18 July 2016: The European Union has announced several “principles of engagement” in the UN General Assembly’s (UNGA) Second Committee, which is responsible for economic and financial issues. The principles of engagement relate to participation in debates, co-drafting of resolutions, respect of deadlines, and financial implications. The announcement followed on a meeting of the Second Committee in June 2016, at which governments concluded the consultation process on the Committee’s methods of work and review of its agenda, with widespread acknowledgement that the consultations had “failed.”

On 11 July 2016, EU ambassador Joao Vale de Almeida issued a letter to UN Member States and observers on behalf of the EU and its member States. Emphasizing the need for “commitment delivery” following the adoption of agreements in 2015, the letter specifies how the EU will engage in the Second Committee’s work during the UNGA’s 71st session (2016-2017) “and until a consensual solution is found on the agenda and working methods” of the Second Committee. The EU letter was circulated by UNGA President Mogens Lykketoft on 18 July.

To ensure adequate time is dedicated to negotiations, the EU and its member States will not intervene in the Committee’s “agenda item” debates, and only deliver statements during the general debate and two thematic debates. On alignment of the Committee’s agenda with the Addis Ababa Action Agenda (AAAA) and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the EU favors “a modernisation” of the Committee’s agenda with a focus on implementing the two agreements and to avoid duplicating negotiations. It also calls for “early and serious consultations on a given resolution with the view to favour a climate conducive to co-drafting in the nearest possible future.”

On “respect of deadlines,” the EU and its member States will not consider draft resolutions submitted after the Committee bureau’s deadline, if the late submission leaves insufficient time to “negotiate to consensus a strong, meaningful resolution.” Finally, with regard to financial implications of resolutions, the EU cites the Committee’s Rules of Procedure, according to which no resolution involving expenditure is recommended to the UNGA without an “estimate of expenditures prepared by the Secretary-General.”

In a plenary meeting on 14 June, which also marked the conclusion of the Second Committee’s work for the 70th UNGA session, Committee Chair Andrej Logar (Slovenia) led a discussion on review efforts undertaken following UNGA decision 70/548. Logar recalled that he had established two tracks of consultation: the Committee’s methods of work, with consultations led by the delegations of Germany and Indonesia; and reviewing the Committee’s agenda, with consultations led by the delegations of Rwanda and Australia.

On reviewing the Committee’s agenda, Logar noted a proposal to frame the Committee’s agenda items around four chapters, to better align with the 2030 Agenda: macroeconomic issues; sustainable development and poverty eradication; follow-up to UN conferences; and system-wide coherence. He planned to report the main points of discussion to the incoming chair of the Second Committee for the 71st UNGA session, Dian Triansyah Djani, Permanent Representative of Indonesia.

In statements during the meeting, governments offered views to be reflected in the summary to the incoming chair. Thailand, for the Group of 77 and China (G-77/China), said timely release of reports by the Secretariat is crucial in allowing Member States to prepare for the draft resolutions. He said PBIs are the purview of the Fifth Committee, and discussing them in the Second Committee can delay deliberations. Supported by the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) and others, he noted that previous decisions on method of work are still valid, relevant and should be implemented.

On reviewing the agenda, G-77/China said it should be “well structured” and “adjusted to the 2030 Agenda.” He stressed that the Committee’s scope of work is broader than the 2030 Agenda, as it relates to the whole development pillar of the UN, and opposed eliminating agenda items. Switzerland, however, said that while the Committee is broader than the 2030 Agenda, it should support it and the Addis Ababa Action Agenda on financing for development (AAAA), not renegotiate them or mandate particular follow-up and review processes.

The EU said it had expected the consultations to result in “real modernization” of the Second Committee, but the resulting documents did not reach that level of ambition. They had been ready to accept them, however, but others did not follow the “golden rule” of agreeing on a text that makes everyone “equally unhappy.” The US observed “mistrust and dysfunction” in the Committee’s working methods, and said it had decided not to engage in the last six resolutions as a result of their mismanagement. She referred to “interests that seem to value control” over the Committee’s capacity to produce actual value. She also said the documents resulting from the process are “balanced,” with some of the US’ issues left out, and should not be further watered down. She said “we need to consider stronger measures” to address the Committee’s functioning, and the US would not shy away from acting on its concerns.

Japan, Australia, Canada, Norway, Finland, Belgium, New Zealand, the US and others expressed disappointment at the failure of the Committee to reach a conclusion on the process. Belgium warned, “this failure is going to leave its mark” in the short term.

Australia, Japan, Finland, Norway and Switzerland highlighted the need to respect deadlines for submitting resolutions. Australia emphasized restricting the Committee’s work to regular working hours, and Australia, Japan and UK made suggestions to allow time for discussing PBIs.

New Zealand said the Committee may need to consider alternatives to its “holy grail of consensus” in order to reach agreement. Russia, Finland and UK expressed support for transferring the process to the incoming chair of the Committee.

Speaking as incoming Chair of the Committee, Djani expressed optimism for finding a solution, and said he will consult extensively with Member States to assess expectations and determine how to proceed with revitalizing the Second Committee. [EU Letter] [IISD RS Sources] [IISD RS Story on Second Committee Consultations]