Informal Ad hoc Working Group on UN80 initiative - General Assembly, 80th session
General Assembly
Date: 23 October 2025
Language: English
Transcript: https://transcripts.un.org/en/asset/k1w/k1w9g0n7gs
Transcripts available through this tool are created by using automatic speech recognition and are not official records nor official documents of the United Nations. Official records and official documents are available on the Official Document System of the United Nations.

---

IAHWG · Co-Chair · Brian Wallace [0:00]:

I call to order the informal meeting of the Working Group for consultations on the matter of mandate creation.

On behalf of Ambassador Shuolga, I warmly welcome you to these consultations. I'd like to start by recognizing the presence of Mr. Ayaka Suzuki, Director in the Executive Office of The Secretary General Mr. Christophe Monnier, Director of the Program Planning and Budget Division in the Department of Management, Strategy, Policy and compliance and Ms. Min Thu Pam, founder and CEO of Project Starling.

Colleagues, as we said last week at the Briefing on Mandate creation, we are a key acutely aware of the importance of the task ahead of us. We can all agree that the UN is at a critical juncture and there is much to do to make the UN more effective, more efficient, more accountable and capable of responding to contemporary needs.

Launched as part of the UN 80 initiative, our informal Ad hoc Working Group has a particular responsibility to build a set of principles and actions which can better support the creation, implementation and review of mandates. Our Working Group also has a role in building trust and mutual understanding which can support the broader goal of organizational strengthening as envisaged by the UN 80 initiative. As we have explained, this Working Group is currently engaged in a Discovery Phase where we are seeking to build our shared understanding of mandates, supported by empirical evidence, analyses and lessons learned. As Co Chairs, we want the Discovery Phase to be a safe space where Working Group members feel they can propose ideas, big and small, novel and familiar, for the way ahead. There will be ample time in the days and weeks ahead to assess the merit and viability of proposals, so we encourage Working Group members to keep an open mind about what might be possible, keeping in view the opportunity presented by this process for us to achieve the highest possible ambition.

Today, Working Group members will first hear responses to questions posed at the Mandate creation briefing on 13 October. As you are aware, some answers have already been provided writing on 22nd October and should be available on the UNAT Initiative website. Further, we wish to note that in response to Working Group members questions on the Mandates Registry website, as co Chairs we have commissioned the Secretariat to provide a technical briefing on the Registry. This expert level technical briefing will take place virtually on the 28th of October at 10am and the link for that will be provided to the Working Group and the briefing will be recorded and posted on the website.

Most importantly, as advised in our letter of 17 October, working group members will today have the opportunity to convey their views on mandate creation and we are very much looking forward to hearing your ideas and proposals. We also Invite you to please submit your interventions as well as any additional inputs to us in writing via our email address, which is unat mandates co chairsmail.com we intend to compile and publish on the Unity Initiative website Working Group Members contributions unless otherwise indicated by you. I'm now going to pass the floor to my Co Chair, Ambassador Schwal.


IAHWG · Co-Chair · Carolyn Schwalger [4:14]:

Good morning everybody. Now, as we turn to the questions posed to the briefers at the Mandate creation briefing on 13th October, we wish to respond to the question posed to us as Co Chairs about how lessons learned from the last mandate review and other processes have been reflected in our consideration. As Co Chairs, we have spoken with several individuals from Member States and the Secretariat who were involved in the last mandate review. We discovered three key learnings. Firstly, the previous exercise on review of existing individual mandates was a complex and time consuming process.

Ultimately, the value of the technical exercise was undermined by the prevailing political realities. Secondly, it was apparent that the tools necessary to support a deeper understanding of the overall mandates for framework, such as a mandate registry, were unavailable, underdeveloped or fledgling at best. Thirdly, we learned about the importance of improving understanding between mandate creation and the budgetary process. We have attempted to build these learnings into the approach we are taking in this Working Group. Further, in response to another question, we can confirm that we have also begun engaging with Member States who have recently led relevant intergovernmental processes to see what lessons or ideas we can carry over into this Working Group.

One example of this is the General assembly revitalization process. We are also engaging with the Chairs of the Main Committees to understand how the issue of mandate creation, implementation and review is being considered in their Committees and what this could mean for the Working Group's own deliberations. With that, it is now my honour to offer the floor to our briefers to provide additional answers to Questions posed at the 13 October briefing on Mandate Creation. First, I give the floor to Ms. Ayaka Suzuki, Director in the Executive Office of the Secretary General, to provide further answers to questions posed at the Briefing on Mandate Creation.


EOSG · Director · Ayaka Suzuki [6:45]:

Thank you so much, Co Chairs, for inviting the Secretariat to provide further information at this meeting.

Excellency, distinguished Delegates, first, thank you so much for your strong interest and many questions after a briefing. We have tried our best to answer, provide answers in the slides that we have provided yesterday and hope to provide additional clarifications today. So, let me begin with the registry mandates.un.org There are quite many questions about the timeline, features, content development challenges and future direction. In short, mandates.un.org will keep improving if Member States find it valuable, but it would also benefit from your support and feedback. As announced just now, we will be doing a more technical briefing on this registry next Tuesday and I hope that as many of you would be able to participate so that we can introduce how to utilize it to support your work.

And as mentioned by Ambassador Wallace, the briefing will be virtual and a recording will be made available available. So the timeline for completion of this registry, I mean it's an ongoing work. It already has some 4,000 mandate sources cited in the regular and peacekeeping budgets for 2026, and obviously we will be adding more as new budgets are issued and then they will be regularly updated. We will continue expanding features, categorization and functionality. The focus is on fully covering all mandate sources, especially those that are older, providing more details regarding mandates, such as operative paragraphs, entities named actions that are mandated, and then helping users see the big picture, for example, how mandates cluster across organs and topics.

We already separate preambular and operative paragraphs and identify the actions, entities and deliverables in each resolution. We were able to do this otherwise very painstaking task by AI, which scans and classifies keywords across thousands of documents, and I will get into that shortly afterwards and how we use the AI. Our biggest challenge isn't so much the data, because that's all available, but in skills in coding, AI, data science and web development. To keep the registry robust and user friendly requires coding skills. And this is what UN 2.0 is about, modern digital capacity.

So if you find the registry helpful, we will benefit from continued dialogue with Member States on how to sustain and improve it. The main constant will be skills, as I just mentioned, not cost. Most of the skills we need are found among young people, and that is why your support for UN rejuvenation is so critical. Finally, on scope, the mandates.un.org portal covers identify mandates coming from bodies serviced by the UN Secretariat. In other words, bodies such as the General Assembly, Security Council, ecosoc and so on.

Specialized agencies are invited to develop their own registries for their mandating bodies, but using the shared data standards so that information can connect across.

So let me now address a group of questions related to resourcing of registries and mandates more generally. So this was the second bigger group of questions and first on the registry development. The current version of mandates was built by a very small staff, small team in our office using skills we are promoting through the UN 2.0 initiative, I.e. with new capabilities in data design and digital delivery. Second, on the financial impact of mandates themselves.

Each mandate, even a simple one, carries cost for creation, implementation and review at a minimum. That could mean staff time, translation, editing, or meetings. For such routine tasks, there are standard cost estimates that are transparently laid out in the memorandum, that is before the General Committee at the beginning of each session of the General Assembly. We refer to this document in our answers about $11,000 per day for meetings of up to two days and $25,000 for editing and translation, not the initial drafting of a report of around 8,500 words. Third, on what some of you call the cost of ambiguity.

We don't really have a systematic data on the financial impact of vaguely vague language and resolutions, but we know that it matters. When the intent of a mandate is not clear, then we need extra consultations, coordination, which takes both time and resources. And that is why clarity on intent really matters. Finally, there are questions on how time intensive certain groups of mandates are in general act. As the number and complexity of mandates in a pillar grows, so do resource demands on Member states, more meetings, reports and negotiations, and on UN entities that must serve them.

We can show at the registry briefing next week how to find large groups of mandates, if you like. The simple takeaway here is that resources are not only financial, there is also human and temporal the time, attention and clarity needed to make each mandate deliverable. The next large group of questions was about artificial intelligence and digital tools and how they're being used to support mandate work. First, on what AI does. It can augment research capacity.

As I just explained, we use that to build up registry of mandates, for example, to help identify keywords, recurring phrases, overlaps and similarities across a large body of mandate text. It is an analytical support tool, not one to write or negotiate resolutions. That should of course remain a human process.

Second, on data for mandates.un.org the system processes only publicly available documents, resolutions, decisions and budgets, all sourced from the UN Digital library. Third, on data security and quality. This site only uses open sources. No internal, confidential or personal data have been used. AI helps process large amounts of data quickly with built in checks and human reviews for quality.

Some variation is normal and our team is improving the system over time. Finally, on future digital tools, we are continuing to build on your feedback over time. New digital tools, including AI capabilities, may allow for quicker comparison of text, of visual or of visual mapping of how mandates relate to each other. The goal is to make information easier to find and to understand. The simple takeaway is that AI can support analysis, not make final decisions.

It can help us save time and improve visibility while we keep human judgment at the center of the process.

Finally, let me speak to questions on several broader issues that were made from review clauses and flexibility in tasking to guidance for Member States and the timeline for next steps. First, on review clauses, most mandates still lack explicit review or end mechanisms. Over 80% of mandates cited in the current program budget do not specify how or when they should be reviewed. Changing that practice would make mandates easier to assess and adapt over time. We understand that the Co Chairs will hold another briefing on mandate review later this year.

Second, on the Secretary General's flexibility, the report recommends allowing the Secretary General to assign tasks based on comparative advantage, meaning the entity best placed to deliver, rather than prescribing one entity in the resolution text. And in fact, that has been the norm over the years and it's only in recent years that it has become more prescriptive. So what that means is that referring only to the Secretary General, that the United nations or UN system would be the preferred or the easiest way to do assignment based on comparative advantage. Third, to better support Member States, the Secretary General proposed three main actions. Improved human support for delegates during the drafting, Enhanced Inter Secretariat cooperation to support visibility across intergovernmental bodies and digital tools.

Fourth, on how to ensure new mandates are backed by resources or accompanied by a review of existing ones. Our suggestion here included using review clauses, consolidating agenda items, or proposing the discontinuation of outdated outputs, which is an authority that the Secretary General intends to make make purposeful use of. Finally, on the timeline for Secretary General General related actions, many of these actions are already in progress, including the continued improvements of mandates.un.org Fuller implementation is targeted for 2026 in line with the available capacity and resources. We will keep you updated both in a General assembly plenary and in this Working Group. The key message here is that we want to support your work on impactful mandate design, efficient delivery and accountable reviews, all grounded in evidence and dialogue.


Ayaka Suzuki [18:38]:

And with that I wish to conclude Many thanks to Co chairs,


IAHWG · Co-Chair [18:42]:

I thank Ms. Suzuki and I now give the floor to Mr. Christoph M.E. monier, Director of the Program Planning and Budget Division in the Department of Management Strategy, Policy and Compliance, to provide further answers to questions posed at the briefing on mandate creation.


DMSPC · Director · Christophe Monnier [19:00]:

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

You know, adding to what my colleague just said, I'll. I'll take a few more of those questions that were posed to us. In particular, there was a few questions that related to what does the Secretariat how does Secretary determine additional resources are needed when mandates are assigned within existing resource mentioned and how is those situations treated? Just want to mention that in such situations, of course, we consult with all the relevant departments to know whether the implementation can be, you know, can be done within the existing resource, whether it can be absorbed, whether the, you know, synergies can be created with already planned activities and determining if reallocation of resources are, you know, are possible while maintaining the commitments and the deliverables that are supporting them and the delivery already. Just also want to mention that we understand and also from this dialogue that happened last week that, you know, often when there is such mention, it is also a way for the for the Member States to convey to the Secretariat that the expectation is that such a new mandate would not have a lot of additional activities or costly activities associated to it.

It would not consume significant resources and therefore, you know, it would be implementing through leveraging the resources that are already available or have been planned for other activities and build synergies. There was a few questions and I'll answer on aspects of what I would call budgetary techniques that could be used to simplify or use anticipation for a more efficient budgetary process. I think that there was a mention, for example, of the concept of threshold. Whether using threshold to say, under a certain threshold, for example, there is no need to go and present pbis or above a certain threshold, there is the understanding that there wouldn't always be a PBI and there wouldn't be no absorption possible. So this is not something that we have in place, but it could be something that we can think about with criteria that makes sense so that we avoid ambiguity, a moment of the negotiation of the creation of the mandate.

Also a technique that so far is only used in one area, which could be the inclusion of provision for future program budget implications at the time of preparation of the proposed program budget so that to streamline the mandate resourcing process in, you know, today we are including in the budget only things that have already been approved by Member States without anticipating possible approval. The only area where we do that is on renewal of certain mandates for human rights and we call that the consolidation. It's been in place now for a few years and it's proven to be quite a useful tool. It lowers the amount of PBIS that have to be presented in the fall. And certainly that is a tool that I think could be also an idea that could be considered on the aspect of the mandate creation process.

