M a n d a t e Review: Co-Chairs' Interim R e p o r t P r e p a r e d a t the request of the President of the G e ~ l e r a Assembly l

June 27,2006

Mr. president: Your Co-Chairs wish to provide an interim report of our work 011 your behalf in facilitating the review by rneinber states of "...all mandates older than five years originating from resol~itionsof the General Assembly...", as directed by leaders in of paragraph 163 (b) of the World Suinmit Outcome Docu~nent September, 2005 (A/Rl3S/60/1). Over the past six n~onths, meil~ber states have worked intensively in inforinal plenary scssions to address the Inany challenges posed by this unprecedented review of the U.N.'s program of work. They discussed extensively the Secretary-General's Report "Malldating and Delivering", dated 30 Marcli, 2006. They repeatedly expressed their 3ppreciation for the thorough and prompt work done by Assistant Secretary-General Iiobert Orr and his staff. Their worlc greatly assisted inenlber states in addressing these issues. Meinber slates were pasticularly grateful for the preparation by Mr. Orr's teain of the electronic data base of mandates, which was of significant practical help in member states' deliberations. We set forth below certain points that we wish to bring to your attention.

I-lis Excellency Mr. Jan Eliasson President of the General Asseinbly United Nations

T IE PRkSIDENT I
OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

28 June 2006

Dear Colleague, Under tlie able leadership of the two Co-Chairs I designqted on Secretariat and Management Reform, namely, Ambassador Aluam of Paltistan and Ainbassador Rock of Canada, 12 Inforn~al Consultations of the Plenary were held on the report of the Secretary-General or1 Mandating and delivering: analysis and recommendations to facilitate the review of ~nandates (A1601733 and Corr. 1). Please find attached an Interim Report of tlie Co-Chairs or1 the work accoinplished thus Far and on the way ahead in the area of mandate review. I trust that the ele~nentsof the report will provide a basis for reaching an agreement. The Co-Chairs will convene a meeting of the Informal Collsultations of the Plenary on Thursday, 29 June 2006, at 10 a.m. in the Trusteeship Council Chamber to discuss the next steps to be take11 on this matter. Yours sincerely,

Jan Eliasson All Perlnanent Representatives and Permanent Observers to the United Nations New York

Member States in the informal plenary agreed to a "Worlting Group" format to 1. consider those inalldates five years and older that have not been renewed. The Worlting Group has i11et on three occasions and a sum111ary of its proceedings is attached hereto as A n n e x A. Those mandates that are five years and older and not relle~ved constitute a small percentage of all General Assembly mandates. The Secretariat has estimated that they a~nount approximately 7% of all GA mandates. to

2.

As to the reii~aining93 % of GA mandates, the informal plenary has been unable 3. for these Inany months to conle to agreement that they should be reviewed because of differences ainong lnember states as to the scope of the inaridate review exercise, based on differing interpretations of the World Suinlnit Outco~ne Document. Co-Chairs have ~ i o r l t e d find coinillon ground on this fundamental issue, so that to the mandate review can proceed with the 93 % of the GA mandates.
5. There is no agreement alllong ~neinber states on this point at present. But the CoChairs have consulted inforlnally with member states and have attached hereto as Annex B some ideas that have been advanced. We believe they inerit consideration by all ~ to groups. We respectfully suggest that you n ~ a y l i s h circulate the111 inforinally to er determine whctlier they find favour with ~ n e l l ~ bstates.

4.

We are grateful for the honour you have done us by aslting us to serve in the report to be useful. capacity ofco-chairs, and we hope you will find this i~iteriin Yo~irs very truly,

Munir Aluani

Allan Rock

Mandate Review Working G r o u p Interim Report to the Plenary Co-Chairs

The Mandate Iieview Working Group was created June 22"d and has held three substantive sessions in the intervening period (June 23rd,June 26'11,June 27'"). Work~ng ~ O discussions have focussed on the approxiniately 400 mandates originating in the G LI~ General Asse~nbly and falling within tile category of mandates 'older that1 five years and not rene\ved'. This constitutes 4% of all UN mandates. These 400 mandates have been separated into 6 lists on the basis of their status of implementation, specifically: Foundational mandates* Collipleted lnandates Implemented/in-progress mandates Not i~nple~nellted mandates Non-Applicable mandates Mandates for which Status of lniple117entation is Unclear.
* A dlscrete list uf '~ofoundat~oi~al nmndates andfoundatlonal-relaled n~nndciies"has also been provided for infort?gation purposes; i~owevet-, h content o f t h i s list is replicaled in the 5 calegories rhatfi~llow. t

The worlti~ig group has reviewed each of these lists. The working group also considered a specific proposal related to tile Regular Progran~me of Technical Cooperation. Details of this pl.eIiminary work follow:

General Obser-vations

It was suggested that the guidelines and modalities by \vliich tlie General Assembly is conducting its portioli of the mandate review exercise should also be followed by other principal organs. 'I'hel-e was a strong view expressed that Politically Sensitive Mandates should not be disci~ssedby the work~ng group. There was a s p h n gview expressed that some mandates of an evolving nature within tiou-renewed category may,need to be revisited in the context of tlie broader review.
2

Found:ttional Mandates

It was generally agreed that Foundational Mandates representing one-time tasks or events could be set aside (i.e. Identified in the Registry as completed/closed, with no further follow up action required and no fill-ther budgetary implications).
Foundational mandates 01- Founding-Related Mandates of a continuing nature (i.e, with a continuing impact on the work of tlie organization) need to be considered as "implemented - in progress" bearing in mind their evolving nature.

