their substantive coverage, and the ability of Member States to exercise effective oversight. 3rd, on the proposed pilot exercises, Malaysia welcomes this proposal as an opportunity to translate the criteria and modalities into practice. In this regard, we suggest that the pilots could focus on a limited number of clearly defined objectives with measurable outcomes. For example, one pilot could examine opportunities to streamline reporting requirements, while another could explore how thematic clustering might improve coordination and coherence among related mandates. This would allow the working group to compare the practical benefits and challenges of different approaches. We further suggest that each pilot be accompanied by a brief assessment of its outcomes. including the administrative effort involved, the quality and usefulness of information generated, and any improvements identified in mandate implementation. This would allow the working group to assess which methodologies are most effective, identify practical challenges, and progressively refine the framework based on actual experience. Distinguished co-chair, Malaysia remains committed to engaging constructively to develop a practical, flexible, and member-state-driven framework that strengthens the organization's ability to deliver on our collective priorities. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Malaysia. I give the floor now to the distinguished representative of the Republic of Korea, who will be followed by the Russian Federation.

Thank you, co-chair. At the outset, I would like to thank the co-chairs for preparing the draft report on criteria and modalities for mandate implementation review circulated on 14 August. We fully support the principles reaffirmed in the report. We hope that the criteria checklist and the guidance provided will serve as useful tools as we move forward in streamlining and improving our mandates. The 81st session of the General Assembly is already underway, and the Republic of Korea is actively working to put into practice what we collectively agreed upon in resolution 80/251. Let me share a few concrete examples. In the First Committee, we intend to move our resolution on artificial intelligence in the military domain to biennial cycle. We believe this will allow more time for substantive discussions and follow-up activities whose outcomes can feed into future resolutions. Regarding the resolution on the modalities for the Fourth United Nations Ocean Conference, we are working to incorporate a mandate implementation review clause while continuing to explore ways to streamline mandates. We also intend to circulate a concept note for this resolution. We are working closely with the Secretariat to obtain the necessary inputs, including on the potential financial implications. We recognize that both member states and the Secretariat are now in a period of cultural transition, moving away from established practices and adapting to new ways of working. There will inevitably be some trial and error along the way. We therefore hope that the experience gained during the 81st session will help us further refine the criteria and the modalities outlined in the co-chair's report, making them more practical and effective. The Republic of Korea will continue to engage constructively in the final mandate review exercise, as we have done throughout this process. Finally, we commend the Secretariat's efforts to revamp the mandate registry and to organize a technical briefing. We reiterate the importance of technology to manage mandates more efficiently and effectively. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Republic of Korea. I give the floor now to the distinguished deputy permanent representative of the Russian Federation, who will be followed by the United Kingdom.

Excellency Ambassador Wallace and Excellency Suzuki Ayaki, we are very thankful for getting us together. We wish to emphasize that Yes, we understand that the initial report was circulated quite a while, but the secretariat report was circulated shortly. And we look at this as a combo, and we think that we definitely need more time to analyze them both. And we hope that we will have that time. to assess these proposals and come back to you with further feedback, because the documents do raise complex and sensitive questions that may have significant implications for existing mandates and the work of intergovernmental bodies. We should not rush this process. This is our impression, and it's important to have sufficient time before moving forward. And we also believe that this will help ensure that we continue our work on the basis of consensus. Even though we want to make some – we want to make sure that the information presented is intended solely to support member states in decision-making and do not predetermine anything, And turning to the note itself, at this stage, we would like to share already now the following comments. First, we would appreciate more clarity on the pilot programs. It is totally unclear how the work will be organized, including compositions of the group and selection of mandates. We believe that modalities themselves should not be agreed by member states before any pilot exercise to ensure inclusivity and transparency. Second, when applying the criterion of relevance, I think that's quite a dangerous word, we need, but quite, of course, useful here in this context. We need to clearly distinguish between assessing how a mandate is being implemented and questioning whether the mandate itself remains politically relevant. These are two different matters, whether it's already over or it's still having impact. So the latter is for member states to decide. This is our firm position. confidence in this. And third, we would like to highlight that any implementation review shall remain under the authority of the body that created the mandates concerned. So to say the parents of a baby still need to have a decisive word on the fate of this mandate. And we also hope that resolutions and concept notes are not obligatory and cannot be regarded as default instruments, although I want to mention that Russia initiated a resolution in the Second Committee, and we didn't provide the concept note, but we were asked by several member states still to do it, and we decided it will be helpful to us, so we did the concept note. But still, we were feeling comfortable that it was not an obligation. But the concept note, of course, is helpful in some cases, but yet again, it's very important to say that these things that we're elaborating are of advisory nature, not of obligatory nature. So finally, introduction of joint technical analysis or other instruments to monitor implementation should not result in the creation of another oversight or control body, because we have enough of them. of those who like to control us. And we hope it will not also be implicating – will not implicate any additional layer of bureaucracy. That is also important in the context of unity. And I thank you for your attention.