There was, I think my colleague already mentioned, you know, how much the addition of tools, the registry of tools that help identifying what's already available not only within the Secretariat is being done, but across the UN system will be extremely useful because today we are not really in a capacity to provide that one is about the mandates. Also, global information of the funding of those mandates is not necessarily available for the UN system, but we should look into how those tools could be enriched with that information so that at the moment of mandate creation, you have access to this information, but that is not a function that is currently happening within the Secretariat and which is not really resourced neither. So that would be something to be looked into. There was also questions related to the possibility we have to understand budgetary implications or that Member States have to understand budgetary implication earlier in the drafting and negotiation process for new mandate, for example, at the stage of the zero draft, rather than waiting at the end of the process when you have more of a final resolution, and that we formally cost it. So, of course, you know, we could imagine a mechanism where throughout the negotiation there is a support of the Secretariat in terms of the costing of the drafts as they are.

But again, that is one area where today that is not yet how it is being done and how it's being resourced, neither to have a dedicated team that could accompany Member States throughout the different revisions. That is an idea that is worth exploring, knowing that it would probably have a cost, but it might be worth it because then it would help creating better mandates, probably, or mandates that are calibrated to what the expectations of Member States are. So that was an idea that we also wanted to mention as possible to explore. Madam Chair, I think I will stop here, but of course available for more answers. Thank you.


IAHWG · Co-Chair · Carolyn Schwalger [24:40]:

Thank you so much, Mr. Moliere. I now invite Ms. Mintuvan, co founder and Chief Executive of Project Starling, to provide further answers to questions posed at the briefing on mandate creation.


Project Starling · Founder & CEO · Min Thu Pham [24:54]:

Thank you so much, Madam Chair, and thank you all for being here and for inviting me back to brief you. It's a real privilege. I thought the engagement that we had last week was really energizing, and it was great to see so much thought from all of you in engagement in this really critical subject. I want to thank especially to those of you who asked such fantastic questions to those of us on the panel. And I'm grateful to be back here to help you think this through.

As I'd mentioned, I was asked to lead the first UN mandate review 20 years ago when I worked in the office of Secretary General Kofi Annan. And it was an ambitious task and to do. So I had to form a team. And it was a team of about 20, maybe a bit more than that, that included UN staff, including retirees that we pulled back in, student interns to read through UN resolutions, manually type into a database to create the registry, and then people to also look at the, to do the analysis. And as part of that effort, I personally interviewed everyone I possibly could throughout the Secretariat, Every chief of staff, policy or planning director, head of office, anyone across the system in New York at least, who was willing, this was before zoom, who was willing to meet with me to understand how the UN really worked and how we could help make it work better.

And this culminated in our own mandate registry that we created in 2005, 2006, and an intergovernmental review of all mandates older than five years. And it totaled over 9,000. That meant that some resolutions had more than one mandate. But I do want to just emphasize that part of the challenge back then was the mandate creation process itself. And maybe that is indicative of the challenge that you have here, because the World Summit outcome which gave the mandate to conduct a mandate review, I quote, and this is the World summit outcome in 2005.

The mandate was, we resolved to strengthen and update the program of work of the United nations so that it, it responds to the contemporary requirements of Member States. To this end, the General assembly and other relevant organs will review all mandates older than five years, originating from resolutions of the General assembly and other organs which would be complementary to the existing periodic reviews of activities. So the original mandate for that 2006 mandate review was to review all mandates older than five years. So it was not because the Member States decided to take a different path. This was the mandate that they had given, that you all had given yourselves back then.

And so what I learned from those discussions is really what I bring to this. I'm not an expert on management reform, at least not anymore. I haven't worked on it in over 10 years. Or am I versed in how the Secretariat currently manages the budgets, which you already have the Secretary of Staff here to do? But I did speak to many UN evaluation experts and many, many people, including heads of offices and chiefs of staff throughout the system.

When we last met, a number of Member states asked me how this mandate implementation review can be successful where the previous one had fallen short. And I think the first one is that you are not bound by a mandate that you all had issued yourselves to review past mandates, but that you actually have the flexibility now and the opportunity to look forward, to try to figure out and really fix the mandate creation, delivering and review cycle. One of you had noted last time that we have the tools today that the team in 2005 and six were unable to offer. Chief among them, you have artificial intelligence that can ease the burdens of technical detail. You also have a much more advanced mandate resource registry that, as you've heard from Ms. Suzuki, that the Secretariat has created.

As I mentioned, 20 years ago, we also had a mandate registry that was manually populated, and Member States found in those consultations that the mandates that we identified lacked and evaluative and budgetary information. And it sounds like that is still a challenge. How then can we make sure that today's mandate Registry provides you, the Member States, with the information that you need? What information does it currently provide? Right now, as you've heard, the mandate Registry allows you to search information on almost 4,000 active mandates that parts of the UN system are citing in their program budget requests.

You can search by organ, body, implementing entity, title or subject matter. So, as an example, if you look at the issue of debt relief, for instance, because especially we're only four months after the fourth International Conference on Financing for Development, which I was involved in, debt relief was obviously a big issue in FFD this year if Member States were considering a new resolution on debt relief. If you look through the current mandate registry, a quick search shows you that there are 18 existing mandate source documents issued by two UN organs and cited 38 times by 15 UN entities. This is useful. Member States can use this information to inform future mandates and see what requests have already made, what you have already asked for in terms of debt relief, and then to shape what you might do in the future.

However, does this information allow for a review of past or existing mandates? This is a question that a few of you asked last time. What information would you need to consider and decide on to either streamline or decide that the mandate is complete? If I were the one undertaking this exercise, I would want to know what actions were taken to implement the mandate that you issued before. I'd want to know what those actions achieved and whether it was what you had originally intended.

I'd want to know what the impact was and where the effort fell short, and why, and what could be done to make it better next time. Some of this information may be hard to get, and in fact, we know that in general, impact is hard to measure, but we're still better off in trying to measure it. I would want to know this information, and lastly, I'd want to know how much it cost and Again, I'm not an expert on the UN's current budgeting and management, but in my conversations with Secretary of Staff and I think what you've just heard here is that that's not available and it doesn't appear to currently be available. And I recognize it's a huge task. So it's okay.

I mean, you have a, you've done a gargantuan task in a very short period of time. But it's why I urge you to consider improving the UN's ability to evaluate its work and to provide that information back to you in a clear and coherent way so that you can make meaningful decisions on your mandates. The mandate review tools as they exist don't automatically make, I think a backwards looking mandate easier because you don't have the information to know what happened on your past mandates, the impact that it had and what then, whether it achieved the objectives and whether they can be improved. So then how can we make this process successful? What's needed currently, it would help to have improved evaluation of mandate implementation.

This is something that I mentioned last time, what I've seen, even though I'm not, as I mentioned, an evaluation expert, but just talking to experts and really trying to understand this. And again, I did this many years ago, but right now it seems that the UN does not adequately finance evaluation, especially as compared to best practices. In our last meeting I suggested that perhaps 1% of the UN's budget was put towards evaluation. And again that number needs to be fact checked because the information, I base that on a cursory review, but I may not have access to the right sources. But other institutions and best practices says that we should budget about 3 to 10% of a program to adequate program evaluation.

One way for Member States to address this is to carve out funding for mandates evaluation or to designate in a PBI a program budget implication a certain percentage for rigorous self and independent evaluation. The benchmarks and criteria for evaluation could also be identified in the mandate creation process. Perhaps Member States could request the Secretary to prepare and present criteria for evaluation of a mandated program and the impact as well as importantly the timeline for execution. I think you've also just heard from the Secretary that they would prefer to have that as well. And remember, and as I remember it, the budget process looks at inputs, outputs and outcomes.

But I wonder, could that be applied to specific specific mandates and then done in a rigorous way so that you have the information you need? Institutionalizing improved evaluation, making that information available to Member States would be a solid step towards helping you all be better custodians of your mandates and make informed decisions on both future mandates and older ones. A final thought for me is that, you know, I've been using the term mandates, as we all have, essentially as a proxy for what the UN or the Secretariat works on. I think really that's what we mean. What does the UN do?

Because mandates, at the end of the day, are political decisions. Mandates indicate you, the member states, your intentions. What you budget towards them, whether it's existing resources or not, also indicates your intentions. Someone has to turn the outcome of your political negotiations, these mandates, into programs and budgets. This is why so many mandates repute repeat language, resolution after resolution.

What it basically means that I think it's an expression of the emphasis that you put on that topic and not necessarily a duplication of activities. We spent time reading through mandates 20 years ago, and we didn't reduce or eliminate many mandates because the mandates express important intentions. If we really want to review what the UN does to know if they are outdated or duplicative activities, we may wish to consider reviewing the UN's mandated programs themselves. And there I'd look to, first of all, reports. I think the Secretariat has identified that as a ripe area for your examination.

These massive volumes of reports especially burden the smallest member state missions. I understand and appreciate the very good question that one distinguished representative last week raised about whether shorter mandates mean less staff time spent writing them. And as I did last time, I'll end with a quote here. Philosopher and mathematician Blaise Pascal said, quote, I would have written you a short letter, but I did a shorter letter, but I did not have the time. As many writers know, being clear and concise very often requires much more effort than writing something longer because it takes time to cut excess and to distill what you mean to say.

If you all want clearer information, you could have better evaluation and much clearer and, I think, shorter reporting.


IAHWG · Co-Chair · Carolyn Schwalger [36:45]:

Thank you so much. Thank you so much. And thank you to all of the briefers for your willingness to return to answer the questions that were posed to you by working group members, but also for the commitment that you have shown in preparing some of that material in writing, which, of course, as Ambassador Wallace mentioned, is available on the UNAT website. I now open the floor for working group members to share your views on mandate creation.

We hope to hear from you ideas and proposals to make mandate creation more efficient, effective and impactful. Delegations are asked to keep their interventions to 5 minutes for groups and 3 minutes for individual delegations. If you are speaking for a Group, please identify yourself to the Secretariat. I now have the honour to give the floor to the Permanent Representative of Iraq.


Iraq · G77 + China [37:50]:

Distinguished Delegates. I have the honor to deliver this statement on behalf of the group of 77 and China, except the delegation of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Upon its request at the onset. The Group thanks the Co Chairs of the Informal Ad Hoc Group Working Group on the Review of the Mandate Implementation for sharing the tentative schedule of meetings for the next two months. Given the integrated nature of all three stages of of the mandate life cycle creation, implementation and review, the Group trusts that written inputs on these stages will be evaluated holistically in the entire life cycle to ensure a coherent and balanced approach.

The Group also seeks further clarification regarding the request for input, as there is not yet a common understanding of the final outcome of the ad hoc Working Group and whether it will take the form of a resolution of recommendation, a statement or any type of outcome document. We would also appreciate clarity on the process and framework through which the suggested input will be considered.

The Group reiterates the importance of accelerating the creation of a comprehensive registry of existing mandates. These registries should include detailed information on the cost of the mandate, the staff assigned to them and their nationality distribution. Such transparency will allow Member States to make better informed assessments and decisions. The Group reaffirmed that any review of mandate creation must remain firmly within the purview of the Member States. The Secretariat's operational discretion must be exercised strictly within the established intergovernmental framework.

It is equally important that the process ensure full and equal participation of all Member States, including developing countries, taking into account capacity constraints and avoiding a hasty or selective approach. Clear and unambiguous mandates from intergovernmental bodies provide the most solid foundation for the Secretary's successful implementation. Mandate texts are political instruments agreed upon by Member States and this review process should not result in the erosion of the substantive content or negotiated language that embody the collective will of the Member States on the use of new technology, including artificial intelligence. The Group recognizes their potential to improve efficiency. However, such tools should be used to supplement the human dimension of intergovernmental work.

The personal accountability of UN staff in supporting Member States remain essential. The use of AI tool without adequate safeguard, privacy and security guarantees and a comprehensive understanding could pose risk, including bias, monopolization, loss of no ones and and distortion of negotiated outcome. The Group reiterates that mandates must be supported by adequate and predictable resources. More clarity is required to understand the downstream implications of having the establishment of new mandate being conditions on the availability of resources, on granting The Secretary General discretionary flexibility to reassign or merger tasks. Such design features should not undermine the intergovernmental nature of United nations or weaken its operational effectiveness and credibility.

The Group considered that we need to find a common understanding between Member States and the Secretariat on the scope and implications of the phrasing within existing resources. To conclude, the Group reiterates its commitment to engage constructively in this process. We emphasize that discussions on mandate creation must remain inclusive, transparent and efficient, ensuring full participation of all Member States. I thank you.


IAHWG · Co-Chair [42:36]:

I thank the representative of Iraq and I now give the floor to the representative of Azerbaijan.


Azerbaijan [42:43]:

Thank you, Madam. Thank you, Madam Chair. First, we thank the Co Chairs for convening this important meeting and acknowledge the significance of the subject under discussion. However, our delegation is compelled to take the floor on a point of order concerning the statement just being delivered by the delegation of Iraq on behalf of the group of 77 and China. We wish to clarify that our objection is strictly procedural and we do so with the utmost respect for all Member States of the group of 77 and China.

Without expressing any position on the substantive content. We state that this statement has not been agreed upon in accordance with established procedures within the Group. Azerbaijan has formally opposed its delivery due to the reason explained to the Group. While the delegation of Iraq began by stating that they speak, I quote, on behalf of the group of 77 and China. Accept the delegation of the Republic Azerbaijan upon its request.

