LHE/20/8.GA/INF.1 - page 75

- to submit the results of this reflection at the next rather than a future General Assembly.
- 392. The Secretary explained that the Secretariat had wished to present outcomes and had therefore put together a detailed timeline of the various consultations, which included the possibility for NGOs to consult among themselves. The Secretariat could not therefore be absolutely certain that the report would be ready in two years ' time , as this would depend on how the Committee reacted to the various versions of the consultations. This timeline had been presented to the informal group when it met a few weeks earlier with a view to having the report ready for the next General Assembly, but there were a number of variable factors that the Secretariat could not fully control, such as how NGOs coordinated among themselves, how the Committee would react to the coordination, and whether it would be ready to come up with concrete amendments or outcomes. Hence the ambiguous language in the draft resolution. Moreover, the NGOForum was consulting during this session and had used its presence to advance some of the discussions among itself. The Secretariat had already met with the informal ad hoc working group, which would subsequently be followed by an electronic consultation both with the NGOs and the informal working group, after which the Secretariat would report back to the Committee. Following the Committee's reaction , it was hoped that there would be an actual consultation meeting, which would be reported to the Committee. The Secretary further clarified that these timelines were elaborated in consideration of the many other things the Secretariat was doing, such as evaluations, the Committees, and various other processes.
- 393. The delegation of the Syrian Arab Republic was satisfied and reassured by the high level of planning proposed. For the sake of transparency, it also wished to propose that paragraph 7 mention the two co-Chairs of the working group, i.e. Algeria and the Philippines.
- 394. The delegation of Portugal thanked the Secretariat for the explanation of the timeline, adding that it was not presuming that the work would be solely conducted by the States Parties and Committee when the NGOs were of course instrumental actors in this process. Thus, it could not prejudge the decision of the Committee. However, the delegation wondered whether the General Assembly would wish to take stock of the discussion in two years ' time, even if the reflection was incomplete.
- 395. The Secretary agreed that the idea was to take stock of the progress made, which could be included in the report of the Committee or the Secretariat, or perhaps in a specific agenda item, though it was not the preferred method unless there were concrete proposals to submit.
- 396. The delegation of the Philippines supported Portugal 's remarks and the need for flexibility. Noting the keen interest in the subject, the delegation proposed 'update' instead of 'outcomes' , which would inform the General Assembly of any progress made.
- 397. The Secretary understood the issue but sought to avoid any dual processes. The Secretariat had already been asked to report the progress to the Committee in its annual reporting to the Committee. The Committee could then report to the General Assembly, as could the Secretariat in its report. The Secretariat's understanding of the process was that in any case the informal ad hoc working group, established by the Committee and consulting on its behalf, would report to the Committee, which then reported the progress to the General Assembly.
- 398. The delegation of the Syrian Arab Republic proposed 'co -chaired by Algeria and the Philippines' .
- 399. The Secretary remarked that the proposal by the Philippines would replace 'outcomes' with 'updates' in which case 'future session' could be changed to 'next session' .
- 400. The Vice-Chairperson noted that the Philippines agreed with the Secretary's proposal.
- 401. The delegation of Sweden spoke of the importance of pushing forward with the reflection that had been ongoing for more than two years, which was why it was keen for the General Assembly to discuss and take a decision on this item at the next General Assembly. The delegation could agree with the proposal by the Secretariat to include 'next session', and 'updates on the reflection' , but from its point of view it was slightly weakened, and it would