I thank the distinguished Deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation. I give the floor now to the United Kingdom, who will be followed by Pakistan, and then Turkey will be our final speaker.

Thank you, Ambassador Wallace, and members of the Secretariat for hosting this important meeting and for the considerable work that's gone into developing the draft document, framework, and the briefings. The UK welcomes the practical focus on relevance, impact, and coherence, while preserving member state ownership and recognizing the important distinction between genuine duplication and mandates that are complementary or cross-cutting. I echo the sentiment made by many others today. The key test now is delivery. We've developed a clear framework, guidance, and useful tools. The challenge now is ensuring these translate into tangible changes in how we, member states, engage in the mandate process. We see particular value in thematic clustering, both to identify genuine duplication and to identify opportunities to consolidate resolutions and reporting requirements, reduce administrative burdens, and ultimately improve the impact of mandate implementation. On this basis, we have three points. First, we believe these reviews need to lead to clear outcomes. Analysis should ultimately support practical recommendations to Member States on whether mandates should be renewed, adapted, consolidated, merged, or retired. Alongside this, we need to reinforce these new ways of working and encourage their wider practical uptake across the system. Second, we should maintain pace from pilots to implementation. We welcome the proposed timeline and focus on pilots, and are keen these should be a route to wider application. Lessons should be translated swiftly into concrete action across committees. We would welcome further information on the responsibilities of committee chairs to take forward recommendations agreed by Member States of the pilots after committee season, and how that can inform action during the 82nd session. Finally, a credible evidence base will be essential. We were grateful for the briefings yesterday and both today on the mandate registry and its new functionality. We see the registry as an important tool for supporting these reviews, particularly by giving Member States better evidence with which to assess implementation, impact, and accountability. Ultimately, the UK stands ready to support this important work to strengthen mandate delivery, protecting what adds value, rationalizing where genuinely duplicates existing work, and ensuring the UN concentrates its resources where they can have greatest impact. I thank you, Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom. I give the floor now to Pakistan and then Turkey.

