EU Statement - UN General Assembly: Criteria and modalities for review of existing stock of GA mandates

2 June 2026, New York - Statement on behalf of the European Union and its Member States delivered by Daniel PRADA JIMENEZ DE CISNEROS, Attaché, Coordination, Press and Information, European Union Delegation to the UN, on the Initial exchange of views on criteria and modalities for review of existing stock of General Assembly mandates

Distinguished Co-Chairs, excellencies, colleagues,

I deliver this statement on behalf of the European Union and its Member States.

We appreciate the opportunity to exchange initial views on criteria for decisions on the future of General Assembly mandates and modalities for the review of the existing stock of General Assembly mandates, two key deliverables from resolution 80/251.

As we know, since 1946, more than 40,000 resolutions, decisions and presidential statements have been adopted across UN bodies. Over time, this has contributed to duplication and overlap, as well as an increasing proliferation of reports and meetings that can be difficult to navigate for both the Secretariat and delegations alike.

For these reasons, the EU believes this exercise constitutes an important step in the broader UN reform process. It is also a matter of inclusivity. Finding ways to review the existing stock of mandates and developing clear criteria for the review of individual mandates will help all delegations better participate, reducing the burden while safeguarding the UN's ability to deliver effectively. A more coherent mandate architecture should ultimately help the Organization focus on implementation and measurable impact.

Allow me to raise a few points, first on modalities for the review of the existing stock of mandates, and second on criteria for mandate review.

A comprehensive review of existing mandates has huge potential to reduce the burden on both Member States and the UN Secretariat, thereby making the UN more effective on the ground. But we should avoid mistakes from the past. There is no one-size-fits-all approach and reviewing all existing mandates at once may appear to be a virtually impossible task.

As a first step, we believe it is essential to have a clearer picture of what we are dealing with. Rather than attempting to map all 40,000 resolutions, decisions and presidential statements adopted across the UN system, our focus should be on understanding which mandates are currently being implemented by the Secretariat and how they are being delivered. To that end, we believe that existing tools at our disposal, notably the Mandate Registry, should be further strengthened. We should explore how the Registry could evolve into a more comprehensive, data-driven tool capable of providing greater visibility across the mandate landscape. Importantly, we now have technological capabilities that were not available ten years ago, and we should consider how these can support this effort and enable more informed decision-making.

As a second step, we believe that the Main Committees could play an important role in carrying forward mandate review efforts within their respective areas of competence. Building on their existing experience, including through General Assembly revitalization processes, they could undertake mandate reviews using the toolbox, methodologies and guidance developed by this working group. Such an approach would help foster a culture of mandate review across the General Assembly and encourage a more systematic consideration of existing mandates when reviewing or proposing new ones, with appropriate support from the Secretariat.

In this sense, agile and incremental processes should play a central role in the review of the existing stock of mandates. The mandate landscape review, being part of the concept note, offers an excellent opportunity for this. Proponents of new mandates should not only focus on expanding the existing stock of mandates, but on transforming it at the same time. Such an incremental approach enables small-scale reviews of existing mandates in specific areas whenever new mandates are introduced in those areas.

From our point of view, it would also be possible to look into the mandates of a certain thematic cluster without a new mandate and its concept note on the table. We also think it might be very useful to identify a pilot case consisting of a small set of existing mandates on which we can attempt our first review of existing mandates.

On the second topic of today's discussion - the criteria for mandate review triggered by review clauses.

We agree with the Secretary-General's assessment in his UN80 progress report that this is, above all, a stewardship function. A life-cycle approach should give better visibility over how mandates are created, resourced, implemented, reported on and reviewed. Better data, mandate registries, clearer citations, improved reporting formats and stronger results management can help us identify overlap, clarify responsibilities, reduce avoidable burdens and assess whether mandates are producing intended results.

Against this backdrop, the EU believes our work could benefit from a practical and structured approach, while remaining flexible enough to fully respect the individual circumstances that come with each mandate.

As a starting point, we should consider applying a set of cross-cutting screening questions to each mandate at its respective time of review:

• Relevance - does the issue continue to require international attention and remain within UN competence?

• Effectiveness - does the mandate demonstrably produce useful outputs or results?

• Uniqueness - is this work already being carried out elsewhere in the UN system, or does the mandate provide distinct added value?

• Cost-benefit analysis - are the resources and reporting burden proportionate to the results achieved?

Such a screening exercise could help guide decisions on the respective futures of mandates.

For example, a mandate may merit renewal where the underlying issue persists, and the mandate remains fit for purpose. In other cases, a mandate may require adaptation, where the issue remains relevant but implementation methods, language or reporting modalities no longer reflect current realities.

Where mandates substantially overlap in objectives or reporting requirements, merger could be considered to reduce duplication and administrative burden while maintaining the integrity and substance of the mandates. In some cases, replacement may be appropriate where a mandate's objective remains valid, but a different mechanism would provide a more effective instrument for delivery.

Finally, and as reflected in paragraph 20 of the resolution, retirement may be warranted where mandates have been fully implemented, expired, become inactive, or no longer provide meaningful added value. Retirement should, where relevant, be accompanied by appropriate transition arrangements to preserve institutional knowledge and avoid unintended operational gaps.

The decision to merge or replace mandates should be based on prior analysis from the Secretariat. Accordingly, the EU believes that the Secretariat's role in facilitating informed, evidence-based and data-driven decision-making should be reflected in the modalities, including through strengthened analytical capacities and tools that improve visibility across the mandate life cycle.

Colleagues,

Mandates are meant to achieve clearly defined and agreed objectives, and not to last forever. As circumstances and priorities evolve, mandates should evolve too, ensuring that the United Nations remains responsive to contemporary challenges while preserving clarity, effectiveness and purpose, and while safeguarding the UN Charter, the UN's unique normative role, and the three pillars of the UN.

As the Secretary-General recently noted in his progress report on the UN80 Initiative, inaction in the face of the Organization's current challenges would carry a significant political and operational cost.

It is our responsibility to shape the direction of the Organization through the mandates we create and maintain. The EU looks forward to working with all delegations to make the most of this opportunity to build a more effective, adaptable and effective United Nations.

I thank you.