LHE/20/8.GA/INF.1 - page 21

## ITEM 6 OF THE AGENDA (CONT.): REPORT OF THE INFORMAL AD HOC WORKING GROUP OF THE COMMITTEE TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

- 86. The Chairperson reminded the Assembly that paragraph 4 of the resolution had been adopted, and an amendment had been received from the Philippines.
- 87. The Secretary read out the proposed amendment by the Philippines, 'Recognizes the importance of dialogue to enhance the evaluation process and the need to develop an appropriate mechanism to strengthen transparency and credibility in consultation with the Evaluation Body'.
- 88. The delegation of Algeria supported the paragraph as there was clearly a need for a coordination mechanism for dialogue between the Evaluation Body and States Parties.
- 89. The delegation of Bangladesh congratulated the Chairperson on her election and supported the proposed amendment by the Philippines, as there was clearly a need for dialogue. At the same time, it took note of the suggestions put forward by the Secretary in terms of the mechanism. The paragraph therefore captured those two elements well.
- 90. The delegation of Viet Nam also wished to co-sponsor the amendment.
- 91. The delegation of Senegal supported the proposal by the Philippines.
- 92. The delegation of Morocco had no objection to the amendment, but wished to see the paragraph clarify the form that the dialogue would take, i.e., would it be an exchange of letters or would it take the form of another mechanism.
- 93. The delegation of the Philippines explained that the amendment was a reflection of the morning's debate where in principle there were no objections to the concept of a dialogue. The main challenge was to find an appropriate way or procedure for this dialogue to take place and the ad hoc working group in 2017 developed a proposal that considered an exchange of letters based on limited questions. However, the Assembly also heard from the Evaluation Body and the Secretariat that this may be too heavy a procedure. Therefore, the question moving forward would be to determine the most feasible mechanism or procedure [to facilitate dialogue]. Hence, the amendment for 'an appropriate mechanism', as it was understood that the proposal made by the ad hoc working group in 2017 would be difficult for the Evaluation Body and the Secretariat to implement.
- 94. The delegation of Morocco sought further clarity from the Secretariat.
- 95. The delegation of Algeria remarked that the question today was not to impose any form of dialogue. There had been previous attempts made through the working group under the Chairmanship of Mr Byong-hyun Lee, as presented in his report earlier. Thus, the Committee would present a solution for dialogue between the Evaluation Body and States Parties to the General Assembly in the future. This paragraph therefore pertained to a preparatory phase, which meant that as co-Chair of the working group, Algeria requested that all States Parties discuss with their colleagues how best to proceed. However, ultimately, it would be up to the Committee to adopt a proposal to present to the General Assembly.
- 96. The delegation of Egypt expressed support for the amendment by the Philippines, noting that this was a work in progress that had yet to be finalized.
- 97. The delegation of Sri Lanka also voiced support for the amendment by the Philippines.
- 98. The delegation of Belgium had some doubts about this proposal as it was perhaps too premature. As discussed earlier, it would perhaps be wise to wait and see based on the experience of the new form, in which case it might not be necessary to develop an ' appropriate mechanism '. The delegation therefore proposed either to delete or rephrase the paragraph, which would read, ' Recognizes the importance of dialogue, transparency and credib ility in the evaluation process' . In this way, the need for an appropriate mechanism would not be emphasized, as there may not be a need for such a mechanism.