Erklärungen in internationalen Organisationen

EU Speaking Points – ECOSOC Reform

Informal Consultations of the United Nations General Assembly Plenary on ECOSOC Reform. Statement by Minister Alexander Marschik, Deputy Permanent Representative of Austria to the UN, on behalf of the European Union

• On behalf of the European Union I would like to thank you for convening this further round of consultations on ECOSOC reform. The European Union attaches great importance to revitalising ECOSOC along the lines set out in the Summit Outcome Document.
• We believe it is now time for a resolute step forward and would like to ask the co-chairs to take up the task of producing a new text. The EU stands ready if need be to also enter in the discussion on clusters, if the co-chairs or partners feel the need for further clarification on some of the elements.

PREAMBULAR PART

• PP1: The EU believes that “reaffirming” instead of “recalling” the World Summit Outcome in pp1 would be more appropriate.
• PP2: The EU supports the co-chair’s text and believes that one PP should contain all necessary references to any other resolutions including GA res. 60/180. We should maintain one section within the operative paragraphs devoted to ECOSOC’s role in post-conflict peace building.
• The EU could accept the G77 proposal of a reference to GA resolution 59/250 although it is not clear how the triennial comprehensive policy review fits in with a series of more systemic resolutions. As G77 noted, the list of systemic resolutions is not complete, for example resolution 57/300 also contains relevant provisions.
• PP2bis: The EU has concerns with the inclusion of a paragraph from WSO on global partnership for development. Though we fully support the substance of this reference, we wish to remain consistent with the functions of the Council as described in the Charter of the UN.

PP3: The EU does not see a contradiction between PP3 referring to ECOSOC as a principal body for coordination, policy review and policy guidance on issues of economic and social development and PP4 referring to ECOSOC as the central mechanism for coordination within the UN system.
As for the G77 proposal the EU does not support the selective inclusion of the words “and commitments” in para. 155 WSO.

• PP4: The EU can go along with this PP, since we regard it as compatible with PP3.

OPERATIONAL PART

GLOBAL DIALOGUE

• OP1: Like some other delegations we believe that OP1 should be retained since it outlines the main tasks of global dialogue as contained in para. 155a of the WSO and helps to give the reader an overall view of what global dialogue should be about.
• OP2: The EU could consider the G77 proposal for OP2 (G77 OP2alt) with the understanding that some further modifying language in OP2b would be needed to ensure that the biannual policy dialogue would allow high-level discussion within the full scope of ECOSOC’s competences including social, environmental and related aspects. Such a policy dialogue should, inter alia, serve the understanding that themes such as sustainable development, human rights and gender are taken into account in decision-making across the UN.
• The EU could accept that ECOSOC should determine its own modalities as to the choice of the theme for the high-level policy dialogue.
• The EU could also accept the co-chair’s text but believes that the number of reporting requests to the Secretariat should be kept to a reasonable minimum. With the aim of reducing duplications we could envisage a consolidated report of the SG as a basis for the whole HLS thus comprising the policy dialogue or, in alternate years, the DCF and possibly, whenever themes match, the AMR. The EU strongly supports the idea that key stakeholders including civil society and the private sector should have the possibility to contribute to this consolidated report.
• OP3: The policy dialogue should allow active participation of key stakeholders including civil society and the private sector. The EU believes that in line 3 reference should be made to “rules of procedure and practices” since on certain themes also other stakeholders engaged in processes like the Monterrey-follow-up could be associated with the dialogue.
• OP4: The EU believes that the substantive session should not produce more than a single Ministerial Declaration during the substantive session. This Ministerial Declaration could also build upon several chapters reflecting the different segments.

DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION FORUM (DCF)

• OP5: The EU remains committed to the text of the WSO and does not deem it appropriate to add selective references to para. 155b.
• OP6a: We could consider the G77 proposal in the sense that the DCF should focus on dialogue and review trends and policies in international development cooperation. In our understanding progress reviews will be undertaken during the Annual-Ministerial-level-Review (AMR).
  The EU would like to ask G77 for some clarification as to which segment or parts thereof should in their view be mandated with the annual review of the progress in the implementation of the major UN conferences and summits.
• OP6b: The EU supports the co-chair’s text. Recommendations for policy options and practical measures could be included in the Ministerial Declaration as the outcome for the whole substantive session.
• OP6c: The EU could accept the G77 proposal (OP6bis) which foresees an exchange of experiences in formulating, in supporting and implementing national development strategies.
• OP6d: In the first line the EU would prefer “rules of procedure and practices” since on certain themes also other stakeholders engaged in processes like the Monterry-follow-up could be associated with the dialogue. The EU would like to see the reference to UNCTAD deleted since in our understanding UNCTAD is part of the UN organizations.
• OP7: The EU believes that the DCF and the GA High Level Dialogue on Financing for Development (FfD) should not be held in the same year, but we could accept the co-chairs text.
• OP8: The EU can accept the co-chair’s text but believes that the number of reporting requests to the Secretariat should be kept to a reasonable minimum. With the aim of reducing duplications we could also envisage a consolidated report of the SG as a basis for the whole HLS thus comprising the policy dialogue or, in alternate years, the DCF and possibly, whenever themes match, the AMR. The EU strongly supports the idea that key stakeholders including civil society and the private sector should have the possibility to contribute to this consolidated report. In our understanding active participation of civil society in the work of the UN will not only enrich the dialogue and possibly create new ideas but also help to make the work of the UN more relevant for civil society. To determine who will be a relevant institution or actor to consult with should lie within the SG’s discretionary power.

ANNUAL MINISTERIAL LEVEL REVIEW (AMR)

• OP9: As mentioned above, the EU does not deem it appropriate to change the scope of the agreement reflected in the WSO by selective referencing.
• OP10a: The EU supports thematic clusters. The AMR should not examine the major UN conferences and summits all at once and also not examine them individually one after another. A comprehensive review of all MDGs in the context of the AMR should be foreseen. The EU continues to believe that thematic cluster discussions do not rule out cross-sectoral approaches. They rather open the possibility to explore new approaches taking on board the important contributions of functional and regional commissions.
• As to the G77 proposal (OP10alt) regarding the inclusion in the AMR of an impact assessment the EU believes that the current OP 9 when spelling out that the AMR should “assess progress” also includes an “impact assessment”. The EU can accept the inclusion of the follow-up processes in the AMR.
• As to the positioning of the AMR within the substantive session, the EU, can accept the idea that the AMR should be part of the High-level-Segment provided that all or most of the coordination segment is merged into it (see op12).
• OP11: The EU supports the Swiss proposal of a timely establishment of a multiyear program so that subsidiary and other implementing bodies can better contribute to the AMR. We can also accept in principle the modifications as proposed by G77. However, we should integrate the idea of cross-sectoral thematic issues in a flexible manner so to give it the possibility of topical themes.
• OP12: The EU supports the co-chair’s text since we believe that it is comprehensive. Since the AMR is supposed to take up one of the coordination segment’s main tasks according to GA res. 57/270B we don’t think we should extend the HLS without reducing accordingly the time allocated to the coordination segment. Indeed, the heart of the AMR is in a way an upgrading of the activities of the coordination segment.
• We can accept the proposal of G77 and the Russian Federation to maintain the current segment structure with some qualifying language. In the light of the reorganization of ECOSOC’s structure we would propose that the ECOSOC should review the manageability and lessons learnt regarding its new structure.
• The EU agrees with the US that OP12 should be at the end of this section.
• OP13: The EU supports the co-chairs text with the idea that ECOSOC subsidiary bodies should organize their work so as to contribute to the preparation for the AMR. The EU could accept the G77 additional language” according to their mandates”.
• OP14: The EU supports the co-chairs text.
• OP15: The EU supports the co-chair’s text and notes that para. OP10ter and OP15alt proposed by G77 are identical. The EU would ask G77 for clarification.
• OP16: The EU can accept the co-chair’s text but believes that the number of reporting requests to the Secretariat should be kept to a reasonable minimum. As we already mentioned above we could consider a consolidated report of the SG as a basis for the whole HLS thus comprising the policy dialogue or, in alternate years, the DCF and possibly, whenever themes match, the AMR. The EU strongly supports the idea that key stakeholders including civil society and the private sector should have the possibility to contribute to this consolidated report.
• OP17: As mentioned above the EU believes that the substantive session should not produce more than one single Ministerial Declaration during the substantive session. This Ministerial Declaration could possibly build upon several chapters reflecting the different segments.