Co-Chairs, we thank you for the draft report and for your inclusive stewardship of this working group. We also thank the Secretariat for its note pursuant to paragraph 18 of resolution 80/251. We align with the statement delivered by Uruguay on behalf of G77 and China. We welcome the report's reaffirmation that decisions on mandates are the exclusive prerogative of Member States, that there is no one-size-fits-all approach, and that the exclusions in paragraph 25 of AT/251 apply in full, including to mandates relating to ongoing political situations. We also value the recognition in paragraph 7e that under-resourcing calls for stronger implementation, not retirement of mandates. At the outset, we stress that the criteria mandated under paragraph 21 of resolution 80/251 are by the resolution's own terms for GA mandates only and cannot be applied to the mandates of other principal organs. Our principal concern is the relevance criterion in paragraph 6A of your report. First, relevance is an inherently political judgment. It cannot serve as an objective basis. Second, the phrase on development since its adoption is subjective. It invites arguments that a mandate has been overtaken by events because some find it inconvenient, even when the mandate's original objectives remain unfulfilled. Third, relevance should not be inferred from the implementation record. A mandate that is undersourced or whose implementation has been deliberately impeded has not lost its relevance. We therefore propose replacing relevance with fulfillment of objectives or other similar phrasing in line with the language used in the Annex 1 checklist. We also suggest adding a question on resourcing of mandates to the Annex 1 checklist. Co-chairs, on the Secretariat note, we offer two observations. First, the default must remain review by the originating body. The second committee shows how well this works. Through its own revitalization process, it has agreed this year to adjust nine of its mandates on a case-by-case basis with the agreement of the proponents. Second, we welcome the note's confirmation that mandates referred to in paragraph 25 of 80/251 fall outside its scopes. As we explore options for clustered and collective reviews ahead of December, this understanding must be carried through in full. We reiterate our position that currently, we believe there are no mechanisms for collective reviews between different charter bodies, and creating such new mechanisms will prove to be an extremely difficult task. On the pilots, we have three expectations. First, they must be open to all interested delegations with regular reporting to the working group. Second, mandates should only enter a pilot program when their proponents voluntarily submit them. Third, pilots should avoid duplicating reviews or discussions some bodies have already taken. Initially, we believe we could look at plenary mandates in these pilots. On the teams or leads of pilots, we believe we would have to be cautious with regards to transparency and inclusivity, and we feel that the co-chairs should retain the lead after seeking specific feedback from members of the working group. Overall, we do believe we need more in-depth discussions on the pilot program ideas before proceeding to their implementation. Co-chairs, on the implementation review clauses, we believe the understanding we reached here is not effectively translating into other committees. We have agreed to incorporate implementation review clauses, not retirement clauses, into existing mandates. Moreover, the model clauses prepared by the co-chairs are optional and indicative, with delegations free to incorporate their own form of mandate implementation review clauses into their resolutions. We believe this understanding needs to be better translated to the committees. On the mandate registry, we welcome the updates provided by the Secretariat and note with interest that out of the 43,000 mandates included in the registry, only approximately 2,800 are cited in the 2027 budget cycle. We look forward to receiving additional updates to the registry to easily see the link between the specific operative paragraphs of resolutions, which are then used to justify citations in the program budget. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Pakistan, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Turkey.

Thank you, co-chairs, for your leadership in advancing the work of this working group, and we thank the Secretariat for its work on possible review mechanisms and implementation models for clustered and collective mandate implementation reviews and the latest updates on the mandate registry. We appreciate the emphasis on Member State ownership in the co-chair's report as the cornerstone of this process. Neither the criteria proposed by the co-chairs nor the review mechanisms outlined by the Secretariat, which must remain technical and away from prejudging the outcomes, should be interpreted as automatic triggers for modification or discontinuation of mandates. Türkiye welcomes the identification of relevance, impact, and coherence as the three core criteria for assessing mandates. We consider it essential that these criteria be applied together. The age of a mandate, the volume of reporting it generates, or the existence of related mandates should not in themselves be grounds for its discontinuation. In particular, overlap should be carefully distinguished from genuine functional duplication. The application of the review framework across the three pillars must be consistent and balanced. We take note of the Secretariat's distinction between clustered reviews, which bring together mandates sharing common characteristics, and collective reviews, which coordinate assessments across different intergovernmental organs, while preserving their respective decision-making authority. We see merit in exploring both options, including thematic, functional, program-based, and reporting-related clustering, as well as opportunities to rationalize reporting periodicity. As a general rule, the reviews must be undertaken by the bodies that originated the mandates in accordance with their established working methods and areas of competence. The choice of mechanism should therefore be determined by the nature of the mandates concerned and the specific objectives of each review. A one-size-fits-all approach would not adequately reflect the diversity of mandates and institutional arrangements across the United Nations system. Turkey welcomes the proposal to launch pilot reviews during the main part of the 81st session. We consider these pilots an important opportunity to test the proposed criteria and modalities in practice. The objective should not be simply to reduce the number of mandates or reports. It should be to ensure that mandates continue to serve their intended purposes and that implementation delivers meaningful results. We stand ready to engage constructively in the next phase of this work, and we look forward to lessons emerging from the pilot program and the continuation of the consultations. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Türkiye, who is our last speaker. Before I give you some closing remarks and perhaps try to answer some of the questions, I'm going to invite Ayako to respond to some questions that were directed specifically for Secretariat response.