We must point out that this formulation doesn't reflect the reality. Our delegation emphasized that such a statement can only be made on behalf of the Group following the successful completion of the Group's internal procedures and with a consensus of all its members. I thank you, Madam Chair.


IAHWG · Co-Chair [44:03]:

I thank the representative of Azerbaijan and I now give the floor to the representative of the European Union, to be followed by the representative of the Solomon Islands. Go ahead.


EU · EU [44:15]:

Distinguished Co. Chairs, Distinguished colleagues, I have the honor to deliver this statement on behalf of the European Union and its member states. The candidate countries, Turkey and North Macedonia, Montenegro, Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Georgia, as well as Armenia, Andorra, Monaco and San Marino, align themselves with the Statement on Mandate Creation, a topic of today. We must acknowledge that effective mandates demand effective design and have full visibility across the entire mandate system, which includes what mandates already exist on the same or related topics, who and how is implementing them and with what results. Therefore, we welcome measures designed to first amplify the overall impact and sustainability of new mandates and eliminate implementation ambiguities.

This should be done through the adoption of concise action oriented and outcome driven language, the implementation and impact of mandates should be measurable and system wide evaluation will be critical. Second, introduce sunset clauses with a robust mechanism for periodic review to minimize perpetual extensions and ensure mandates evolve or conclude in alignment with their objectives, as well as review clauses to ensure that regular assessment and evaluation of the relevance and efficiency of the mandates can take place. Third, accompany the creation of new mandates in the UN system with clear resource estimates, timely and transparent program budget implications from the very start. Fourth, strengthen a culture of efficiency and responsibility on mandate resourcing by exploring all options on resource allocation and then make sure that new mandates leading to new activities can be funded by the required corresponding resources and with appropriate oversight as a prerequisite for new mandate creation. Fifth, further implement comprehensive digital mandate registries, including by an open, transparent and trustworthy use of artificial intelligence to conduct a preliminary review and gain full awareness of active mandates to maximize mandate coordination, clear roles, responsibilities and impact, and eliminate duplication in the creation of new ones.

We also encourage the Secretariat to identify and put forward rationalizations in terms of mandate execution among Secretariat entities every time mandates allow it Colleagues the European Union and its Member States strongly support the Secretary General's efforts to enhance mandate visibility and coordination across mandating bodies. To ensure effective implementation, the Secretary General must be able to act with appropriate flexibility. Therefore, we welcome greater secretarial support to Member States during mandate creation without establishing new bodies or structures, and encourage the Secretary General to assign tasks according to comparative advantages and resource availability across the UN system to ensure the implementation of agreed mandates. Colleagues it is US Member States that are responsible for mandate creation and we must guide their design and implementation with transparency, accountability, added value, due diligence, fiscal responsibility and a strong sense of common purpose. It is therefore important that the work under this work stream also links up with the discussions about structural reforms under Work Stream 3.

We also believe that the above criteria and lessons learned from earlier processes should also inform in due course the review of existing mandates. In conclusion, we appreciate the opportunity to engage in this important discussion and welcome the Secretary General's proposals and vision under the UNAID Reform Initiative. As members of the Organization, we encourage further ambitious proposals from the Secretariat and remain committed to sustaining the momentum and ensuring continued ownership of this process. Chairs we will also submit a more detailed written version of our input. Thank you.


IAHWG · Co-Chair [48:37]:

I thank the representative of the European Union and I now give the floor to the Representative of the Solomon Islands, to be followed by Belize


Solomon Islands [48:47]:

Co Chairs, Excellencies and Distinguished Colleagues.


Solomon Islands · Pacific Islands Forum [48:50]:

I have the honor to deliver this statement on behalf of the Pacific Islands Forum members based in New York, we welcome the opportunity that the UN 80 reform initiative offers to build a United nations that is more effective, efficient, accountable and capable of responding to contemporary needs. We as Member States must seize this opportunity. We want to thank the Co Chairs for an informative briefing on mandate creation on 13 October. PIF members are optimistic about the potential benefits to be achieved by improving how mandates are created at the structural level and see three key areas for improvement.

First, we want to reduce duplication and inefficiencies in mandate creation. We note that most PIF members find the volume of the UN's work program to be highly demanding, especially given the size and capacities of many PIF missions. Small countries are the ones that suffer most from from a lack of discipline in the system as it takes away our attention from the most pressing issues to us, such as the 2030 Development Agenda and focusing on special needs of SIDS like sea level rise and fighting climate change. Negotiating on the same things in multiple forums is a waste of precious resources. Second, it's in everyone's interest to have a shorter, more focused resolutions with clearer and targeted mandates.

To achieve this, we recognize that we need to give the Secretariat more flexibility on how they deliver on mandates we have created, whilst being clear that it's for Member States to set out what we want to achieve. We encourage the Secretariat to operate in a way that's more mindful of the limitations of small missions, for example by producing shorter and more focused reports. Third, everyone but particularly small states will benefit from some established tools for lead sponsors of resolutions that enable us to draft more efficient and effective mandates. We welcome the development and expansion of a comprehensive mandate registry which will help us avoid duplication. But we also need tools to support mandate design, particularly when it comes to things like resourcing, costing and evaluation, where the words used in the mandate really matter.

Finally, we want to highlight the importance of the UN development system for the Pacific island countries, along with coordination with existing regional architecture and the need for review that supports building a system that is fit for purpose for tackling our unique and urgent challenges. We look forward to engaging collaboratively with Member States throughout this process. I thank you Co Chairs,


IAHWG · Co-Chair [51:51]:

I thank the representative of the Solomon Islands and I now give the floor to the representative of Belize, to be followed by Australia.


Belize · CARICOM [52:05]:

I have the honor to deliver the statement on behalf of the 14 members of the Caribbean Community CARICOM and align our remarks with the statement delivered by Iraq on behalf of the group of 77 and China. We thank the co facilitators and briefers for the information session on mandate creation, which provide valuable insight into the first stage of mandate cycle. We also wish to thank the co facilitators for the helpful webpage and calendar of forthcoming sessions. Key takeaways from our recent exchange on mandate creation include that the entire mandate life cycle creation, implementation and review should be considered as one continuum. The tracking implementation is essential yet remains uneven and unsystematic and that mandate review should be standardized and evidence based, yet it is rarely conducted in practice.

Two further observations are instructive as we plan the future work of this group. First, success should be measured should not be measured by the number of mandates discontinued, but by whether the system delivers mandates more effectively and with greater impact and second, we should take a forward looking approach that strengthens how mandates are created, ensuring that decisions are informed by full visibility across the UN system and that future reviews are grounded in credible evaluative data. Taking these points into account, CARICOM commends the work done on development of the Mandate Registry. We consider that an immediate and practical step would be to enhance the use and functionality of the UN Regulation Mandate Source Registry. The Registry should evolve into a genuine visibility and learning tool, one that allows Member States to see existing mandates across the system, understand overlaps and identify the opportunities for synergy.

In that context, we support embedded a structured feedback mechanism to strengthen its utility to delegations. The G77's proposal on the categories of data to be maintained are particularly valuable. CARICOM notes that the Secretary General's report and Ms. Pham's briefing emphasize the importance of evidence informed policymaking. We agree and would support the initiatives that strengthen evaluation capacity across the UN system, including modest dedicated budget lines for independent and internal evaluations at the point of mandate creation. While our intelligence can assist with consolidating publicly available information and enhancing the Registry, CARICOM cautions against delegating or automating any form of critical policy analysis or assessment.

Such responsibilities must remain under the authority of Member States and, where relevant, the Secretariat. With full respect for intergovernmental oversight and processes regarding Secretariat's role, we recognize that it already provides technical support to Member States as needed. We welcome the Secretary General's proposals to improve Secretariat assistance during mandate creation, especially to provide complementary information on related programmatic activities and resources, but underscore that this function must remain strictly technical and non prescriptive, upholding the intergovernmental character of of decision making. Mandate creation should occur based on a number of principles that we must come to agree on these could include demonstrable need, broad support, non duplication, transparency, inclusiveness and a genuine appreciation of the means for their implementation. CARICOM reiterates that mandates must be accompanied by adequate unpredictable resources.

This is not only a matter of principle but of good governance. Ensuring that resources match expectations promotes accountability and transparency through a budgetary process and safeguards the credibility of the organization's work. In closing, CARICOM reaffirms its appreciation to the co facilitators for their leadership and reiterates our commitment to engage constructively in this process to ensure that the UN continues to serve people and planet efficient effectively and equitably.


IAHWG · Co-Chair [56:34]:

I thank you, I thank the Representative of Belize and I now give the floor to the Permanent Representative of Australia, to be followed by Kuwait.


Australia [56:45]:

Thank you Chairs for creating the opportunity for an inclusive and collaborative consultation on mandate creation and the informative briefing organised last week.


Australia · CANZ [56:55]:

I speak for Canada, New Zealand and my own delegation, Australia. As Member States, we are committed to the United Nations Charter and upholding the fundamental work of the United nations system. We welcome this opportunity to reflect on how Member States create mandates and the impact this has on the effectiveness of critical work of the United Nations. CANS highlights the following points to be considered as we focus on principles and actions to guide mandate creation. We need shorter, more focused resolutions with clearer and more targeted mandates.

This will both increase the likelihood that mandates will be actively and effectively implemented and reduce current workloads. While we'll need to be clear in what we're asking, we see merit in providing the Secretariat with some flexibility on exactly how they deliver on these mandates to ensure they can do so in the most efficient and effective way possible. We need more support from the Secretariat to empower Member States to make more informed decisions when drafting resolutions to ensure that mandates avoid duplication and effectively complement relevant work taking place across the United nations system. We welcome tools such as the comprehensive online Mandate Registry being developed by the Secretariat that can support this, including assisting the lead sponsors of resolutions to draft better mandates. There are other tools that could be provided to support mandate design, such as those which institute more effective and efficient drafting.

We need mandates with built in evaluation and review clauses and where appropriate, sunset clauses. And we need to reduce the number of resolutions introduced year after year with substantially the same content. We all have an interest in not spending precious time and resources on resolutions that have stopped having any real meaning or relevance. We must exercise discipline and restraint in making proposals that have resource implications for the United nations core budget, particularly in the current financial context if new resources are required to implement a new proposal, appropriate offsets should also be identified. All resolutions should include a dedicated section clearly addressing these budget issues.

Key to this effort is the need better to link mandate decisions with projected costs and to enhance efficiencies in implementation. Member States must demonstrate maximum restraint in proposing new mandates and a sustained commitment to ensuring the limited resources are directed where they're most needed. We should also ensure synergies with existing processes related to mandates and take the opportunity to implement and advance work conducted under the General assembly revitalization process Sometimes overlaps between mandates can be helpful in supporting strong implementation, but often we experience wasteful duplication. We need to eliminate unnecessary duplication of similar mandates within and across various forums. Finally, while it's appropriate that this ad hoc Working Group focus on the principles guiding mandate creation, implementation and review, we also need to reach agreement on the actions required to apply these principles in practice.

CAANS proposes the following concrete actions for Member States. First, include time bound provisions or mandate review clauses in new resolutions as appropriate appropriate. Second, take steps to reduce unnecessary PBIS or establishment of new costly mandates without identifying appropriate offsets. Third, ensure new mandates are linked to the core pillars of the United nations and advance tangible outcomes. Fourth, set and adhere to page limits for new resolutions and ensure these are targeted for maximum effect.

Fifth, avoid duplication of mandates within and across forums six, promote multiannual mandates as the default for recurring resolutions and which do not substantively change from year to year and finally, review mandates that have not been active within the past 10 years. These actions could be reflected in a new template or guidance for the drafting resolutions. As we've stated previously, the primary responsibility for achieving a UN system capable of delivering on the outcomes our people expect and deserve lies with us, the Member States. We look forward to engaging further with Member States through the Working Group and working towards an effective reform process that results in a resilient and sustainable UN system able to deliver effectively on all three foundational pillars of its work and into the future. Thank you.


IAHWG · Co-Chair [1:01:51]:

I thank the Representative of Australia and I also like to thank all of the speakers speakers to date who have stayed within the prescribed time limits. We have a very long list of speakers for today, so we very much hope that trend continues. I now give the floor to the Representative of Kuwait, to be followed by Lichtenstein and then the United States. The floor is yours. Thank you.


Kuwait · GCC [1:02:13]:

Madam Co Chair, Excellencies, Co Chairs and Distinguished Colleagues, I have the honor to deliver this statement on behalf of the Member States of the Gulf Cooperation Council, the Kingdom of Bahrain, the Sultanate of Oman, the State of Qatar, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and my own country, the State of Kuwait. The GCC aligns itself with the statement delivered by the Republic of Iraq on behalf of the Group of 77 and China Excellencies. The GCC expresses its appreciation to Jamaica and New Zealand, the CO Chairs, for managing this informal ad hoc Working Group process, as well as to the Panelists for their insightful presentation and briefing conducted on 13th October. The GCC would also like to express its appreciation for the format taken by the Co Chairs in this process. While being considerate of the schedules, the platforms and other processes associated with the UN80 initiative, the GCC reaffirms that this Initiative is a timely and genuine opportunity to achieve a qualitative transformation in the method of work of the United nations through a careful assessment along with supervision of Member States and a high degree of transparency.

