Thank you, Chair.

The United Kingdom continues its support for this proposal for the launch of the selection process and we refer to our previous statement on this agenda item. We also support the statement made by Mexico on behalf of all co-sponsors.

The United Kingdom is a strong supporter of the WTO dispute settlement system, as a central pillar of the rules-based multilateral trading system. An effective and binding dispute settlement mechanism ensures that the rules we have negotiated are enforceable, preserving the rights and obligations of all Members.

We continue to be concerned that the WTO Membership has not been able to launch the selection process for new Appellate Body members, with the result that the Appellate Body is unable to hear new appeals. We are seeing the concrete impairment of rights which is arising from this situation.

We also wish to reiterate that the United Kingdom is committed to finding a resolution to the impasse with the Appellate Body which carries the support of all WTO Members. We understand the long-standing concerns that have been raised, and we recognise that in a consensus-based organisation like the WTO, any dispute resolution mechanism must carry the trust of all Members. We stand ready to play a full role in future discussions on dispute settlement reform.

However, we also consider that finding a solution should not stand in the way of the continued functioning of the system and the launch of the Appellate Body selection process. We therefore call on all Members to act to restore the system to full functioning, whilst we prioritise discussions on a long-term solution.

Development is proposed for ‘The Sizewell C Project’, a new nuclear power station in Suffolk, on the East coast of England, United Kingdom (UK). An application for development consent has been accepted for examination by the UK’s Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State.

The proposed Sizewell C Project includes two UK European Pressurised Reactor (EPR™) units with an expected net electrical output of approximately 1,670 megawatts (‘MW’) per unit, giving a total of approximately 3,340MW. The Sizewell C Project comprises the main nuclear power station facility, offshore works, and associated development in order to facilitate construction and operation of the nuclear power station. The Sizewell C Project also includes the relocation, demolition and replacement of certain existing ancillary facilities associated with the operational Sizewell B nuclear power station. Phased construction of the Sizewell C Project is anticipated to take 9-12 years. Once completed, the new nuclear power station has an operational design life of 60 years followed by a period of decommissioning.

Further information about the Sizewell C Project can be found in the development consent application documents which are available on the Planning Inspectorate’s website

In accordance with the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, the Secretary of State has carried out a screening assessment of likely significant effects on the environment in other states under those Regulations.

The Secretary of State is of the view that the Proposed Development is not likely to have significant effects in any other states outside of the UK.

Taking into account the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in a Transboundary Context (the Espoo Convention) and the UNECE Convention on access to information on environmental matters (the Aarhus Convention), the UK Government has chosen to inform all signatory states and their public of the Proposed Development and invite their participation in the decision making process.

The public in any other state who may be interested in this Proposed Development can provide their representation(s) to the examination of any application by registering as an ‘interested party’. The easiest way to do so is to complete the electronic registration form online.

The electronic form will automatically navigate users through each of the required sections that a representation must contain. The form contains boxes where users are able to put forward their views about the application and the main issues and impacts of the development. The information provided must be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate by the deadline specified below.

By registering as an ‘interested party’, members of the public in any other state are afforded the same ability as the UK public to participate in the process should they wish to do so. Anyone registered as an ‘interested party’ will be automatically kept up to date with the progress of the Examination including any deadlines for making further representations.

The closing date for registration as an ‘interested party’ is on 30 September 2020 at 11:59 pm (Greenwich Mean Time)

Notes for Editors

Planning Inspectorate role

On 1 April 2012, under the Localism Act 2011, the Planning Inspectorate became the agency responsible for operating the planning process for nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs) in England and Wales.

NSIPs are usually large scale developments such as new harbours, power generating stations (including wind farms and nuclear power stations), and electricity transmission lines, which require a type of consent known as ‘development consent’ under procedures governed by the Planning Act 2008 (and amended by the Localism Act 2011).

In England, the Planning Inspectorate examines applications for development consent from the energy, transport, waste, waste water and water sectors. In Wales, it examines applications for energy and harbour development, subject to detailed provisions in the Act; other matters are for Welsh Ministers.

Any developer wishing to construct an NSIP must first apply for consent to do so. For such projects, the Planning Inspectorate examines the application and will make a recommendation to the relevant Secretary of State, who will make the decision on whether to grant or to refuse development consent.