Great. Thank you very much, Ambassador Wallace. So regarding the presentation on inactive, duplicative, or fully implemented mandates, this is pursuant to paragraph 24 of 280/251. We are currently working on that, and it is our intention We will do our best to meet the deadline of submission of this presentation by the end of December. The mandate registry can show you how mandates can be clustered by using different filtering functions. We can certainly provide existing data if ad hoc working group provide specific areas of interest, and we can actually then walk through the various filtering options and how additional information can be obtained. So this is an ongoing kind of accompanying process and support that we are happy to provide. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Ayako, for that clarification. Colleagues, just a couple of things that I wanted to emphasize. One of the foundations for the way we have designed the process going forward is on the basis of something that we heard consistently throughout the process and some things that we heard repeated today: no one-size-fits-all. It has been 20 years since an attempt was made at review of the existing stock of mandates. We can't fail again and then have to wait another 20 years to try again. And that's why we are being so careful, so inclusive about designing modalities that can work successfully. We are also very mindful of the authority of the governing bodies and their responsibilities. And that's why we have been working so hard to get the committees to act, to implement the resolution. Because the more work that is done in the committees, is the less there will be left to do by some other modality. So I encourage you, who sit in the committees yourselves, to champion the cause for implementation there, because then that lightens the work on any additional layers that might have to be designed. Now, speaking of additional layers that might have to be designed, the idea behind the pilots is not to begin the process per se, but to test what processes could work. So coming from the pilots will be proposals that we can all look at with data behind them, so that we can see what is possible to work reasonably well. And nothing is going to work perfectly. This is the UN. Nothing works perfectly here. And that's part of the beauty of it. But we will have a body of evidence drawn from experience and effort and attempt that we can then use to design modalities that can work. No, I don't think that we're going to end up with one set of modalities that is going to be applied across all kinds of mandates. Again, we are clear that one size will not fit all, but this will give us an opportunity to see what can best work. The bottom line is that doing nothing is not an option, because we have too many. The stock of mandates is too unwieldy for the organization. And so we have a responsibility now to address it. So I want to thank you for your reflections today. I want to thank the Secretariat for its briefing and for its continued support. I'd like to say thanks as well to the team from Norway and my team from Jamaica as well for their hard work. We will, of course, take your comments into account over the next few days and weeks, including the practical questions about the next phase of our work. I want to encourage delegations who are particularly interested in pilots, whether in leading a pilot or in participating in a pilot, or just because you’re interested to see how the pilots could work, to reach out to us, and we will schedule – because we’re not abdicating our responsibilities as co-chairs. And we will schedule more detailed briefings and more interactive discussions on how we can take them forward. And we will do so as well in consultation with the Secretariat and with the relevant committee bureaus. because our aim ultimately is to identify manageable exercises that can produce useful lessons for the wider membership. We will keep the working group informed as those discussions develop, and we will return with further information on the timing of our work. As I mentioned earlier, the 30th of November is looking like an opportune time for our next meeting because it will provide us with the facilities for interpretation as well. So that will provide an opportunity to reflect on implementation during the main committee season as well, and we will hear more updates from the Secretariat and then look in more details at how the pilots are going. We will finalize and communicate the date formally in due course. I will be moving from here to look at transcripts.un.org to get the summaries of all of the interventions here. I hope that you will do the same. And I want to say thank you very much for your engagement here, for your turnout. This meeting is adjourned.