Statement by H.E. Ambassador UMETSU Shigeru, Deputy Permanent Representative of Japan to the United Nations, at the Meeting of the IAHGW to hear general statements in response to REV1 under UN80

Mme. and Mr. co-chairs,
 
Japan generally supports REV1, as it reflects a balanced approach and makes a genuine effort to incorporate the views of Member States. We therefore look forward to continuing constructive engagement to reach an agreement by the end of this March, in line with the deadline of this Working Group.
 
Japan’s comments on REV 1 remain largely the same as those we made on the zero-draft, but some of these points do not appear to have been fully reflected.
 
First, regarding paragraph 9, Japan believes it is essential that any new mandates with budgetary implications should be considered in light of possible reprioritization of existing similar or duplicative mandate. Such consideration should take place at the mandate creation phase, rather than at the implementation phase. For this reason, paragraph 9 or at least a paragraph to the same effect should be placed under the section on “Mandate Creation”.
 
Second, with respect to the paragraphs 20 and 34(c)v, which task the Working Group with developing “objective criteria,” Japan considers this neither practical nor necessary. Expecting Member States to agree on such criteria would likely hinder the Working Group’s ability to carry out its primary responsibility – namely, reviewing the existing stock of mandates and taking decisions under paragraph 21. Given the inherently political nature of mandates, consensus on “objective criteria” would be extremely difficult.
 
We instead, believe it would be sufficient for the Secretariat, which has a comprehensive overview of all mandates, to present technical criteria that the SG would apply in identifying inactive, duplicative, or fully implemented mandates as part of his regular reviews under paragraph 23. We strongly support this review function. Member States, for their part, should focus on the substantive review and decision-making process outlined in paragraph 21.
 
Furthermore, with regard to paragraph 22, the meaning of “modalities” remains unclear. This lack of clarity should not become an obstacle to the implementation of the priority task under paragraph 21. We therefore believe that further clarification is necessary to that end.
 
Finally, we express our gratitude to the co-chairs for their dedication and tireless efforts. Japan remains committed to engaging constructively in the discussions.
 
I thank you.