It is equally important to note that the path forward should not be an exercise in just downsizing, but rather a strategy for achieving the attendant goals of the Initiative, namely strengthening multilateralism, ensuring the full and effective participation of all Member States and doing so in adherence to the principles and three pillars in the Charter Excellencies. Reiterating the GCC's appreciation to the Secretary General for his proposals outlined in the Mandate Implementation Review Report, we would like to bring to the attention of the informal Ad Hoc working group the following 1. The GCC reaffirms the criticality of ensuring that the review of mandate creation is exercised under the purview of the Member States. Any process undertaken to this end must include an intergovernmental approach. 2.

It is essential for the Member States to have access to a comprehensive registry of existing mandates which includes detailed and essential information which would include, but not restricted to, costs of implementing the mandate, the number of staff assigned to service the functioning of the mandate and the distribution of nationalities for said mandate. The importance of this point should not be overshadowed. These details are essential for ensuring that the process achieves its intended goal of increasing efficiencies and streamlining processes while also maintaining a fair representation of nationalities. Above all, mandates at their point of creation and or while under the process of review, must ensure that the language of the relevant instruments are drafted in clear, unambiguous and unequivocal language. This is critical otherwise the system risks misinterpreting the will of the membership.

It is equally important that mandate formulation remains relevant, disciplined and purposeful, avoiding the creation or continuation of mandates that are of limited impact, which risks diverting attention and resources from agreed priorities. In conclusion, the GCC remains committed to engaging constructively in the process. We believe that inclusivity and efficiency are essential and the GCC will not underplay the importance of the Charter's principles in approaching the work within the UN80 initiative. And thank you. I thank the representative of Kuwait.


IAHWG · Co-Chair [1:05:40]:

And I now pass the floor to the permanent representative of Lichtenstein.


Liechtenstein [1:05:46]:

Thank you very much. Thank you both, all protocol observed. And many thanks for your leadership in guiding us very capably through the discussion. Also thanks to the panelists for following up on the questions from the first sessions.

We agree with those who have said that certainly elimination of mandates should not be the objective here and certainly should not be a measure of success. And I think that is an important lesson learned from what we have done in the past. I want to support that by way of general comment also that of course, this remains part of the UN 80 process on the whole, and we have to look at interlinkages which I do agree exists certainly with Work Stream 3. While I would also argue, not at this time, but as we proceed in the discussions on that work stream, where we are, in my view, at the very beginning, at the most basic level, I think it's for Member States in particular to build a common understanding about mandates. It's not always clear to us what a mandate looks like in practice, what wording constitutes actually a mandate and what does not, what differentiates resolutions that create mandates from those that do not, and why it matters for effective governance and resource use, and also what happens after mandates are created, how they're implemented, followed up, and what the intended outcomes are.

Most importantly, the biggest missing link in our view, is the link to the, to the budget, to the budget process. So in order to do this, we need better tools, certainly from the Secretariat, to allow Member States to do this in the process of mandate creation and to help us draft shorter, more targeted resolutions with precise mandates. We do appreciate the mandate registry and to be very open. We have not made full use of it yet. So we're in the testing phase and we're certainly among those who will try to give you feedback on it, as has been requested.

My delegation just told me that they looked for one of our favorite resolutions, that's the veto initiative, that that is one of the better known resolutions in this House. And they said they were not able to find it in the registry, which is a bit ironic because it has the word mandate actually in the title. And we will certainly do what we can to give you good feedback on this on mandate delivery. The SG does have flexibility on how that happens and we should encourage him to to use that in order to increase efficiency and synergies while maintaining accountability and having maybe that information. Also as part of the mandate registry, we would like to see a very serious discussion on periodicity.

The practice in this building is that most resolutions are annual. We think that should probably be the exception and not the rule. And we also don't think that every resolution needs to have an SG report quickly. On costing. We think every mandate should be accompanied by a clear and transparent cost estimate tied to its implementation.

The current PBI practice in our view, is unhelpful more than it is helpful because it does create the perception that a lot of resolutions do not lead to any use of resources, which is certainly inaccurate. And I agree with the definition of resource that was given given on the panel. So we should have access to up to date and traceable cost data, at least showing comparative figures from previous years. We look forward to continuing the conversation and giving you more detailed input on these points. I'm sorry that I spoke a bit longer than three minutes.


IAHWG · Co-Chair [1:09:47]:

Thank you so much. I thank the distinguished representative of Liechtenstein. And I'll give the floor to the distinguished representative of the United States, to be followed by El Salvador chairs, colleagues.


United States of America [1:09:59]:

The United nations can be an indispensable part of solving global challenges. But too often its efforts are dispersed across overlapping initiatives, redundant structures and endless reporting.

If we are serious about reform the un, we must be willing to confront duplication head on. A system that does too much of the same thing in too many places cannot be truly effective anywhere. The mandate review now underway is our best chance in decades to bring clarity and discipline to how this organization works. With accurate information from the Secretariat about where functions, meetings and reports overlap, member states can make informed choices that simplify the machinery of the UN and strengthen its results. Done well, this review can reduce fragmentation, focus attention on priorities, and ultimately make the UN's work more coherent and impactful.

We welcome the Secretary General's proposals as an important start, and we encourage him to go further. The UN 80 process should leave behind a leaner organization that directs resources towards outcomes, not bureaucracy. The next Secretary General's vision for reform will be an essential test of leadership, one that demonstrates a commitment to efficiency, accountability and measurable impact. A more integrated, streamlined approach, guided by results on the ground rather than the number of entities engaged, would deliver stronger support to countries and to their people. The measure of success must be progress achieved, not the proliferation of institutions, hours of meetings or pages of reports dedicated to a given issue.

This is true of the development system, of the Human Rights pillar, and of the peace and security architecture. Mandates, too, must be seen through the lens of purpose. They are created to solve problems, not to live forever. When a mandate has achieved its goal, it should conclude that is not failure, it is success. And for every new mandate decided, at least 10 should be eliminated.

To realize this vision, the Secretariat and Member States must work together with ambition and resolve. Reform is not an end in itself. It is a means to make the United nations credible, capable and trusted. Once again, thank you.


IAHWG · Co-Chair [1:12:25]:

I thank the distinguished representative of the United States.

I give the floor now to the distinguished representative of El Salvador, to be followed by St. Vincent and the Grenadines.


El Salvador [1:12:35]:

Thank you. Co Chairs. My delegation aligns itself with the statement delivered by Iraq on behalf of the G77 and in national capacity. We would like to highlight the following points. In a context where UNAID initiative has generated uncertainty, this explanation exploratory phase must serve to lay solid foundations.

It is essential to define without delay a clear roadmap, concrete expected outcomes and a shared set of principles to guide the work of the group. Whatever the outcome of this process, it must be ambitious and encompass the entire United nations systems. The review of mandates cannot be limited to the GA alone. It must promote a holistic vision of institutional efficiency. Genuine process will not depend on new procedures, but on a change of mindset among Member States.

We must exercise responsibility and political discipline when presenting new initiatives, always asking ourselves what impact they will have on the organization and above all, on the people we serve. There are also immediate actions that can already be taken. The role of the PGA and the chairs of the main Committees is crucial in raising awareness of the growing burden of mandates and meetings. This challenge will not be resolved through procedural reform alone, but through coordination, coherence and obviously political will. In this regard, we consider it urgent that the work of the main committees during the 80s session include concrete measures to avoid repeating the pattern of generating countless new mandates.

And as has already been noted in the report of dsg, each delegation must be aware of the budgetary impacts of its proposals and act with predictability. In this spirit, El Salvador is open to exploring the creation of a review or pre screening mechanism to anticipate the budgetary implications of draft resolutions, thereby ensuring greater transparency and coherence between substantive and also financial work. The main committees have a decisive role to play in this articulation. While the Fifth Committee prepares to consider the revised estimates for the next budget. The other committees must ensure that the content of the resolutions during the session does not generate more pbis, thereby contributing to a more disciplined and coherent management of the organization's resources.

We welcome the launch of the platform mandates un.org which can become a valuable tool for transparency and efficiency provided that it remains up to date, accessible and truly user friendly, helping us to identify duplications and strengthen its coherence across our work. We also recognize the central role of the Secretariat in this context, but we urge them to refrain it from promoting or expanding mandates on its own initiative and to focus in its effort on being faithful and transparent implementation of the decisions adopted by U.S. member states. States finally, El reaffirms its conviction that the UNAID initiative must become a turning point. Dear Co Chairs, this anniversary is not merely a commemorative milestone, but a historic opportunity to demonstrate that the UN does not fear transformation, but that it has the courage to pursue it with ambition, vision and unity. Thank you.


IAHWG · Co-Chair [1:16:18]:

I thank the distinguished representative of El Salvador. Give the floor now to the distinguished representative of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, to be followed by Norway and then the United Kingdom.

Sorry.


Saint Vincent and the Grenadines [1:16:35]:

Thank you. Co chairs colleagues St Vincent and the Grenadines aligns with the statements made on behalf of the Caricom and G77 in China. The United nations was created so so that purpose would govern procedure to save succeeding generations, to uphold dignity and to make law and consent the foundation of peace. Work Stream 2 is where we test our instruments to ascertain whether our mandates still serve our founding narrative. The Secretary General's Work Stream 2 report offers us a new path forward.

It reminds us that mandates are the property and responsibility of Member States States and it proposes practical solutions grounded in evidence comprehensive searchable mandate registries, improved support for drafters, shorter combined reports with usage data and a fundamental principle refraining from mandating new tasks not baked by corresponding not sorry, not backed by corresponding resources. I would like to propose three simple tests that align with the report's three stage cycle life cycle of creation, delivery and review one Charter test Does it advance Charter purposes and translate the will of the Member States into real results? The report emphasizes that mandates must strengthen all three pillars equally two Legitimacy tests Does it reflect broadest possible agreement and maintain trust in the organization? The report warns that continuing to mandate activities without resources ultimately erodes trust in the organization and 3 always ask the question, is it clear and focused enough to implement from these tests? From those tests flow, oh, sorry, three concrete actions that align with the Secretary General's proposals, our system.

My computer keeps jumping. Sorry. Our one system wide mandate source registry with unique identifying identifiers linking each mandate to to its owning body, budget line and review calendar. The report calls for accelerating comprehensive registries across all mandating bodies. Build once, use everywhere shorter word limits by default, consolidation of duplicative reports and publication of download statistics so we measure what is actually read and used.

Context matters. In 2024, 65% of the reports were downloaded less than 2,000 times. For new mandates, include expiry or scheduled review clauses for legacy mandates, introduce collective reviews of mandates addressing specific issues to claire deadwood and reinforce living priorities. Currently, over 85% of active mandates lack instructions on review or termination. As we streamline, we must safeguard intergovernmental control.

Efficiency cannot come at the expense of legitimacy or the priorities. The public will judge us not by the number of resolutions we adopt or reports we produce, but by whether our mandates create outcomes they can feel. Thank you. I thank the distinguished representative of St. Vincent and the Grenadines and give the floor now to the distinguished representative of Norway, followed by the uk.


Norway [1:20:44]:

Thank you co chairs and thank you briefers for your advice this morning. I think this format is extremely useful. So looking forward to the continuation of that. You've asked us to come up with ideas and proposals on how to better create mandates. Allow me first just one observation that I think is fair and that is that over time the United nations system increasingly has evolved into one that reacts to a growing volume of sort of one way requirements from intergovernmental processes and from interagency processes.

Now these requests mandates are often well intentioned, but they have often also become micro mandates. They are narrow, they give fragmented instructions that cumulatively this erodes coherence, it erodes efficiency and it erodes strategic alignment across the UN system. So overall I do believe we need a culture change in order to strengthen coherence in mandate creation and implementation. The UN system should transform itself or transition from a request based responsive model to a more focused on operational viability in which the organization acts on the basis of member State agree strategic direction rather than fragmented smaller requests. So, but to be practical, we have very good proposed solutions in the Secretary General's report on mandate design.

So we fully endorse that. And now we should also look at what Member States can do when creating mandates. And despite what you said, Mintu, we do like the idea of shorter texts. Wherever it's possible, that should be a goal in itself and perhaps we could even go further could we agree on a voluntary basis for a sort of target length that would be the maximum for a resolution or a text.

You could also have a sort of automatically triggered PBI if the text was too long. So that should could be useful. But more seriously, I think we need to perhaps establish a checklist that we all look at before we create mandates. Now, this is very much inspired, but what we as Norwegian civil servants have to do, anytime the Norwegian government should propose to do something, we need to make sure what the purpose and the scope of the action is. We have to confirm that there is no duplication in how, that no one else is doing what we're proposing to be done.

There needs to be a clear time frame. There needs to be proof of financial sustainability and impact assessment and always also an inbuilt evaluation or review mechanism from the very creation of a mandate. So I mean to be discussed in detail, but I think we need some sort of checklist that all those that propose mandates need to go through and show to the rest of us that this is thought through to be within the Charter, to be. To have thought about that it's not duplicated by anyone else. And then thirdly, perhaps we should refrain from mandating new tasks which are not backed by corresponding resources or an explicit reduction in other mandates.

So on a trial basis, could we agree that we don't request any new reports from the Secretary General for one year, only modify the scope of existing reports? It's possible we can decide this and then just finally, I think our colleague from Costa Rica mentioned at the briefing last week that we could have a test to evaluate mandates, whether they are similar. You could, for example, test to see, well, this mandate that we had agreed on in the past before we agree on a new one. Well, how many countries actually spoke in the debate on that mandate? How many times was the.