Com~~lcted Mandates 7'he GA working groiip agreed u d refthat the following* 66 mandates could be identified as discontinued, on the unclerstanding that this removal would be non-prejudicial to: outputs, entities or processes previously created under these resolutions.
*Nolr. /I hrll list o/'lhe 66 nznnciates is czlrrently being prepared by (he Secretar~al

Proposals were made for the dispensation of the remaining mandates in the "Cotnpleted" category and will be subject to filrther consideration. These proposals iiicluded:
e

57 mandates to be transferred froin tlie "Completed" list to the "not-applicable" list as they require either no in~plementationor implementation by entities outsidc the UN system

0

43 mandates to be transferred froin the "completed" category to tlie "implementation- in progress" category:

38 mandates on which f ~ ~ r t h informati011 is required from the Secretariat er

7'1ie \vorlting group has agreed to co~ltinue lool<ing at these mandates with a view to identifying areas for early action Not Impiemcntecl Mandates
I t \?/as agized that this category of mandates is redundant and can be deleted. O f t h e three mandates on this list, two mandates were deternii~ied be noil-applicable, and the remaining mandate is was to determined to belong Illore properly 011 the "No-Indication list".

The list of non-applicable mandates includes: (i) Mandates originating in the G A for action by entities other than tlie Secretariat or implementing entities of tlie UN system, and; (ii) Mandates originating in the G A wliich are exho~fativeand do not call for any specific action or follow-up.
I t was agreed that this list of mandates falls o ~ ~ t s i d e the scope of the current mandate review exercise. of
Mandates with No-Indication.

This list represents mandates for which it was not possible to collect information on the status of iniplementatio~~ during the colnpilation of the mandate registry. l h e working group agreed to request the Secretariat to complete their research on this list no later than JLIIY 10'11,as this information is required for tlie finalization of the GA's deliberatio11on the list of nonimplemented.

Concrete Proposal(s) Consitler-eci 1. Regular Program of' Technical Cooperatiotl (IZPTC)

Discussions were held on a proposal to discontinue tlie regular programme of technical cooperation and Account; redirect said resources to the Develop~nent
It was agreed by the working group that the N'TC requires comprcliensive revicw on an expedited basis, 11-i I~ght the reicvant decis~ons the General Asse~nbly of of

ANNEX B: SOME iNFOIiMAL IDEAS ON NEXT PHASE OF MANDATE REVIEW

1 . Confidence building measures:
a) Mandate review not a cost-cutting exercise: purpose is to strengthen tlie UN. b) Itiesources freed up through collsolidation/disconti~~uing dates will be re-invested in same naild Issue area. c) Politically sensitive inandates will be approached with caution, and the perspectives of those n~einber states wl~ose interests are directly engaged will be respected.

2. Scope of Phasc 2 of M a n d a t e lieview
Member states agree that all mandates older than five years created by the General Assembly are to be reviewed during Phase 2 of the mandate review process, including those that have been renewed.

3. Linkage
The two preceding paragraphs are linked. In other words, the agreement by many member states beell given in consideration of the other, so that the two paragraphs stand together. to one l ~ a s Neither is acceptable s t a l ~ d i i ~ g alone.

4. Timing
a) Phase 2 will begin as soon as practicable, but not later than July 15, 2006. b) Member states recognisc that mandate review is an evolving process, as we learn by doing. Meinber states will use their best efforts to respect the time li~nits mandate review outlined in for the World Sununit Outcoille Document, while acltnowledging that it nlay be necessary to extend the process beyond 2006.

5 . Orgar-tisation of t h e Work

a) The Worlting Group will co~nplete review of five year old, uiirenewed inandates in its an expeditious inaniler, and preferably before the end of July, 2006.

b) Phase 2 will address all mandates organised by "issue areas". Member states will discuss and agree what these "issue areasnare at the outset of their work. c) Soine cross-cutting ~nandates may not fit readily into a specific issue area. Meinber category to capture those mandates. states nnay wish to forin an additio~lal d) Discussiolls will include a review of ltey functions within each issue area. e) The review of issue areas will include consideration of report-consolidation proposals, as applicable.
f) The sequence in which issue areas are to be reviewed will be discussed and agreed upon by 11neinberstates.

6. I'ilot Project Member states ivill consider selecting an issue area for early review as a "pilot project", in order to accu~nulate experience \wit11 inandate review, and build confidence in methodology.

June 27,2006