Second Committee Discusses Working Methods, Concludes Session

Concluding its seventy-ninth session today, the Second Committee (Economic and Financial) — while not taking a decision on its agenda item concerning revitalization of its work — heard that its working methods must be improved despite a lack of consensus on how best to do so.

At the outset of the meeting, Salahuddin Noman Chowdhury (Bangladesh), Chair of the Committee at its seventy-ninth session, recalled that the body convened an informal dialogue on 2 June to discuss revitalization of its work.  “Following that dialogue, the Bureau took stock of the discussions and has concluded that, during the current session, there will be no negotiated outcome of our discussions,” he reported.  Rather, the Bureau will update the paper on the Committee’s working methods and will prepare an informal summary capturing the main points raised during the 2 June dialogue and today.

As the floor opened, the representative of Iraq — speaking for the “Group of 77” developing countries and China — observed that there was “clearly” no common understanding in the Committee on the way forward.  As such, he said that “a deferment of a decision would be most appropriate at this time”.  Stressing that every effort to improve its work is “vitally important”, he urged a focus on “making small tweaks to ensure the Committee’s work and programme results in a successful session”.  Among other points, he reaffirmed all delegations’ right to introduce new agenda items — or new draft resolutions under existing ones — and opposed any proposals for the co-drafting of resolutions.

While acknowledging Member States’ “sovereign right” to introduce resolutions, the representative of New Zealand — also speaking for Australia and Canada — observed that, with each passing year, “we seem to be growing further from consensus on a larger number of resolutions in this Committee”.  The “sheer volume” of resolutions in the Committee, she stressed, “dilutes our ability to truly listen to each other”.  Stating that the UN80 Initiative provides an opportunity to look at revitalization with a “fresh perspective”, she said that Member States need to “rethink how the UN — including the Second Committee — works to ensure that it is fit for purpose to confront current and future needs”.

“At a time when the international community is facing unprecedented challenges, the need for an agile, effective and responsive multilateral system has never been greater,” said the representative of the European Union, in its capacity as observer.  “Yet,” she added, “we see a growing erosion of trust in the United Nations’ ability to response to these challenges.”  Underlining the need to address “identified weaknesses” and strengthen the UN’s capacity to deliver “collective, inclusive and equitable solutions”, she warned against “rushed” initiatives and underscored:  “Consensus must guide our efforts.”  She added:  “To be effective, revitalization must be inclusive.”

The representative of the Russian Federation also called for “returning — as far as we can — to the principle of consensus”.  To that end, he suggested incorporating new language to “avoid promoting non-consensual approaches” and encouraged the Bureau to convene “consultations on cross-cutting issues”.  He, too, expressed concern over the length and volume of resolutions in the Committee — “which remains an issue” — as this impedes the quality of negotiations and outcome texts.  Further, he called on delegations to refrain from introducing resolutions with regional scope “if there is no urgent need or clear global implications”.

The representative of the United Kingdom concurred on that point, urging a focus “on things that have relevance across the majority of Member States, rather than those with a more narrow national or regional focus”.  She also pointed to the need to reduce duplication so the Committee can concentrate “on what will truly accelerate delivery of the SDGs [Sustainable Development Goals]”.  Further, she suggested using existing reports when no new data is available; merging resolutions on similar topics — “or remove some with less relevance now”; and limiting the length of resolutions and negotiations “so we can focus clearly on what new activities are being mandated and don’t get so lost in lengthy wordsmithing”.

Meanwhile, Mexico’s representative said that — while her delegation values continued conversation on this topic — it “has difficulty understanding what is different today” than when the Committee met on 2 June.  Although it is important to discuss how to make the Committee more effective and relevant to “address the sustainable-development challenges of our time”, she emphasized that “we don’t necessarily think meeting where statements are reiterated is all that helpful”.  Adding that “we should all agree that there remains some work to be done regarding the efficiency of this Committee”, she suggested that the Bureau offers proposals to that end based on statements delivered on this topic.

“We still need to see further improvement,” agreed the representative of Türkiye, expressing support for initiatives “aimed at maximizing the Second Committee’s impact in achieving the 2030 Agenda and its SDGs”.  This, she stressed, is “increasingly relevant in the context of the complex global challenges we face today”.  While Member States have the right to present resolutions, she underlined the need to ensure those texts are “relevant, updated and concise”.  She added:  “Consensus should continue to be the key decision-making process for the Second Committee, despite all our increasing differences.”