shortened for delivery – check against delivery

1. I have the honour to be speaking on behalf of EU and its Member States. The Candidate Countries North Macedonia, Montenegro, Albania, Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Georgia, as well as Andorra and Monaco align themselves with this statement.

2. I would like to start by conveying the sincere appreciation of the EU group, dear colleagues Antje and Neville, for your hard work. You have done an excellent job with this text and in getting us to this point.  

3. Colleagues, I would like to stress that the negotiations that we are relaunching are of utmost importance. This is not just a summit about the future. What is at stake is out future too, how we – the UN as an organisation and as its membership - are perceived, today, by our citizens across the world. 

4. We have a choice to make. We can take the well beaten path of falling into our usual disagreements and divisions – and expose our inability to act, together, in the interest of the future of our people and that of our planet.

5. Or: we can take the conscious decision to trust each other to respect each other. And to show to our citizens that we are here to make their future better.

6. I hope that we all agree that we are firmly on this second path. So, colleagues, let’s make the right choices. Let’s focus on the big picture.

7. Looking at this big picture, we would like to recognize - and I hope others do too - that the current text is now much more action-oriented, which is what we collectively asked for. I dare say that all delegations can see themselves, in some way, in this new text. 

8. Sure there are things we would have liked to see that are not in this text. However, if we focus too much on that and spend the next weeks trying to put everything back in, and to take everything we do not like out, it’s difficult to see how we will move forward.

9. Colleagues, I would like to share briefly some thoughts on how we hope to see this process as we move ahead:

• First and foremost: we consider it indispensable to articulate properly the interconnection of the three pillars of the UN. The lack of development or cultural diversity can never be an excuse to violate or disregard human rights. We will propose language in this regard. These are not trade-offs that we should be fighting over. After all, the UN stands for fostering peace and security, and promoting sustainable development, and for safeguarding human rights.

• Second: the Pact needs to be balanced. The UN has three equal pillars. But it’s hard to miss the very detailed language and many concrete actions on financing and on revising various aspects of the international financial architecture. Some of these proposals are important, but further negotiations will be necessary to reflect progress in the IFA field. Also other actions raise concerns for further discussion. And overall this is in stark contrast to the far less detailed and less ambitious language on our global commons. Oceans – that cover 70% of the planet and contain 97% of the earth’s water - are barely mentioned. Likewise, the peace and security chapter is missing even basic references to some fundamental issues such as maritime security, wars of aggression, and to timely references such as the exercising of the veto in case of mass atrocities. While we don’t aim to overcharge the document, these are the kind of omissions that we do need to address.

• Let me just underline that we fully subscribe to the crucial importance of achieving sustainable development across its three dimensions – economic, social and environmental -  as enshrined in the 2030 Agenda and all of the interconnected SDGs. That is exactly why we ask for the same level of ambition on all chapters of the Pact. For instance on the massive issue of pollution and chemicals, language needs to be strengthened. On peace and security, we support the renewed focus on prevention and the PBC. The multiplication of crises shows how important it is to invest more in prevention and that national prevention strategies are helpful in that regard. We need also to be more explicit on counter-terrorism operations and on a new generation of peace enforcement. One that can be deployed on short notice whenever a crisis strikes to prevent situations from getting worse. We also believe that UN peacekeeping missions remain an important tool to be highlighted, with a renewed sense of collective commitment and strengthened capacities to address new challenges such as disinformation.

• On some actions we fully share the objective but need to work on formulations. For one, the global trading system should absolutely be an engine for sustainable development. We would like to see text complemented and balanced. We need to highlight the need for the system to be able to respond to current trade challenges, such as ensuring a global level playing field in relation to state intervention. We need to ensure that the global trading system more systematically addresses the impact of global environmental challenges and we need to focus more on the objective of sustainable and resilient global supply chains.

• Another key question that has to be addressed is how we appropriately frame and include actions on financing. We have to convey the highest possible level of ambition for the Fourth International Conference for Financing for Development next year. Heads of State and Government can and should harvest low hanging fruit on issues that are mature. They must give a political push to important ongoing processes. But, we need also to be mindful that the preparatory process for FFD4 will only be kicked off in Addis Ababa in July. We have to draw the right distinction between ambition and prejudging processes and dictating outcomes.    

• A further key question is the one on responsibilities: Whereas the SDGs and the Paris Agreement are at the centre of global policy making, it has to be acknowledged that the achievement of these commitments is a common responsibility of all stakeholders, namely governments, civil society, all social forces, private sector and international organizations including MDBs. Ownership by governments is key to achieve these goals.

[closing]

10. Colleagues, before closing, let me repeat my plea. We need to focus on what really matters. Let’s not lose too much time debating contentious issues that have been discussed time and time again. We know there is language in the text that is controversial for one reason or another, or country to another. There will be issues on which we’ll need to have some tough discussions. But we should not let those – hopefully very few – issues keep us from working out a text that we can all subscribe to. This is too important, for too many, for us to fail.

11. Let me conclude by reiterating that you can count on the EU and its Member States support to this process, we will engage proactively and constructively and we will listen to you all.