The report downloaded from the UN website?

We could do all things like this before we, before we request new mandates or new things for the Secretariat to do. So all this and more will come to you in writing. Thank you.


IAHWG · Co-Chair [1:26:27]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Norway. I give the floor now to the United Kingdom, to be followed by the Russian Federation Chairs.


United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [1:26:36]:

Thank you for your leadership of this ad hoc working group and for convening last week's briefing. The UK supports Jamaica and New Zealand's vision for the discovery phase, taking time to gather Member States views, clarify priorities and build the evidence base. And I think we've heard already today a lot of interesting ideas in this regard. As set out previously, we strongly support UN80 as a critical opportunity to refocus the organization on its three core pillars. As we consider the Secretary General's proposals, we should maintain high ambition and encourage creativity.

This Working Group's central focus is to develop a common set of principles that would apply to future mandates. As long as we set the bar high. That approach will help us reduce duplication, ensure effective implementation of mandates, free up resources for priority areas, and ideally reduce the burden on Member States. Expanding and improving the Registry of existing mandates will also be important to enable a process of review and streamlining, and we welcome the update from the Secretariat on this issue. In the Inaugural Session of this Working Group, USG Rider updated us on the Secretary General's proposals on mandate implementation.

Operationalizing these proposals, including how to ensure improved Secretariat support for Member States, will be key. I understand the Co Chairs are in the market for ideas and in that spirit I would propose that the Secretariat could do more to enhance the visibility of complementary work streams. This could include producing analysis to help Member States determine the utility of a mandate. For example, the Secretariat might produce a short operational note circulated to Member States at the start of a negotiation process that details existing relevant work, particularly mandates. Drawing on the Registry identifies gaps to determine additional mandated activity that might add value and highlights potential budgetary implications and possible efficiencies.

Collectively, we should consider enhanced use of modern technology to drive forward efficiency, including to identify duplication and reduce the length of mandate text. This will require oversight, but early investment here will pay off for us all. We are open to further ideas, including the possibility of word limits, while noting the need to safeguard normative standards. Finally, we should acknowledge that many mandates are driven by political considerations. While the Secretariat can help promote governance coherence across the UN system, it is incumbent on us all as Member States to design mandates that prioritize utility, efficiency and impact.


IAHWG · Co-Chair [1:29:29]:

Thank you. I thank the Distinguished Representative of the United Kingdom. I give the floor to the Distinguished Representative of the Russian Federation, to be followed by Switzerland.


Russian Federation [1:29:39]:

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Dear Co Facilitators, the Russian Federation supports efforts aimed at enhancing transparency and coordination in the formulation of mandates and including the development of comprehensive registries and such tool can facilitate access to information and help avoid duplication. I think this is the main target of the UN 80 which is pronounced in the resolution 79, 318, but it should be provided that it remains fully under Member State supervision. I think many Member States stated it today and it should be used exclusively for informational purposes without prejudice to the right of the Member States to submit proposals for consideration. That's important qualifier. We recognize the value of drafting mandates that are consigned, action oriented, but must never come at the expense of substantive content or negotiated language.

Mandate texts are political instruments, expression of political will and they cannot be simplified or reformulated through administrative or technical means. As to new technologies such as artificial intelligence that could strengthen efficiency and better support Member States during meetings or during drafting mandates, we underline that those technologies cannot alter any personal accountability of UN staff which must be fully at the disposal of Member States. Support Member States if and when requested, but cannot shift any responsibility to AI. Russia welcomes proposals to improve the presentation of financial and programmatic information accompanying new mandates as this enhances transparency in decision making. Separate identification of voluntary financed activities or planned voluntary financed activities is very important.

However, we are firmly opposed to any ideas that could condition the adoption of new mandates or resource availability on resource availability or grant the Secretary General discretionary flexibility for assign or merge tasks across entities as proposed by the sg. Such measures would erode the intergovernmental nature of the organizations, which is, I think, supported by almost all speakers here today. Thank you.


IAHWG · Co-Chair [1:32:37]:

I thank the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation. I give the floor now to Switzerland, to be followed by Japan.


Switzerland [1:32:44]:

Distinguished Co Chairs Switzerland thanks you for convening this important meeting and in particular your careful calibration of the proceedings of this Working Group. Mandate creation is essential to the UN's ability to deliver. We need clear and coherent mandates that build on existing expertise and avoid unnecessary overlap. Co Chairs, allow me to make the following comments. First, Switzerland welcomes the use and development of new tools as outlined in par 23 of the report, in particular the Mandate Registry which enhances transparency and the suggestion of carefully using AI and other digital technologies.

We take good note of your follow up document that was circulated in writing as well as the briefing provided this morning that indicates that the Registry can cover all mandating bodies serviced by the UN Secretariat and we welcome that session. Second, we support stronger Secretariat assistance during mandate creation. This may include systematic provision of information on potential overlaps. In addition, we see merit in shorter mandate texts and longer mandate cycles. Third, we welcome and support the recommendation made in para 29 to enable the Secretary General to reassign tasks between UN entities to ensure maximum efficiency based on comparative advantages and resources.

In this context, allow me the following could this matter, which partly also touches on mandate delivery, be addressed and discussed at the ceb? Finally, new mandates must be adequately financed, as was also mentioned in para 29, an indicative price tag or Resource estimate should be introduced earlier, early in the negotiation process to provide guidance to Member States in their deliberations. Thank you.


IAHWG · Co-Chair [1:34:34]:

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


Japan [1:34:43]:

Madam and Mr. Co Chairs, thank you very much for giving me the floor. As this is the first time for this delegation to take the floor, I would like to express express our sincere appreciation to you both Co Chairs for taking up this important role. I would like to assure you of this delegation's full support and cooperation. Co Chairs. In the un, we have seen an increased number of mandates over the years, often created without sufficient consideration for overlap with existing mandates or their financial implications.

This unchecked expansion has contributed significant duplications and budget growth which are ultimately unsustainable. There are two ways to address this. First, when establishing new mandates, we must ensure there is no duplication with existing ones. Second, we should consider budgetary implications, including setting budgetary ceiling to introduce financial discipline.

In this regard, Japan would like to propose three key actions. First, it is essential that Member States be able to systematically verify whether any newly proposed mandate overlaps with existing mandates. We welcome the SCG's intention to set up registry designed in the manner that allows such verification to be conducted with a simple one click process. Second, when the resolution includes a new mandate which may incur budgetary implications, the proposing Member States should consult with the same secretariat and provide clear written information on the budgetary implications to all Members. Third, as proposed in the SDG's report, all resolutions creating new mandates should include expiry clauses requiring the mandate to be reviewed and renewed after a certain period in order to prevent unchecked and unlimited mandate expansion.

The same principle should also apply to existing mandates which we will discuss further when we take up the mandate review phase. We believe that these steps will strengthen the UN's ability to deliver its mandate more effectively and sustainably. Thank you.


IAHWG · Co-Chair [1:37:29]:

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


India [1:37:38]:

Excellency, Mr. Co Chair. Let me begin by thanking the Co Chairs of the Ad Hoc Working Group for convening today's important meeting and sharing the calendar of forthcoming meetings. We also appreciate the Co Chairs for the briefing organized earlier this month and look forward to the upcoming briefings. We also thank all the briefers for their valuable presentations. India aligns with the statement delivered by the representative of Iraq on behalf of G770 China.

Allow me to highlight five points in my national capacity. First, for comprehensive visibility of the mandate landscape, it is essential that online mandate registries provide additional information on each mandate, including reporting cycles, costing since mandate creation, implementing partner, etc. To facilitate effective and efficient action by Member States. Second, we recognize the importance of using AI tools with necessary safeguards to identify duplicative mandates and duplicative implementing architecture across mandating bodies. In this regard, information on the existing AI tools available with the circuit will be helpful.

Additional features such as evaluating mandates may by their impact and effectiveness could be added later to assist Member States in designing more effective, concise and non duplicative mandates. Third, without prejudice to any mandate, it is essential that all mandates include sunset clauses for effective implementation, monitoring, transition and eventual exit. It will also facilitate plugging any systemic automaticity in the budget preparation process. Fourth, a Christmas tree approach to mandate creation dilutes both impact and accountability framework. Often it increases the length of mandate text.

Additionally, it demands greater coordination across implementing entities, thus necessitating more resources. We consider a plain vanilla approach should guide mandate creation. Such approach could shorten length of the text, ensure effective implementation and produce greater impact. Fifth, since all three stages of mandate life cycle are interconnected, Member States should be allowed to submit written inputs on three stages after all briefings are completed. Such flexibility can yield holistic and practical insight to guide our work throughout the entire mandate life cycle and deliver ambitious outcomes.

In conclusion, Mr. Co Chair, India reaffirms its commitment to remain constructively engaged in this process. I thank you.


IAHWG · Co-Chair [1:40:01]:

I thank the representative of India. Give the floor. Noted Representative of Iran,


Iran (Islamic Republic of) [1:40:09]:

Bismillahirrahman Ar Rahim thank you, Co Chairs Excellencies.

My delegation wishes to express its appreciation for organizing the briefings and for the opportunities to engage further on the issue of mandate implementation review. My delegation aligns with the statement delivered by Representative of Iraq on behalf of Group 77 and China. The task before this Ad hoc Working Group is critical and important in our endeavors towards the review of mandate implementation in our organization. Having in mind the fact that the mandates have been and are being created by Member States through various mechanisms and forums, ranging from conventions, protocols, agreements to decisions and resolutions in the UN relevant bodies and Executive Boards, we believe that mandate implementation review must focus on exploring the ways and means to enhance efficiency, effectiveness and strengthening, not redefining the UN's intergovernmental mandate create implementation in this regard. First and foremost we need to agree on the scope of our deliberations and the format of expected outcome of this Working Group.

Given the integrated nature of mandate cycle, any written submission needs to be considered after completion of discussions on the entire life cycle, including creation, implementation and review of mandates. Second, any review of mandate creation must remain firmly within the purview of Member States. The process must ensure full and equal participation of all Member States. Third, while reiterate that the clear mandate that the clear mandates from intergovernmental bodies provide solid foundation for UN system and their successful implementation, we emphasized that the mandates are agreed by Member States and cannot be simplified, reformulated, merged or reinterpreted through administrative, technical or technological means. This exercise must never come at the expense of substantive content or negotiated language.

In conclusion, Co Chairs, my delegation wishes to assure of all constructive engagement for fruitful deliberation and outcome of this Working Group. Thank you Co Chairs.


IAHWG · Co-Chair [1:43:04]:

I thank you Ran. I give the floor now to Indonesia to be followed by Moldova.


Indonesia [1:43:12]:

Thank you Co Chairs. At the outset, Indonesia appreciate continued engagement by you, including by convening series of meetings and inviting relevant resource people to our meetings. The presentations help provide us with broader view of the context and linkages among different aspect of our discussion in this Working Group. So Co Chairs and distinguished delegates allow us to share our two views on the continuation of this process. First, we need to ensure coherence between the UNHE Initiative with other relevant processes.

This Working Group meets at a time when all committees are actively negotiating their solutions, each with the potential to create new mandates. Yet, our core task here is to review, not to multiply mandates. Therefore, our ongoing work must be well coordinated with other parallel processes so that no new mandates are created inadvertently before this review is accomplished. In addition, we are also of the view that a consolidated timeline and work plan among work streams are critical. We take note of progress from other work streams, including Work Stream 3, which report was recently issued.

While taking notes of the importance of the intergovernmental nature to adjust mandate, the suggestions in the report, if implemented, could significantly affect existing mandates. Hence, a consolidated timeline and work plan among the work streams will be crucial. To avoid overlaps. Particularly, all tracks must converge back to this Working Group, which screen serve as the intergovernmental forum for the UNHC on mandate implementation review. Second, we need to ensure that ambition should always be matched with necessary resources.

As highlighted in the last briefing, conducting resource analysis from the initial stage of mandate creation would allow Member States to have better visibility. These resources entail not only financial resources but also human capital, among others. In this slide, we are of the view that an initial resource review by the initiators, through close coordination with relevant entities should accompany any draft resolution or outcome documents from Day one Co Chairs finally, rest assured of Indonesia's commitment to support you and in this regard, Indonesia will also continue our engagement in this process to ensure this review leads to a UN that is more coherent and truly fits for purpose. I thank you Co Chairs,


IAHWG · Co-Chair [1:45:59]:

I thank the Representative of Indonesia and I now give the floor to the Permanent Representative of Moldova, to be followed by Germany.


Republic of Moldova [1:46:08]:

Distinguished Co Chairs My delegation aligns itself to the European Union statement and wishes to add the following remarks in international capacity.

Distinguished Colleagues Mandate creation lies in the head heart of the organization's effectiveness and credibility. At the same time, the growing number of complexity of mandates, as highlighted in the Secretary General's report, have created challenges of fragmentation, overlap and limited coordination which risk undermining this very effectiveness. From our perspective, this review process is an opportunity to reaffirm several guiding principles for mandate creation. First, new mandates should be firmly anchored in the Charter and aligned with the Organization's strategic objectives, responding to current realities rather than institutions inertia. Second, the mandate should build upon existing efforts, avoiding duplication and maximizing synergies across entities and pillars of United nations system.

