Working Group on the Right to Development 14-18 February Opening statement of the Chairperson-Rapporteur Ambassador Salama

1. The process on the right to development is moving slowly from generalities to specifics, from vagueness to clarity, from claims to proposals, and in one word from the conceptual to the operational.

2. I have been following the right to development process during the past ten years, and the Task Force experience in my view represents the highest quality of debate we have ever had.

3. Without any value judgment on the substance of its conclusions and recommendations, the Task Force provided us with a unique and unprecedented opportunity to link two worlds, two communities who spoke about each other too much and in fact spoke to each other too little: the human rights community on the one hand and the world of trade, development and finance on the other hand.

4. This experience showed us that different communities speak different languages even when they address the same realities. It showed us that different communities while pursuing the same objectives still have different scopes of action and different perceptions according to their specific mandates.

5. Such “institutional diversity”, if not proliferation around the same themes and objectives, created a pressing need for policy coherence. Seeking policy coherence was the essence and the rationale of the composition of the Task Force in such a manner so as to bridge gaps between trade, finance and human rights perspectives to development.

6. It is very interesting to note that the same concern animated the approach of the high-level expert group on the threats and challenges to the UN with respect to its diagnosis of the malfunction of the ECOSOC.

7. These experts found, and I quote, that “The institutional problem we face is twofold: first, decision-making on institutional economic matters, particularly in the areas of finance and trade, has long left the United Nations and no amount of institutional reform will bring it back; and second, the Charter allowed for the creation of specialized agencies independent of the principal United Nations organs, reducing the role of the ECOSOC to one of coordination. The fragmentation of the UN funds, programmes and agencies makes it a difficult proposition in the best of times.”

This report proposes a number of innovative strategies aiming for a better functioning of the ECOSOC based on two major axes: policy coherence and development cooperation. Without implying that I approve or disapprove of any of the said strategies, what I find the most relevant to our right to development process are those two elements: policy coherence and development cooperation.

8. When I read the report of the Task Force from that double perspective, I feel assured that we have just started to address the right questions, and that with time, concerted efforts and continued constructive engagement, our work as a working group on the right to development can positively contribute to a major UN reform and lead to a fuller realization of the right to development.

9. What I value most in the new approach to the right to development represented by the Task Force is the fact that it tried to identify the key issues with regard to the topics we referred to it. The Task Force, in my view, was a successful starting point to provide a suggested right to development framework in concrete terms and in various areas. Raising the right questions is precisely a prerequisite to providing the right answers.

10. In fact, the complexity of the issues related to the realization of the right to development requires us to be patient in passing concrete results and to admit that deepening our understanding of those issues is a task that requires continuous dialogue among all institutional parties concerned. This dialogue should be seen as an ongoing, accumulative and incremental process. The right to development is not a quick-fix, not a ready-made or one-size-fits-all entitlement. The right to development requires a special methodology and a new approach in which the Task Force was only a starting point.

11. The outcome of the Task Force contains numerous conclusions and recommendations. As its title indicates, those conclusions are those of the Task Force and its recommendations are only suggestions submitted for the Member States’ consideration.

12. In considering these conclusions and recommendations, I suggest that we keep in mind that our role is obviously not limited to acceptance or objection of this or that conclusion. The outcome of the Task Force is an eye-opener for us, elements to help us deepening our understanding and tools to enable us to reach decisions.

13. Another element that we need to keep in mind is the time factor. The dialogue we established through the Task Force is only emerging and we need to make sure that this dialogue continues to progress in the right direction in whatever form it takes and in all forms it takes.

14. We also need to bear in mind that the inter-institutional dialogue on the operationalization of the right to development is not and should not be limited to the context of the Task Force. Member States, individually and collectively, are responsible to pursue that dialogue through their membership of various agencies and organizations. The High Commissioner for Human Rights is also responsible for that dialogue with her inherent responsibilities provided for in General Assembly resolution 41/148 establishing the post of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. We also have the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of human rights to whom you gave a specific mandate to produce a concept document. And we have the treaty bodies within their respective spheres of action.

15. A fourth and final point which I think we need to keep in mind is that there are various forms of actions that are suitable for different conclusions and recommendations of the Task Force. And that we as a Working Group on the Right to Development should act not only as a decision-maker but also as a solicitor for potential decisions to be made in the future through an intelligent and optimal use of the various human rights mechanisms already in place. We as Working Group may not agree with a given conclusion of the Task Force but use it as a basis to formulate a question, require a study, direct the Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights to take an action or send a recommendation through the Commission on Human Rights to relevant actors in the UN system and beyond.

16. Dear Colleagues, I have no right to prejudge your views on the Task Force experience, conclusions and recommendations. But I have a duty to give you my honest assessment. And I even think that it will be a very positive sign that different delegations have different views on the Task Force outcome, as long as those views are justified in substance, constructive in nature and forward-looking in the sense that it provides alternatives with respect to the operationalization of the right to development.

17. Speaking about honest assessment I would like to end my statement by showing with you and especially with the Chair of the Task Force the charges which I think deserve consideration in order to get an even better result of the new dynamics created by the Task Force:

a. I think that two topics were a little bit too much for the time allocated to the Task Force. In case you decide to renew its mandate, one topic is probably conducive to more focused debate.

b. I also think that although debate with Member States is fundamental, the Task Force members need more closed sessions. I witnessed that not only they needed that extra time but also that the informality of the exchange of views when a session is closed, is very precious in terms of seeking genuine understanding among all actors and proposing creative solutions for the issues in question.

c. The inclusive nature of the Task Force meeting was a key factor to create the new dynamic of frank and constructive exchanges.

A wider participation of NGOs, think tanks and interested scholars is a very useful added value which I will continue to ensure in the future.

Finally, and this time it is really my final introductory word, I do not need to remind you of the fact that this is not “the Working Group as usual”. We have only four days left! And in order to put us all in the mode of concrete, short and constructive engagement I will ask the secretariat to do its best to find us a different room of a smaller size, nearer seats and better record of efficiency!

Thank you.