Friday 11 September 2009
Notes from the 1st Meeting of the Ad Hoc Working Group of the General Assembly to follow up the UN Conference on the Global Crisis (June 24-26, 1009)
The first meeting of the Ad Hoc Working Group was held on Friday 11 September in the Trusteeship Council. The purpose of the meeting was to get a sense of Member States general thoughts before the Co-Facilitators begin the process of drafting an initial program of work for the process. The Co-Facilitators Kapambwe of Zambia and Wetland of Norway indicated that they would begin to develop a program of work based on the comments made during this meeting, and also during consultations with Member States over the next weeks and beyond.
A handful of Member States took the opportunity to make general statements on how the Working Group should function. Some positions that resonated were:
- that the Working Group should be free to take up any issue related to the Crisis;
- that much of the content for discussion is already contained in the Outcome Document of the June Conference;
- that the process should avoid duplicating work, already being undertaken in ECOSOC and the 2nd Committee of the General Assembly
Authors’ Comment (Gemma Adaba)
The lines of demarcation evident during the negotiations of the Outcome Document of the Conference have not gone away. Essentially, to judge from their comments, the industrialized countries would limit the scope of the Ad Hoc Working Group by not providing any resources and by emphasizing other areas of substantive work which it should not duplicate. The G77 wishes to adhere to the agenda agreed in the Outcome Document, without restrictions.
A very moot point for civil society is that absolutely no one mentioned the participation of civil society. Follow up at appropriate levels with the letter to the 63rd and 64th PGAs is therefore of critical importance. We plan to explore submitting the letter to the 64th PGA this week, at which time we shall inform you and ask you to follow up with delegates and if possible in capitals, with strong advocacy to ensure a space for civil society in the activities of the Ad Hoc Working Group.
Key Developments
A key development that was revealed by Ambassador Wetland at the close of the session was that Alex Trepelkov and his team in the DESA office would be closely involved in providing substantive and technical input into the process.
Ambassador Wetland also indicated that the Co-Facilitators would be calling on the Ambassadors of St. Vincent & the Grenadines, and the Netherlands (the Co-Facilitators of the June Conference) for their input and advice throughout the process.
It was not clear when the 1st sketch of the program of work would become available, since the next few weeks will be totally consumed by preparations for the opening of the 64th Session of the General Assembly, including the General Debate at Heads of State Level..
Opening Address from President d’Escoto
The 63rd President of the General Assembly Miguel d’Escoto opened the meeting by giving a brief speech where he warned that if history is any indication, the recession is far from over. The key message of President d’Escoto’s address was that no subject should be off limits in the Working Group and Member States should be free to bring up issues that they deem important.
Jamaica on behalf of CARACOM
Jamaica took the opportunity to suggest that the Working Group should take up the following five items:
1. Access to concessionary lending to heavily indebted poor countries.
2. Reevaluating the criteria of what constitutes a sustainable economy
3. Innovative resources for financing
4. Developing a level playing field
5. Comprehensive reform of the existing financial architecture
The Jamaican delegate also emphasized that the urgency of the moment requires immediate action and follow-up.
Sweden on behalf of the European Union
The EU had not come to a formal position as yet and would need to consult further before making official inputs on the mandate of the Working Group. However, the Swedish delegate offered some preliminary thoughts.
1. The scope of work of the Working Group should avoid duplicating and overlapping the work of ECOSOC and the 2nd Committee
2. The Working Group should include key stakeholders, specifically, the European Commission and the Bretton Woods Institutions
3. Avoid scheduling conflicts with existing meetings and processes
4. Fund the Working Group within existing resource capacity
Sudan on Behalf of G77 and China
The G77 echoed the sentiment of the speech made by President d’Escoto. The Sudanese delegate’s key message was that the Outcome Document of the June Conference already provides the basis for discussion and the topical subjects to be taken up by the Working Group.
Ecuador
Ecuador echoed the sentiment of the PGA and the G77 and further added that the Working Group is the best and most inclusive body to move forward and implement the contents of the Outcome Document and that the process should be viewed in this way.
Venezuela
Venezuela echoed statements previously made by the PGA and emphasized that there should be no restriction on the issues taken up in the Working Group. The Venezuelan delegate also specifically highlighted the following three areas for discussion:
1. Providing liquidity to the South
2. Giving priority to addressing the great debts of the South
3. Reforming the world financial system
Korea
Korea repeated that the Working Group should avoid duplicating the work already being taken up by other UN organs.
Canada on behalf of CANZ
Canada made the point that the efforts of the Working Group should be guided by the present day situation and should evolve as the situation evolves.
Japan
Japan made the point that the Working Group is not the only group working on the Crisis, citing ECOSOC and the 2nd Committee as examples. The Japanese delegate also suggested that the discussion be limited to addressing the concerns of those affected by the Crisis and avoid entering into a “byzantine” discussion. The Japanese delegate repeated that the activities of the Working Group be conducted within the existing budgetary resources.
Russian Federation
The Russian delegate stated that the Working Group and other organs should complement each other, but also mentioned that the Working Group should not take over subjects currently addressed in other processes, and more specifically the Monterrey Consensus Agenda. He also suggested that the scheduling not conflict with or take away from other important meetings.
Nigeria
Nigeria made the point that the Working Group was not a process that was imposed on Member States, but one that was agreed to by consensus in the Outcome Document. Therefore, he stated that it was imperative that Member States work towards its success.
The delegate from St. Vincent & the Grenadines made the point that many countries are not seeing so called “green shoots” and that it was not acceptable to allow the same economics that crippled the global economy to fashion the response. He also emphasized that the mandate in the Outcome Document is to follow up on all issues contained within the document, so the idea of placing restrictions on what issues can be discussed in the Working Group runs counter to its agreed mandate and would not be accepted. Finally, he emphasized that the Working Group should not get bogged down by procedural matters and that the discussions should focus on the substantive issues and crafting tangible and effective responses to the Crisis.