Third, fraud, mandate creation, negotiation and implementation, transparency and accountability must be ensured through clear benchmarks, timelines and reporting mechanisms. Fourth, the review of existing mandates should be institutionalized as a constructive exercise, not for reducing ambition but for ensuring effectiveness, coherence and measurable results. In reviewing the process of mandate creation, we wish to highlight three critical three key challenges that, in our view, continue to affect the organization's overall performance. First, mandates are generated across multiple UN bodies the General assembly, ecosoc, Human Rights Council, and various specialized agencies, often without sufficient coordination. This fragmentation leads to duplication, thematic overlap and inconsistent reporting, ultimately with awakening impact and straining the Secretariat's limited capacity.

Second, for many smaller delegations, including my own, the process is constrained by limited visibility and transparency. Without a united and accessible registry of active mandates, it becomes difficult to track commitments and engage meaningfully in new initiatives. We therefore support the accelerated development of an integrated digital mandate registry such as mandates.unorg and stronger secretariat support to ensure equal participation of all Member States throughout the mandate cycle. Third, there remains a persistent gap between mandate creation and resource allocation. Too often mandates are approved within existing resources, leading to underfunding and inconsistent implementation.

This disconnect undermines for both the credibility of decisions and the impact of UN work on the ground. Each new mandate should therefore be accompanied by transparent costing and clear program budget implications, ensuring the political ambition is matched by realistic and sustainable resources. Looking ahead, we support continued dialogue on practical measures to Strengthen the review of mandate creation process, including greater coherence among mandating bodies, enhanced coordination between the Secretariat and Member States and the use of digital tools to improve transparency and accessibility. Ultimately, effective mandate creation is not merely of a procedural exercise. It is a matter of credibility, efficiency and trust.

By improving how we formulate, design and align mandates, we can ensure that every decision adopted in the organization truly responds to the evolving priorities and need of the people who we serve.


IAHWG · Co-Chair [1:50:33]:

I thank you, I thank the representative of Moldova and I now give the floor to the representative of Germany, to be followed by Costa rica. We have 22 more speakers, so we'll leave it to you to do the mathematics. But Germany, the floor is yours.


Germany [1:50:51]:

Distinguished Co Chairs, Colleagues, Germany fully aligns with a statement made by the eu.

We once again thank you for your leadership and and for organizing the very insightful briefing in our last session. Building on what we learned, I would like to make three proposals. First, we agree with the assessment of the SG and many delegations that one key challenge is the poor visibility and comparability across mandates and mandating bodies. Here, Member States need more guidance and support. We propose to introduce a mandatory mandate landscape briefing.

The idea is as a prelude to negotiations of new mandates, there should be an obligation that the Secretariat, together with penholders facilitators, jointly informs the Membership about the overall landscape of existing mandates. We believe that a clearer understanding of potential overlaps between existing and potentially new mandates will have a refraining effect and could lead to to a future reduction of mandates. Second, in the end, we, the Member States decide how mandates look like it's on us to be more stringent, for example Avoid unnecessary cross references. We therefore propose that Member States agree to a voluntary code of conduct with the aim of limit the length of mandates. For instance, a ceiling of 1000 words per mandate could be considered.

This will help to put pressure on delegations to focus on critical operative elements in mandates. It will also make the implementation of mandates easier and increase their impact. Third, on the better use of technology, we thank the Secretariat for establishing the online UN mandate source registry and for the additional information presented today. This is a very positive step towards creating a unified UN Registry. We should collectively think about tools that will make such a registry as useful as possible for all delegations.

Germany also supports the idea of using an automized, possibly AI based tool to check resolution mandates text, for example on inconsistencies and duplications. The final decision, however, obviously remains with Member States. I thank you.


IAHWG · Co-Chair [1:53:17]:

I thank the representative of Germany and I now give the floor to the representative of Costa Rica, to be followed by Iceland


Costa Rica [1:53:27]:

Excellencies, Distinguished colleagues. Costa Rica thanks the Co Chairs for their leadership and inclusive approach. The work of this group is vital to improving how the United nations delivers on its mandates. Every mandate is a reflection of our political will to act together. Translating principles into concrete outcomes by examining how mandates are conceived, coordinated and implemented, we're also refining the way multilateralism works in practice.

In this sense, Costa Rica has three observations. We considered that effective mandates are those that move from general aspirations to specific measurable outcomes. Informal reflections from thematic areas, including disarmament, showed that mandates created with clear objectives, well structured negotiation processes and, when possible, strong capacity building components have greater impact.

A deliberate design encompassing a realistic scope and actionable targets ensures that political will is translated into meaningful results. Second, leadership and purpose are enablers of effective mandates. A successful mandate depends on leadership that can guide diverse perspectives towards a shared purpose. Skilled chairs and facilitators help shape clarity and balance in negotiations, ensuring that the resulting mandates reflect both ambition and feasibility. Third, realism in resource logistics and coordination.

The phrase within existing resources or subject to the availability of resources no longer reflects the complexity of today's institutional environment. Early engagement with the Secretariat and timely access to operational and budgetary information are essential in all negotiations. System wide visibility and active coordination can prevent duplication, optimize resources and strengthen delivery. To conclude, mandates start with US Member States. They express our priorities and our commitment to fulfill the purposes and principles of the Charter.

By working to better align our determination with realism, design, with leadership and purpose, with means, we can make the United nations more effective for the peoples we serve. I thank you. I thank the representative of Costa Rica. And I now give the floor to the representative of Iceland, to be followed by the representative of China.


Iceland [1:56:24]:

Thank you, Madam Chair. And first, many thanks to Jamaica and New Zealand as Co Chairs of this process, for your strong and inclusive leadership and thanks to all the briefers that have spoken. A key element of an effective system is inclusivity and the full participation of all states. As a small state, we struggle to navigate the plethora of resolutions and processes and multiple lengthy reports. So I would like to make a few concrete proposals.

Our guiding question is how can we make mandates more impactful and give them the attention they deserve? The repetition of resolutions on an annual basis carries the risk that important subjects get buried in the routine. Reducing the number of annual resolutions by reducing the frequency would give more air and attention for those resolutions we are considering, provided that we don't fill the void with new resolutions, fewer resolutions each year should mean more careful consideration of each one. How to get there? We could consider taking thematic groups of of resolutions in each Main Committee and rotating them over several years.

We agree with others who have pointed to sunset clauses and review courses as a way of allowing us to assess at an appropriate point the ongoing relevance and necessity of mandates. We appreciate the work the Secretariat has put into establishing a Mandate Registry. This tool should be further developed to give Member States the best possible transparency on what mandates already exist, where overlap may occur with new mandates, and so forth. AI can be used while ensuring that it meets standards of impartiality. Finally, we could look at the idea raised at previous meeting of establishing templates for the drafting of resolutions, also referred to by many delegations here today, today, which in concert with stronger secretarial support, would help to strengthen the process of mandate review and creation.


IAHWG · Co-Chair [1:58:28]:

I thank you, I thank the Permanent Representative of Iceland and I now give the floor to the representative of China, to be followed by the Philippines. Thank you, Co Chairs China aligns itself with the statement delivered by Iraq on behalf of the G77 and China at present, the three work streams of the UN80 initiative are becoming interconnected. From the overall perspective of UN80 initiative and in light of the topic today on mandate creation, China believes that it is essential to properly handle four key relationships. First, the relationship between streamlining and delivery. The goal of the Unity Initiative is not to make the UN smaller, but to make it leaner, more agile, more resilient and better able to provide high quality, efficient and direct support and services to Member States while eliminating redundancy and overlap.


China [1:59:29]:

The UN should also increase the investment in key areas based on the needs of Member States, particularly developing countries, and promote balanced progress across its three pillars. Similarly, the purpose of the mandate reform is not to reduce mandates. We should not bluntly cut mandates, tax reports or meetings simply for the sake of streamlining. What we should focus on is the results that such reform would deliver. We must conduct in depth analysis and make targeted efforts so as to maximize resources, effectiveness in effectiveness and expand the US Overall impact.

Second, the relationship between Member States and the Secretariat Mandate creation is both the prerogative and responsibility of the Member States. Mandatory reform requires Member States to shoulder their primary responsibility and exercise due diligence from the outset. At the same time, the Secretariat should strengthen its support. To do that, Secretary Staff should be well versed in their respective areas and related fields and provide comprehensive assistance to Member States. It is also important for various departments and entities within the UN system to break down barriers and enhance coordination and strengthen their communication with Member States, including during the early stages of the work.

While artificial intelligence can serve as a supplementary role, the Secretariat must ensure robust security safeguards, verification and oversight. The development of online mandatory registry should be pursued with due consideration of cost effectiveness. Third, the relationship between mandate creation and mandate implementation. Mandates can only have impact when effectively carried out and their implementation is directly affected by their creation. Like fasting the first button on a shirt, Member States must ensure that things are properly done from the very start of mandate creation.

When creating mandates, it is imperative to focus on core issues so that the implementation efforts can be well targeted and resource not diluted during mandate creation. Providing previous implementation and available financial resources can help Member States better get the general picture and make informed decisions and thus create favorable conditions for for effective implementation of mandates. Fourth, and lastly, the relationship between reform and continuity. While the Unity Initiative should address long standing institutional challenges by fighting formalism and bureaucracy and practicing frugality, it is also crucial to maintain the stability and continuity of the UN's work and preserve the core value of UN, including multilingualism, so as to instill renewed confidence and momentum in multilateralism through concrete actions and results. Co Chairs China stands ready to work with all Member States and the Secretariat to continue our constructive role in improving the work of the UN and in advancing global governance towards a more just and equitable direction.

Thank you Kyle Chair


IAHWG · Co-Chair [2:03:10]:

I thank the Representative China and I now give the floor to the Representative of the Philippines, to be followed by Maldives.


Philippines [2:03:19]:

Thank you Co Chairs the Philippines aligns itself with the statement of the G77 in China. We appreciate the briefing held on the 13th of October. We acknowledge the Secretary's role in increasing the visibility of the mandates landscape, including by assisting Member States in identifying potential overlaps and duplications and by developing the online Mandates Registry. Despite the existence of tools, improving the effectiveness and efficiency of mandates will ultimately depend on Member States who have the ownership of and prerogative over them. In this regard, the Philippines is pleased to share its recent experience on streamlining of mandates.

At the 16 Human Rights Council session, a groundbreaking resolution was adopted to merge the mandates of the Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Slavery, including its causes and consequences, and the Special Rapporteur on Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Girls, into one new Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Slavery and Trafficking in Persons. The Philippines, part of the Core Group on the Mandate on Trafficking in Persons, worked together with the Core Group on the Mandate on Contemporary Forms of slavery to unify the two mandates towards a more agile and integrated response to challenges that are distinct yet strongly linked to each other. The HRC resolution is considered as a historic first and can be viewed as an example of how with strong strong political will and commitment and shared commitment to improving efficiency and impact, Member States can come together to streamline long established mandates. Nevertheless, the Philippines underscores that mandate creation should be guided by the need to address specific challenges improving efficiency and delivering real impact, and should not be driven by cost cutting concerns alone. Any potential merger of mandates should only be undertaken after a thorough analysis of its implications for the peoples and the communities that we seek to serve.

Finally, for the work of the informal ad hoc Working Group, the Philippines likewise recommends working closely with other UN organs and processes in Geneva, Vienna, Nairobi and other duty stations for possible exchange of best practices and lessons learned on strengthening officials efficiencies and impact of mandates. Thank you Co Chairs.


IAHWG · Co-Chair [2:05:51]:

I thank the representative of the Philippines and I now give the floor to the representative of Maldives to be followed by Mexico. Maldives, the floor is yours.


Maldives [2:06:08]:

Thank you Coaches. The Maldives alliance with the statement delivered by the group of 77 and China the objective of this exercise should not be to simply reduce the number of mandates. Rather, it must be to make the UN more efficient and adept at handling mandates. We must focus on eliminating duplications, harmonizing mandates and improving the way they are implemented. To advance this goal, the Moldist proposes three practical steps to make mandate creation and follow up more effective.

First, equip Member States with clearer information before new mandates are approved. Decisions on new mandates are often made without a full understanding of existing ones that may already address similar issues. The Maldives therefore proposes that the General assembly establish a light review process to assess overlaps and complementarities before adoption. This could draw on existing procedures such as the PBI review and make full use of the mandate's website. Better information will help Member States to place each other and each mandates where it can deliver the greatest value.

Second, strengthen how we assess implementation. The Secretary General's reports to the General assembly usually describe actions taken but seldom evaluate their effectiveness. The moralist therefore proposes updating reporting methodologies to emphasize outcomes and outputs, giving Member States a clearer view of what has been achieved. The UN's field offices can support this by guaranteeing data and supplying information and reducing reporting burdens on governments, particularly that of the small island developing states. Third, introduce mechanism for regular review and adjustment.

Mandates should evolve as circumstances change. An alternative process within the existing Secretariat structure could provide a periodic feedback from inception to completion, ensuring that each mandate remains relevant and aligned with its objective. Reforms should create a UN that is efficient in process and impactful in results. The focus must be on clarity, accountability and learning from experience. The Maldives remains committed to ensuring that the UN80 process builds on the system that works smarter, collaborates better and delivers real value to the people it serves.