HUMANITARIAN EMERGENCIES

• OP19: The EU supports the co-chair’s text as a compromise and does not see the need for creating a separate paragraph (OP18alt) as suggested by G77. The EU wants to keep the humanitarian segment with its current responsibilities. Ad-hoc meetings should not duplicate the work of OCHA and should be limited to raising awareness and promoting engagement. The EU supports the Russian proposal of “informal” ad hoc meetings. The EU does not see the need for the inclusion of the wording “address capacities to respond to those emergencies”.
• OP20 and OP21: In line with CANZ, G77 and the Russian Federation the EU can accept the deletion of these paragraphs.

COORDINATION OF FUNDS, PROGRAMS AND AGENCIES

• OP21bis (G77): EU aims for a procedural resolution on ECOSOC reform and does not support the inclusion of this proposed paragraph as it touches upon the substance of operational activities.
• OP22: The EU supports the co-chair’s text as a quote from para. 155e WSO. As to OP22alt proposed by G77, the EU again does not support selective quoting. We note that OP22alt equals para. 60 of GA res. 50/227 except the word “oversight” in the first line. We do not think that in addition to coordinating operational development programs and funds ECOSOC should or could assume the role of an oversight body.
• OP23: The EU supports the co-chair’s text based on par. 168 indent 4 of the WSO.
  OP24: The EU supports the current text on recalling the invitation to the SG for further strengthening the management and coordination of UN operational activities.

“RESOURCE MANAGEMENT”

• OP25: The EU would prefer to delete this paragraph. Resource allocation should take into account all priorities within the UN. The EU wishes to stress that ECOSOC reform should also take place within existing resources. If need be, reallocation of resources could focus on the exercise of the five functions.
• As to OP31 proposed by G77 the EU does not believe that there is a need for prescribing a minimum meeting time for ECOSOC. Practice will show how much time is needed for the renewed segments and ECOSOC could adapt its modalities accordingly.
• OP26: The EU supports a review of the current distribution of work between the GA, its Second and Third Committee and ECOSOC. Such a review should help identify and reduce overlaps which should benefit both principal organs by giving them freed up resources.

“PBC”

• OP27: The EU supports a strong link between ECOSOC and the PBC in accordance with GA resolution 60/180. ECOSOC should highlight in particular the medium and long-term economic, social and environmental dimensions of post-conflict/peace-building situations and address the question of transition from relief to development according to its existing practice.
• As to OP27alt proposed by G77 the EU wishes to stick to the language agreed in GA resolution 60/180.
• OP28: The EU doesn’t see the need to elaborate on GA resolution 60/180. We cannot accept OP28alt proposed by G77.
• OP29: The EU can accept the co-chair’s text but would also go along with the US proposal for deletion.
• G77 proposed OP29alt: The EU cannot support the G77 proposal. The EU supports a link between ECOSOC and the PBC according to GA-res. 60/180 in which para.15 the PBC is requested to submit an annual report to the GA but not to ECOSOC.
• G77 proposed OP30: The EU does not see the need to elaborate on GA resolution 60/180 and would not accept G77 proposed OP30.
• We congratulate the co-chairs for their excellent guidance of this further round. As mentioned in my introductory remarks, we believe it is now time for a resolute step forward and would like to ask the co-chairs to take up the task of producing a new text so that we can look forward to a timely conclusion of these negotiations.