EU Speaking Points - Development Follow-Up

Summary: EU Speaking Points - Development Follow-Up (8 February 2006: New York)

Informal Consultations of the Plenary of the United Nations General Assembly on the Follow-Up to Development Commitments contained in 2005 World Summit Outcome; Statement by Minister Alexander Marschik, Deputy Permanent Representative of Austria to the UN, on behalf of the European Union, New York

1) general

On behalf of the European Union I would like to thank you for convening this ninth round of consultations on the follow-up to the Summit Outcome on Development.
I would also like to thank the two co-Chairs for their excellent work over the last two months and the transparent manner in which they have conducted their consultations. We believe that the Co-Chair's text of 26 January 2006 forms a useful basis for our consultations, but still requires some strengthening.
The EU would favour a sober approach that focuses on the necessary steps to assure the follow-up to the 2005 World Summit Outcome. A good example is the approach the General Assembly took in the Follow-up to the outcome of the Millennium Summit in its resolution 55/162.
The resolution should focus on Summit Outcome implementation and putting in place the follow-up mechanism without repeating or renegotiating commitments agreed upon only a few months ago in the 2005 World Summit.
The EU regards the development commitments of the Summit Outcome as a central part of the balanced, comprehensive package that our leaders agreed in September. The EU made a major contribution in this regard. The EU is strongly committed to full and timely implementation, making maximum use of existing mechanisms. The EU is confident that negotiations on this basis can yield results.
The European Union understands an expeditious fulfilment of this task as an important step in strengthening the fundamental role the United Nations should have in the promotion of international cooperation for development and the coherence, coordination and implementation of development goals and actions.

2) specific comments / comments to clusters:

a) The preambular part:

Section 1¹ (pp1 - pp6)
- The World Summit should be treated in the same way as other major conferences and summits. Therefore we propose to reaffirm the Summit Outcome in pp1.
- The General Assembly already undertook major efforts in the follow up and implementation of the Summit Outcome, we should build on these efforts. We share the view of G77 and welcome the formulation of pp4 that recalls the resolutions in the economic, social and related fields adopted in the 60th session.
- The EU would like to support the original G77 proposal for pp5. (It would read: "Recognizing that the internationally agreed development goals, including the Millennium Development Goals, offer a framework for planning, reviewing and assessing the activities of the United Nations for development".)
- We can agree to pp6 that reaffirms the commitment to global partnership as currently drafted.
Section 2 pp7 - pp10
- The EU supports pp7 as drafted. The EU is currently undertaking a major effort in implementing its commitments, as are others. We see a need to encourage all actors in their efforts by welcoming them.
- We can accept to highlight the specific situation of Africa as well as the special needs of groups of countries in pp9 and pp10. In both paragraphs we should equally express our concern on the situation.
- In pp10 the EU would prefer to keep language from the Summit Outcome.
- Major efforts are undertaken in increasing aid effectiveness, coordination among development partners and elimination of duplications to improve development results. We suggest to insert an additional pp, which could draw on §23c of the Summit Outcome.
Section 3 (pp11 - pp14)
- Taking up essential elements of the Summit Outcome in the preambular paragraphs 11 to 14 is acceptable. To be more consistent, we should start pp14 by reaffirming the commitment to achieve the goal of sustainable development, including through the implementation of Agenda 21 and the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation.
- For reasons of consistency the EU suggests that pp14 should follow pp5
Section 4 (pp 15 - pp18)
- As to pp15, we would like to seek clarification on the change to the text compared to §38 of the Summit Outcome.

b) The operative part of the draft resolution

Section 5 (op 1- op 5)
- The EU would suggest in op2 to replace the term "expeditiously implement" by "timely implement" which would take up the language of the WSO.
- In op3 the reference to UNCTAD seems redundant since UNCTAD is an integral part of the United Nations System.
- As international organisations in accordance with their mandates can assist MS to implement their commitments, the EU would prefer that we "invite" rather than "call on" the UN, international organisations and institutions, in op3.
- In op3 as well as in operative paragraphs 15 to 18 we refer to ECOSOC's role in the follow-up; these paragraphs will have to be seen in conjunction with the resolution on ECOSOC- reform.
- In op 4 we should focus on existing follow-up mechanisms and make best use of them.
Section 6 (op 6 - op10)
- Op10 refers to work undertaken by the Statistical Commission on indicators to assess the implementation of development goals. We would suggest to recall the request to the Statistical Commission to refine and finalize these indicators as already stated in GA resolution 57/270B.
Section 7 (op 11 - op 18)
- We should be careful not to duplicate work of the governing councils, which receive such reports on a regular basis. We see added value in collecting information on funds received and administered by DESA. We attach high importance on the impact of these funds in development results.
- The EU would request the deletion of the word "systems" in op 12.
- Op 14 foresees a specific meeting of the General Assembly dedicated to development during its consideration of the follow-up to the Millennium Declaration and the World Summit Outcome. We can accept this approach because we believe it could add value and substance to the discussion. As some delegations have suggested, the annual report of ECOSOC to the GA could contribute to the debate.
- To op 15 we have the same comment as to op3.
- The EU would like to see op17 reformulated as follows: "Invites the ECOSOC to consider, inter alia, the issues of means of implementation and institutional framework, as set out in resolution 57/270B, in its review of progress made in the implementation of the outcomes of the major conferences and summits in the economic, social and related fields."
Section 8 (op 19 - op 24)
- The EU would like to inquire whether op 18 and op 24 have budgetary implications.
- The EU can agree to operative paragraph 19 adding the following: "with a strengthened role for the senior resident official, whether special representative, resident coordinator or humanitarian coordinator, including appropriate authority, resources and accountability, and a common management, programming and monitoring framework" at the end.
- In op21 the SG should continue to report on the activities of the CEB but no new mandate should be added for CEB. We should focus on the efficient use of the current CEB report, in particular within ECOSOC.
- To avoid confusion the EU would prefer a specific reference as "at the United Nations secretariat level" in op21.
- In op 24 the concept of "pro-active information" requires clarification.
- Finally the EU would like to suggest the addition of a reference to the important role of parliaments and local authorities and their cooperation with the UN and in the implementation of the commitments made should be reflected in the resolution, as it had been reflected in the draft elements, the co-chairs had presented summing up the previous rounds of consultations.

¹ Sections mentioned here are indicative since co-chairs have not indicated clear sections in their letter

Ref: PRES06-019EN
EU source: EU Presidency
UN forum: General Assembly (including Special Sessions)
Date: 8/2/2006

| Top |

< Back to previous page