IAHWG · Co-Chair [2:09:06]:

I thank you, I thank the Permanent Representative of Maldives and I now give the floor to the Representative of Mexico, to be followed by Qatar.


Mexico [2:09:19]:

Thank you Co Chairs and first of all, let me thank for your dedication and these efforts and also the information provided by the Briefers. A full text of our intervention will be shared with you and let me concentrate now in our proposals. Madam Couture in his Report of Mandate Implementation Review, the Secretary General makes available proposals on how to better align, deliver and assess mandates. For instance, to address the aforementioned challenges, the Secretary General proposes strengthening the Secretariat's support to Member States during the formulation of mandates to identify potential duplications among draft resolutions. Mexico welcomes this proposal.

We also value the Secretariat's efforts to ensure that Member States have full insight into what already exists across the United nations system when designing new mandates. In this regard, we particularly welcome the initiative to introduce new tools that allow Member States to visualize and interrelate mandates during intergovernmental processes. We believe that a proactive and technologically enabled Secretariat role is indispensable in providing timely information, specialized expertise and strategic guidance to Member States to assess the relevance, coherence and necessity of new mandates. Now looking ahead, Mexico also believes that the success of this process will depend on the honesty and discipline of Member States. As we strongly advocated during the discussions on the revitalization of the General assembly.

We must avoid introducing new resolutions that do not bring substantial changes beyond technical or factual updates. We also need to make commitment to reduce the length of mandate text to decide on biennial or triennial resolutions, and even include, whenever possible, the so called sunset clauses. Similarly, it will be rational to discontinue the practice of adopting the same resolutions both in the Committees and in the Plenary. This should include other governing bodies. Streamlining this practice will make our work less duplicative.

Mexico is convinced that this process is an opportunity to assess and to optimize the mandates we have created, ensuring that remain relevant, effective and aligned with today's priorities.


IAHWG · Co-Chair [2:11:40]:

I thank you, I thank the Representative of Mexico and I now give the floor to the Representative of Qatar, to be followed by Croatia.


Qatar [2:11:54]:

At the outset, I'd like to thank the Co Chairs for convening this meeting, we align ourselves with the statements delivered on behalf of the group of 77 in China and on behalf of the Gulf Cooperation Council. Allow me to share a few key points in our national capacity. First, the establishment of comprehensive registries of mandates is essential to ensure full visibility across the mandate landscape and to facilitate the creation of impactful and coherent mandates. Given the fragmentation of mandating bodies, we call for accelerating the creation of these registries for all existing mandates across the UN system. Second, we support enhanced inter Secretariat cooperation to promote coherence across bodies and to avoid unproductive duplication such as parallel reporting on the same subject matter.

Third, we should seek to harness the potential of artificial intelligence tools to assist Member States in the mandate drafting process. At the same time, human oversight remains indispensable to ensure that appropriate safeguards are maintained. Lastly, we recognize the difficult financial situation facing the United nations even as it is tasked with undertaking more activities within existing resources. Resources Many resolutions are increasingly long and prescriptive and lack actual resources to implement them. In this regard, we underscore the importance of establishing new mandates supported by corresponding resources.

We thank you for your continued efforts and wish to assure you of Qatar's full support in your endeavors. Thank you.


IAHWG · Co-Chair [2:13:30]:

I thank the representative of Qatar and I now give the floor to the representative of Croatia, to be followed by Algeria.


Croatia [2:13:40]:

Co facilitators. Thank you for the opportunity to share our views on mandate creation and for organizing the informative briefing held on October 13th. My delegation aligns itself with a statement delivered by the European Union on behalf of its Member States, and I would like to add a few remarks in my national capacity. We appreciate your comprehensive approach to examining mandates across their full cycle. As today's focus is on mandate creation, I will concentrate on three key elements we consider essential for crafting mandates that are both implementable and conducive to effective delivery.

First, mandates must be concise, clear, flexible, focused and adequately resourced. These qualities ensure mandates can serve as solid foundation for program planning and budgeting and ultimately for achieving meaningful impact. Ambiguity in mandates can lead to misinterpretation and hinder efficient implementation. In this context, early and robust support from the Secretariat, including the Budget Office, is crucial. Second, mandate visibility must be enhanced across the entire UN system.

Centralized and accessible information is vital to prevent duplication and overlap, and we welcome the establishment of the UN Mandate Source Registry by the Secretariat and encourage its continued development and refinement. Third, mandate creation should incorporate mechanisms for evaluating impact and delivery. Mandates are not end in themselves. We must be able to Assess, based on evidence, their contribution to improving lives. And this is, after all, the the core mission of the United nations to serve the people of the world.

Thank you. I thank the representative of Croatia. And I now give the floor to the representative of Algeria, to be followed by Turkey.


Algeria [2:15:38]:

Thank you very much. Algeria aligns itself with a statement delivered by Iraq on behalf of G77 and China. And I would like to highlight the following points on my national capacity. The discussion on the UNH process and the reflections on how mandates are created and managed go to the heart of how the United nations translate political will into action. Reform, in our view, should help the organization become clearer in purpose, more transparent in process, and more accountable in delivery.

We value the development of of tools that map the UN's mandates and make them more accessible. They can certainly help us see the broader picture. However, these tools must support deliberation, not replace it. No platform or algorithm can capture the nuance, intent and compromise that come from negotiation among Member states. Technology should simplify information, not oversimplify politics or replace unstaff.

Mandates are not technical outputs. They are expressions of collective intent. Their wording carries meaning, imbalance that must be preserved. Efficiency in form should never come at the cost of substance, of inclusiveness. We also welcome the push for greater financial transparency.

Clarity on the cost and scope of mandate strengthens trusts. Yet it remains essential that mandates drive resources, not the contrary. Political priorities must continue to guide budgetary ones. What will determine the success of unity is whether it results in better coordination, credible data and genuine ownership by all national member states. If reform delivers this, it will make the UN more agile without losing its soul.


IAHWG · Co-Chair [2:17:37]:

An organization that is modern in its tools but faithful to its intergovernmental nature. I thank you, I thank the representative of Algeria, and we thank all of you for being so concise in your interventions. We have 13 more speakers, so if we continue in this manner, we should be able to finish before the lunch break today. So I now give the floor to the representative of Turkey, to be followed by South Africa and then Ecuador. Turkey, the floor is yours.


Türkiye [2:18:08]:

Distinguished Co Chairs, colleagues, I'd like to thank the Co Chairs for initiating these important consultations. It is crucial for the UN to continue fulfilling its mandate while evolving into an effective and efficient organization to meet the challenges of today. Turkey has long been a strong advocate for the reform efforts aimed at achieving this goal. The UN 80 initiative holds significant potential to bring about meaningful improvements to the UN structure and operational modalities across the three key work streams. The interconnectivity between these work streams remains evident.

Mandates reflect the UN's intergovernmental nature and the exclusive jurisdiction of Member States, as well as their differing needs and priorities within the UN's three pillars. As such, this work stream requires particular attention. The Secretary General's report on this issue provides a valuable reference for Member States in their decision making processes. The report underscores the importance of keeping mandates concise, clear, clear and focused. Moreover, the financial implications of mandate development should be carefully considered.

Periodic reviews of mandates are essential. Efforts must be made to ensure complementarity, avoid duplication, and promote synergy between the General assembly and ECOSOC mandates. While we agree that attention should be given to the increased number of meetings and associated costs, we must also recognize that facilitating multilateralism and international diplomacy by bringing Member States together remains one of the UN's core functions. It is also important to seek potential savings within the UN80 process grounded in a balanced cost benefit analysis. We must approach any changes that could undermine the authority of other key decisions making bodies, such as such as the General assembly and its main committees, with caution.

These bodies, after all, represent all Member States equally, while ECOSOC offers a general inclusive platform for all countries to engage in its work. In conclusion, as we address work stream two, we must strike a careful balance between the UN's urgent need for reform, the goal of increasing its effectiveness and efficiency, and the authority of Member States to formulate mandates consistent with the UN's intergovernmental nature. I thank you.


IAHWG · Co-Chair [2:20:39]:

I thank the representative of Turkey. I now give the floor to the representative of South Africa, to be followed by Ecuador and then Republic of Korea.


South Africa [2:20:51]:

Thank you Coaches. My delegation aligns itself with with the group of 77 in China. Statement delivered by the distinguished representative of Iraq. South Africa would like to make the following remarks in its national capacity. Firstly, regarding mandate creation, General assembly resolution 77335 calling for the expanded use of digital repositories to strengthen institutional memory in is a key factor in assisting us to shape future mandates and avoid unproductive duplication that comes with additional costs.

In this regard, the immediate implementation of this resolution should be heeded in order to facilitate an operational digital mandate registry, reduce the length of mandates, and ensure that exit clauses are firmly in place. Secondly, it is crucial that the appropriate attention is given to the development of the appropriate new technology and artificial intelligence tools to root out complementarities and duplications across UN entities at the inception stage of mandate creation. Thirdly, it is of the utmost importance to ensure that at the point of mandate design the required financial and human resources are duly allocated. These new mandates must be complemented with regular budget estimates while simultaneously rooting out prescriptive assignments. Without these early linkages, mandates immediately become obsolete and ineffective.

We have an obligation to correct the oversight during our review process while taking into consideration the ever looming financial constraints of the organization. In this regard, we support the proposal to refrain from mandating new tasks that are not backed by corresponding resources. Fourthly, the Secretary General proposes improved Secretariat support for Member States that during mandate creation we would need clarity on how this proposal that focuses on human and financial resource allocation would be realistically factored into future budget projections, considering the reductions and revised estimates for the 2026 budgetary process. Finally, consideration would also have to be given to how Member State ownership of resolutions can be maintained. Drafting resolutions as a combined effort may have the positive benefit of assured commitment to implementation.

Thank you, Coaches. I thank the representative of South Africa and I now give the floor to the representative of Ecuador, to be followed by the Republic of Korea and then France.


Ecuador [2:23:55]:

Thank you, Co Chairs. My delegation allies itself with the statement delivered by Iraq on on behalf of the Group 77 and China. Ecuador thanks the Co Chairs for presenting a clear schedule for the coming months. A transparent and predictable process is key for all delegations, especially for smaller emissions. Managing multiple Reform Tracks Ecuador agrees that this process should not be about reducing the United nations ambitions or scope, but about ensuring that what we decide can truly be delivered.

Moderation supports the Secretary General's recommendations aimed at enhancing visibility, coherence and accountability across the full cycle of mandates, while ensuring that these reforms remain guided by the intergovernmental oversight and the inclusive participation of all Member states. Mandates are the backbone of multilateral cooperation and often reflect a very delicate balance to the position of Member states. Yet the proliferation of resolutions, the growing prescriptiveness of their text, coupled with the tendency to add tasks within existing resources, may have created structural inefficiencies. New mandates must therefore be realistic, adequately funded and designed with clarity and feasibility at their core. At the same time, we should remember that mandates reflect the interests of Member States and as such cannot follow a one size fits all approach.

Rather, it should be assessed on its own merits. Ecuador also welcomes the Secretary General's initiative to establish the UN Mandate Registry as a tangible step toward transparency. Looking ahead, Ecuador considers important the following discussions take into account the interconnection among the three UN 80 work streams and that we approach them with a balance between ambition and a good sense of realism. To conclude, my delegation looks forward to further clarity regarding the expected outcome of this process and the framework through which Member States contributions will be considered. Thank you very much.


IAHWG · Co-Chair [2:25:58]:

I thank the representative of Ecuador. I give the floor now to the representative of the Republic of Korea, to be followed by France. Thank you Co Chairs for this consultation and also we briefers for their clarification. Today, my delegation would like to suggest the following considerations. First, regarding mandate registry, as Director Suzuki explained today, we would like to encourage the Secretariat to develop more analytical functionality that extend beyond merely compiling text, thus enabling Member States to have a better informed decisions.


Republic of Korea [2:26:38]:

Second, the mandate registries alone cannot reveal the whole picture. We should explore mechanism for early engagement with the Secretariat during the design phase, similar to legislative consultation practices in many domestic settings. To facilitate such engagement, we would welcome consideration of streamlined coordination arrangement or one stop channel within the Secretariat, potentially resulting in information or analytical notes to check duplication, to ensure coherence and to verify resource availability, including the additional information indicated by Director Monia today. Third, the persistent mismatch between mandates and available resources. This challenge cannot be entirely resolved resolved when mandates are created.

Nevertheless, we should develop procedures facilitating resources, reallocation from existing programs toward new mandates where possible and drawing from result based budgeting methodology that are already in place. We should address this structural impediment more systematically. Fourth, we advocate incorporating review of sunset closes in new resolutions. Newly created mandates should face a periodic assessment. Fifth, regarding implementation flexibility, we should develop guidance through dialogue with the Secretariat to give Secretary General appropriate discretion and authority to optimize delivery arrangement.

Finally, on lengthier resolutions, we should submit set explicit standards or ceiling on drafting practices that foster conciseness and actionability. Colleagues, mandate creation is a Member State prerogative. Yet it is also our shared duty duty to design mandates that can deliver. So we should remind ourselves this exercise demands bolder steps and greater self discipline on our part. From the design phase, I thank you.