The Espoo Convention

The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in Transboundary Context was adopted in 1991 in the Finnish city of Espoo and entered into force on 10 September 1997.

The Espoo Convention sets out the obligations of signatory parties to assess the environmental impact of certain activities and in doing so, notify and consult other parties on all major projects where the project under consideration is likely to have a significant adverse environmental impact in that state.

The Aarhus Convention

The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters was adopted on 25 June 1998 in the Danish city of Aarhus (Århus) at the Fourth Ministerial Conference as part of the “Environment for Europe” process. It entered into force on 30 October 2001.

The Aarhus Convention establishes a number of rights of the public (individuals and their associations) with regard to the environment. The Parties to the Convention are required to make the necessary provisions so that public authorities (at national, regional or local level) are able to participate in environmental decision making.

Thank you Madam President for convening today’s important debate. I am also grateful to High Commissioner Bachelet, Special Representative Shearer, and Mr Kitengi for their insightful briefing.

Their insight from the ground reminds us there can be no lasting peace, nor sustainable development, without respect for human rights and the rule of law.

This is an often-repeated refrain in this Council, and a concept we each endorsed in the Declaration of Shared Commitments on UN Peacekeeping Operations. It is a vision that we all too often fail to realise.

And I want to turn on the situation in Mali as an example. Through this Council, we have mandated MINUSMA to complete three vital human rights functions.

Firstly, to act to prevent serious human rights violations and attacks on civilians, in line with the UN Protection of Civilians policy.

Second, to monitor, investigate and report abuses or violations.

And thirdly, and importantly, to support Malian efforts to protect and promote human rights and, importantly, fight impunity.

This role is fundamental to prevent a further erosion of trust between the states and the people and thereby help to ultimately stabilise the country.

The integrated response at the heart of the mission’s adaptation plan, with better coordination between military, police and civilian components, should enable MINUSMA to respond more effectively to reported abuses. It is needed.

Despite our best efforts, reporting from High Commissioner Bachelet’s office and the UN Peacekeeping mission, they continue to highlight persistent human rights abuses and violations in Mali and indeed across the Sahel. MINUSMA, like any peace operation around the world, can only ever be part of the solution. It is incumbent on all national governments to protect and promote human rights, investigate allegations of violations and abuses openly and transparently, and hold those responsible to account. When national governments are unwilling to act and the international community can, we should always be prepared to deploy the full range of tools at our disposal and to hold perpetrators to account, including the use of sanctions.

Strong coordination and collaboration between all relevant parts of the United Nations machine, the Malian government should enable them to strengthen their capacity to both protect and promote human rights and, importantly, the rule of law.

Madam President, UN peace operations have an obligation not only to monitor human rights violations and abuses, but also to ensure their support to other security forces is human rights compliant. The UN’s human rights due diligence policy sets this out very clearly.

It is also an incentive to those security forces to deploy and strengthen their own safeguards. I encourage our missions to show more clearly how they are applying it. Every member of a mission’s personnel, from the special representatives and force commanders to contingent troops, should understand their role and responsibilities to both protect and promote human rights. We must ensure missions have the specialist capabilities they need to respond effectively to specific human rights challenges in the field.

The devastating impact of conflict-related sexual violence in South Sudan, where nearly a quarter of the reported cases involve children, is an unwelcome reminder of the abuses that take place and why we must do better and do more. Reporting tells us that survivors continue to struggle. They continue to struggle to access medical and mental healthcare. Although I am encouraged that the government of South Sudan has acknowledged these concerns and has expressed a willingness to work together with UNMISS to combat sexual and gender based violence.

Let me assure all that the United Kingdom is absolutely committed to supporting survivors, including children born of conflict-related sexual violence, and to holding all perpetrators to account. And we call upon all Council members to support the inclusion of vital human rights experts in our missions, including more gender, child protection and, importantly, women’s protection advisors.

To conclude, Madam President, human rights are all about safeguarding the dignity and unleashing the true potential of each and every person around the globe. That is why states that fail to protect and promote human rights are less prosperous, they are less stable and less able to meet the demands of their people and more likely to remain on the agenda of this Council. Human rights intertwine with all aspects of UN peace operations. Therefore, the focus of this Council must be unflinching. We must promote, protect, strengthen and realise human rights wherever we work. It’s in our interests, it’s in all interests, in the interests of all people.

Thank you, Madam President.