"How can the UN's leadership and effectiveness in sustainable development governance be improved? What should be ECOSOC's role, especially in the post Rio+20 follow-up?"

"How can the UN's leadership and effectiveness in sustainable development governance be improved? What should be ECOSOC's role, especially in the post Rio+20 follow-up?"

As I was preparing for today's discussion, I realised that Member States often state categorically that the UN has unquestioned legitimacy and is well placed to address global governance and sustainable development governance. But the reality is the UN requires serious reform. Speaking honestly, the UN is in its current state because of the decisions and actions taken by Member States. What we really need to discuss are practical measures on how the UN can improve its leadership role and effectiveness as a global forum for decision-making.

2 This morning, I would like to share three ideas on how we can improve the UN's leadership and effectiveness in sustainable development governance, including ECOSOC's role in the context of Rio+20:

• First, the UN should focus on its comparative advantage.

• Second, the UN needs to improve its working methods.

• Third, the UN needs to address accountability and implementation in sustainable development governance.

The UN's Comparative Advantage

3 First, the UN has a comparative advantage in addressing sustainable development issues, especially with ECOSOC as the principal organ to coordinate economic, social and related work of various UN specialised agencies, functional commissions and regional commissions. However, many discussions in ECOSOC have become repetitions of the same messages with little value-add. ECOSOC is also not a "kitchen sink". Member States cannot task ECOSOC to resolve multiple issues in silos, including some that are not ECOSOC's area of expertise, without giving it the tools and resources it needs.

4 ECOSOC's comparative advantage is clearly in coordinating and integrating the three pillars of sustainable development. This is especially since it has numerous subsidiary bodies and functional commissions that deal with issues related to sustainable development. We should focus ECOSOC's work on addressing the cross-cutting issues and interlinkages. The themes for the Annual Ministerial Reviews should bring together these three pillars. For example, ECOSOC is well placed to address the links between women, education and climate change in a holistic fashion.

5 It is, however, disconcerting that the "zero draft" for the Outcome Document of Rio+20 takes a segmented approach to sustainable development. Section V divides sustainable development into 15 thematic areas, with no concrete language on interlinkages. In the run up to and post-Rio+20, we should focus on tasking ECOSOC to follow-up on enhancing coordination and coherence of the three pillars of sustainable development and weeding out tasks which are not in its area of expertise.

Improving Our Working Methods

6 Second, without reform of the UN's working methods, the UN cannot improve its effectiveness and take the lead in sustainable development governance. When Member States have problems bridging the gaps in negotiations, we often end up calling for the Secretariat to produce reports and create new processes. The "zero draft" of the Rio+20 Outcome Document calls for at least five new processes, without proper consideration for their aims and implications!

7 We need to consider why it is so difficult to bridge the divide in our negotiations. We should stop calling for the Secretariat to produce reports which no one reads. We should stop creating new bodies and platforms as an alternative to fixing the existing framework for sustainable development. For example, we should have an honest conversation about what went wrong with the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) before calling for the establishment of a new Sustainable Development Council. CSD was established by Member States; Member States also had a hand in creating the problems faced by CSD.

8 The work of the Second Committee and other Committees at the UN is expanding uncontrollably partly because we are unwilling to retire resolutions or at least, biennialise or triennialise them. We table our pet issues at every opportunity only for the draft document to balloon. We find ourselves squeezed for time, so we agree to language that we do not understand. As a result, we adopt resolutions that perplexes our capitals and which the Secretariat is unable to implement because they do not know what the text means. Speaking candidly, it is we the Member States who marginalise the UN's role in global governance by the actions and decisions that we collectively take. Yet some Member States complain that issues are being taken outside of the UN. All Member States need to make some sacrifices in the way we work if we want the UN to be the leader, and to be effective in addressing global challenges.

9 The composition of ECOSOC's membership should also be updated to reflect the geo-political realities of our time. Currently, the African Group has 14 seats, Asia 11, EEG 6, GRULAC 10, while WEOG has 13 seats. Based on the geographical representation of Member States at the UN today, if WEOG has 13 seats, the African and the Asian Group should have 24 seats each, EEG 10 and GRULAC 15. ECOSOC needs to move with the times.

Addressing Accountability and Implementation

10 Third, as long as the UN system is unable to address the need for accountability and implementation, its decisions will have no teeth. We need to identify the relevant UN agencies, funds and programmes that will be responsible for following-up on and implementing the outcome from Rio+20. For instance, the relevant ECOSOC subsidiary bodies and the funds and programmes that ECOSOC oversees could devote one of their sessions in 2013 to following-up on the decisions in the Rio+20 outcome document. This will ensure that decisions taken are implemented and filter down.

11 While we recognise that the UN's agenda should be a Member States driven process, the UN should bring all relevant stakeholders to the table when discussing cross-cutting issues. These discussions should also take place in a comprehensive and robust manner. When we address sustainable development, Member States should look at the implementation gaps together with UNEP, UNDP, UN-HABITAT, the World Bank and all other relevant players. The body needs all of its parts to function effectively. If the head is having a separate conversation with the arms and the legs, we cannot expect the arms and the legs to move in a coordinated fashion. Similarly, if we have separate conversations on the same issue with UNEP and UNDP, how do we know that everyone is on the same page?

12 ECOSOC must play a key role. When we review recommendations made by Member States on sustainable development, ECOSOC could bring together the key players so that we can have a direct conversation with the UN agencies on what has been done to follow-up on these recommendations, where the gaps were and how we can address these challenges to move forward together.

Conclusion

13 We all want to strengthen the UN system so that it can play a key and rightful role in global governance. We also recognise that the work of the UN system is complemented by other institutions, such as regional organisations and informal groupings like the G20. It is from this premise that the informal Global Governance Group (3G) has been working to promote a constructive dialogue between the UN and the G20. G20 members should also remember that they are members of the UN and have an equal stake in strengthening the UN system. Until the UN puts its house in order, issues will continue to be brought outside of the UN. However, when the UN system is able to tackle pressing global challenges promptly, coherently and effectively, solutions will naturally be sought from within the UN system.

. . . . .