IAHWG · Co-Chair [2:28:50]:

I thank the Representative of the Republic of Korea. Give the floor now to France, to be followed by Argentina and then paraguay.


France [2:28:58]:

Many thanks, Mr. President. I would like first to thank also Mrs. Suzuki, Mrs. Pham and Mr. Mounier for their remarks and complimentary to the Statement of the eu. I would like to make four remarks and address two requests. First, we fully support the idea of systematic introduction of sunset and review closes of mandates to make sure that in a few years from now, what we have asked the UN to do continues to be relevant and could be fine tuned or updated. Second, we fully support the principle to give more flexibility to the Secretariat to implement mandates, decide on which department, agency or fundamental is responsible for an activity based on the comparative advantage of each? This is linked to our strong support of the role of the Secretary General as Chief Administrative Coordinator of the whole UN system. However, this new responsibility should come with the understanding that the number of Secretariat entities or agencies tasked with one given mandate is systematic, systematically limited to the required minimum. Third, we fully support measures to build awareness of Member States on existing mandates. The UN Mandates Registry, complemented by artificial intelligence, may provide a strong basis to this end. Secretariat guidance before the negotiation process and during mandate elaboration will also be key in this regard, as proposed, for example, by the eu, Germany or UK previously. Fourth, yes, of course we need to be able to fund correctly new mandates fully and yet we believe that systematic introduction of resource requirements, be it financial or in human resources, may also contribute to the piling up of budgetary resources. Therefore, resource demands to Member States need to come up only after an internal, careful and thorough review has been done internally, based on clear criteria, to see if the new mandate cannot be absorbed within existing resources with new relocation of work or priorisation of resources. We need to avoid the practice of small PBIs, for instance, as this contributes to budgetary fragmentation increase. I am sure we can work toward a new way of functioning in line with the requests already made by the Fifth Committee to the Secretariat to intensify its efforts towards zero based budgeting. We'll propose this in writing, but we would be interested in receiving communication from the Secretariat on two points. First, the list of reports and recommendations on which ones could be given up or merged with others. Second, more details about the heating map showing duplications to identify the areas where we need to work most. Enfin affin de conclude travail de plus. Initiative Au nu quatrovin.


IAHWG · Co-Chair [2:32:26]:

Thank you. I thank the representative of France. I give the floor now to Argentina, to be followed by Paraguay.


Argentina [2:32:35]:

Mucha heracia Presidente. I will also switch to English, but firstly allow me to thank for the responses that we received from all the very good questions that were raised in the previous meeting. We appreciate the effort to have the response in written and today. Regarding the discussions today, allow me to make some remarks based on the Secretary General report on the issue of poor visibility across existing mandates. We have some comments.

First, we believe that there is a need to have collective responsibility or collective accountability. This has to be promoted in order to identify overlaps, prior mandates or overlapping in the impacts of existing work. We do believe there is a primary political responsibility among proponents of resolutions or also co FACILITATORS of negotiating process on this issue.

There has to be of course an active and neutral technical support from the Secretariat to identify these overlappings.

Also IT tools I would say and this Secretary of support is important but these do not accept exempt our collective responsibility and the primary responsibility from proponents when new mandates are created. We also do believe that the Secretariat should or could play a more neutral role on some issues. We all know that some mandates tend to be Secretariat driven or Secretariat influence. That's something that we need to address at some point and also we need to better integrate not only mandates from New York based bodies, but also what's happening in other UN headquarters, Geneva, Vienna, Nairobi and other agencies. Sometimes we are discussing here things that have been already addressed in ILO who or other issues.

And also we would like to recall what we said at the beginning on this general rule that UNGA resolutions remain valid until they are fully implemented. So this is a very important element that cannot be under my band sunset clauses. So what we are saying here is that the there is no one size fits all when we address these issues. Regarding challenges in demanded design, the SG report propose specific ideas that we welcome. I think it's necessary to reduce the length of texts and mandates and make them more focused, effective and action oriented.

Again, this has to be a collective understanding and a collective agreement. And at some point we will have to link this collective understanding and agreement or what we are saying here, what's actually or currently happening in the basement. If you go to 1B the discussions are going in a very different way of some interventions or things that we say here.

But also while this is a collective responsibility, we do believe that there could be an active and joint leadership from those who decide member states or individual who decides to assume positions on committee bureaus, executive boards and governing bodies of the UN system as well from presidencies, from unga, ECOSOC and designated co facilitators in negotiating process.

We thank for the response. Also on the PBI implications in advance for us, I think it's important to have some consideration of PBI implications in initial stage of negotiations and not at the end. So having this report ex ante will be useful for negotiations at some point. We do believe that maybe we will need to have a common understanding on the scope of implications of the phrase within existing resources. The Secretary has an explanation in negotiations sometimes that is used as a political way out to okay, you have the mandate, but only if you get the money.

That doesn't mean new budgetary implications. So I believe that we might have to have an understanding of that, and we do believe that some budget allocations or funding at some point will have to be tied to verifiable and concrete results on the ground. Thank you, Chair.


IAHWG · Co-Chair [2:37:51]:

Thank you. Thanks to Argentina.

I give the floor now to Paraguay, to be followed by Cuba.


Paraguay [2:37:59]:

Thank you, Chair. My delegation wishes to express a few considerations in addition to the statement delivered by the group of 77 in China and first makes a strong call not to miss the current opportunity that arises from the UN 80 initiative. In this regard, it supports the effort of this working Group and appreciates the roadmap that has been outlayed outlined when referring specifically to the creation of mandates, my delegation took note of two challenges highlighted in the Secretary General's report the limited visibility of the overall landscape of existing mandates and of the work carried out by the various bodies that established them, and the difficulties in mandate design that can restrict their impact during implementation. PARAGUIDE recognizes that a clear vision of the full set of mandates is essential to maximize their impact.

In this sense, it supports initiatives aimed at improving their visibility, such as the digital registries under the UN 80 initiative, which help Member States avoid unnecessary duplications. It also underscores the importance of strengthening the duplication complementary among the headquarters and agencies of the United nations systems in order to prevent overlaps and optimize resources. My country also reiterates its supports for the use of technology in the mandate creation process, in particular highlights the potential of artificial intelligence to streamline information analysis and provide inputs that guide more informed decision making both for Member States and for the Secretariat in planning its work. Furthermore, with the aim of maximizing efficiency and impact and recognizing that the direct cost of meetings in reports exceeded $360 million in 2024, as stated in paragraph 33 of the Secretary General's report, Paraguay calls for reconsiderations based on evidence and factual demonstrations of repetitions of the frequency of resolutions presented annually on recurring issues, especially when their texts reproduce previous versions. In this regard, it proposes moving towards BNL or triennial cycles in order to use resources more efficiently and reduce the burden these repetitions impose on Member states and the system.

Finally, PARAGUIDE deems it imperative to prevent committees or technical administrative bodies from turning into arenas of geopolitical confrontation as excessive politicization during the mandate creation stage weakens the ability to deliver concrete results and erodes trust in the organization. Thank you.


IAHWG · Co-Chair [2:40:56]:

I thank Paraguay. I give the floor now to Cuba and then Belarus.


Cuba [2:41:04]:

Chairs, we appreciate the convening of these informal consultations on the Creation of Mandates under the Unity Initiative Cuba aligns itself to the statement made by Iraq on behalf of the group of G77 and China, and we would like to make the following comments. In national capacity we emphasize that the review of mandate implementation as defined in Work Stream 2 of the UN80 initiative should be focused on analyzing how to improve and ensure optimal compliance with the organization's mandate. Mandates and their validity should not be analyzed for their longevity, but rather for where they have fulfilled the fundamental purpose for which they were created. We are reaffirmed that it is prerogative of Member States to make decisions on the creation of new mandates as well as the modification or termination of the existing ones. We also emphasize that the review of mandate creation should remain under the authority of Member States States and that the operational discretion of the Secretariat should be consistent with the established intergovernmental frameworks.

We appreciate that the use of artificial intelligence will be subject to appropriate human oversight and will only be used as a tool to increase investigative capacity in the mandate design process.

Furthermore, while we believe that mandates should be clear and as concise as possible, this should not undermine the presence of nuances that are of interest to all Member States. Taking into account, for example, the sensitivity, longevity and scope of a given issue. Cuba reiterates its commitment for constructive participation in in discussions of the UN80 initiative. Thank you very much.


IAHWG · Co-Chair [2:43:18]:

Thank you, Cuba.

I give the floor now to Belarus and then Pakistan.


Belarus [2:43:23]:

Distinguished Co Chairs Dear Colleagues, the Republic of Belarus supports the efforts to strengthen the impact of the United nations and enhancing its agility, responsiveness and resilience while addressing the issue of arbitrary interpretation and duplication of mandates. In this regard, we welcome the creation of a digital mandate registry created through the UN80 initiative. The recommendation to create shorter action oriented texts to facilitate mandate implementary should not impact the effectiveness of the mandate delivery. We are cautious about the proposal to use artificial intelligence to assist with mandate drafting. While this recommendation could be useful for flagging potential complementarities or duplication in draft texts or meeting agendas across mandatory bodies, we emphasize that those tools should not replace the personal engagement of experts and responsibility of UN staff, which is essential for ensuring the quality and integrity of the work of the organization, we also skeptical that involving system wide coordination platforms will help avoid duplication and ensure the strategic use of resources across the United nations system. Belarus reaffirms its support for the efforts of the Secretary General and the Secretariat as a whole, while emphasizing the intergovernmental nature of both their organization and the process of creating, delivering and reviewing mandates, as well as prioritizing or streamlining mandates activities. We underline that decisions and the actual process of resource redeployment cannot be adopted and implemented internally by United nations system entities without the approval of the UN General assembly, even if there is a reasonable justification. Belarus emphasized that financial or operational factors should not be used as justification for modifications, delays or non implementation of mandates adopted by intergovernmental bodies. I thank you.


IAHWG · Co-Chair [2:45:35]:

I thank Belarus. I give the floor now to Pakistan, to be followed by Brazil.


Pakistan [2:45:45]:

Distinguished Co Chairs. Moving straight to the point in terms of procedure, we would like to request that all inputs received to today be published on the dedicated website for this process to ensure transparency. Coming to substance, we would like to raise the following points. First, we would propose that one of the key points Member States should agree on are principles of mandate creation. The Secretary should provide requisite support in this regard.

2. We do not support the inclusion of review clauses in mandates. This has been extensively debated before also and did not garner consensus. Thus, we do not see the utility of repeating this conversation in this Working Group. Third, we do not support the proposal of refraining from mandating new tasks which are not backed by corresponding resources or an explicit reduction in other mandated tasks.

We believe this is not practical implementable if PBI is to become the defining factor. This would in effect make the UN unable to respond to new and emerging challenges. Fourth, we believe that there needs to be a more faithful application of the phrase within existing resources. At the time of mandate creation. The relevant implementing entity should confirm that they would in actuality be able to implement a given mandate within existing resources.

Fifth, on the task within the Secretary General's purview, we stress that combining reports is not within the authority of the Secretariat. Reports are mandated by Member States and cannot be combined unless Member States agreed to do so. Sixth, we believe that the Mandate Registry needs improvement to be more practical in utility. For example, we believe for mandates it should only list those operative paragraphs which lead to a PBI impact. Currently it just seems to list all of these.

I thank you. Thank you, Pakistan. I give the floor now to Brazil, who will be our final Speaker.


IAHWG · Co-Chair [2:47:41]:

Thank you, Co Chairs. My delegation aligns itself with the statement delivery by Iraq on behalf of the group of G77 China and adds the following remarks in international capacity from a holistic point of view and perspective, the creation of mandate should be part of a rationalized and coherent process. In this regard, before initiating any new mandate, we must ensure that existing initiatives addressing the same issue are thoroughly mapped and analyzed. A prior and systematic phase of identifying possible overlaps and readiness would be of fundamental importance to prevent the proliferation of duplicative mandates. In this respect, the use of data analysis, AI based agents and tools could greatly assist in mapping such overlaps and provide objective evidence to inform the decisions before we start a new mandate.


Brazil [2:48:49]:

Secondly and last, we have heard suggestions regarding the possibility of bring certain budgetary aspects of the mandates to this phase of creation, in particular the program implications PBIS to an early stage of their creation. In this context, it would be useful to receive clarification on how such approach could operate in practice and whether it might entail even directly transfer of the budgetary discussion away from the Fifth Committee, which remains the competent technical firm for such deliberations.


IAHWG · Co-Chair [2:49:31]:

Thank you thank you, Reza. We have heard the last speaker on the list of speakers for this meeting. Given the time, we will not attempt to do a summary here.

We will provide that kind of summary at the beginning of the next meeting, which will be a briefing on mandate implementation of on 30 October, which will be then followed by consultations on 14 November. Further information on the mandate implementation briefing will be communicated to Working Group members shortly. Just to remind you that we are available as co Chairs for you to reach out to us directly or by email. We are flexible in terms of the submission of written inputs or suggestions that you may have to us and in that regard let me just finally thank our briefers for their stick to it iveness and for their forthrightness in providing responses. There are still a few remaining questions that emanated from today that we will attempt to provide you with answers for either in writing or at the next briefing.

And thank you for demonstrating that we are able to self impose discipline. And to finish exactly at 1pm the meeting is adjourned.