I have the honour to present this statement on behalf of ASPAG.    When the idea to establish a Global Coalition for Social Justice was mooted by DG Gilbert Houngbo, ASPAG was optimistic given its compelling nature. Our region accommodates 4.8 billion out of 8 billion global population. We have a huge labour force constituting at least 60% of the global workforce. We produce 60% of global economic growth and generate 40% of global GDP. Yet, two-thirds (2/3) of the global population living under poverty belong to part of ASPAG. For most of our countries, attaining fiscal stability, economic growth and higher living standards remain an ever persisting and seemingly intractable challenge.   No evidence could be more stark and distressing about global inequality where majority of the world’s workers get little share of global prosperity which their labour greatly bolsters.   Additionally, Oxfam International in its 2023 report titled “Survival of the Richest” reported that just one percent of richest individuals have captured close to two-thirds of all new wealth created since 2020, which is almost twice as much as the bottom 99 percent combined. Over the past decade, the one percent richest population worldwide had captured close to half of all wealth created.   The disturbing picture of global injustice has remained for decades. In our earlier statement we recalled that the ILO has been spearheading the promotion of social justice through decent work since 1919. However the gap between the Global South and Global North has not narrowed in 104 years. In fact it has widened.   With this realization, ASPAG wholeheartedly supports DG Houngbo’s proposal to establish a Global Coalition for Social Justice. We reiterate his observations that the ILO is best placed to collaborate with others in promoting social justice.   We would want the Coalition to provide a more democratic space for free dialogues or discussions on social justice and ensure that the voice of all stakeholders, especially developing countries is heard. On that basis, we expect the International Coalition for Social Justice to emanate from within the International Labour Organization (ILO) setup. On that basis, we advocate the democratization of ILO governance, with particular focus on reforming the GB membership. These meetings and resolutions serve as a strong basis of action calling for urgent steps to ensure fair representation and democratic principles in the International Labour Organization   **ON REFORMING THE GB MEMBERSHIP**   In 1986 the International Labour Conference (ILC) adopted the Instrument for the Amendment of the ILO Constitution, 1986 by an overwhelming majority with 352 votes in favour, 44 votes against and zero abstentions. The primary objective of this amendment was to democratize the composition and structure of the Governing Body as well as the election of the Director-General.   Recognizing the importance of democratization, the Governing Body unanimously recommended amendments regarding the Standing Orders of the International Labour Conference at its 82nd Session in 1995.   During the 303rd Session of the GB, following the 11th African Regional Meeting in 2007, a resolution was adopted. It called for urgent action to ensure that Africa’s representation in the GB corresponds to its numeric and strategic importance.   The establishment of the Tripartite Working Group on the full, equal and democratic participation in the ILO's tripartite governance (TWGD) during the 337th Session of the GB, demonstrated further commitment to democratization. Although the TWGD’s mandate was not extended at the 347th GB Session, it reaffirmed continued efforts and commitment to achieving fair representation.   The Singapore Statement adopted at the 17th Asia and Pacific Regional Meeting in 2022 reaffirmed its unequivocal support for the democratization of the ILO’s governance, with emphasis on the fair representation of all regions and the principle of equality among Member States, as stated in 2019. The ILO Declaration on the occasion of its Centenary: ILO Declaration for the Future of Work.   Addressing the constitutional issue of democratic representation and fair representation of Member States in the GB is very important. The unrepresentative nature of the current structure has been a concern for many speakers in the GB special sittings.   **To address these concerns and restore credibility of the GB, it is suggested that the Deputy Government and Worker and Employer members in the GB be upgraded to Regular/Titular members. The selection of countries of chief industrial importance could be left to the regional groups, whether to continue the existing practice or elect all regular seats from one particular region. This would require amending Articles 54 and 55 of the ILC Standing Orders.**   Given the historical trend and urgent need for democratization, you are requested to prepare a proposal to amend Articles 54 and 55 of the Standing Orders of the International Labour Conference. **The objective of this proposal is to upgrade the status of Deputy Government and Social Partners in the Governing Body to regular members.**   Considering the importance of this matter it is suggested to be placed on the GB 350 agenda programmed for 2024.   By taking decisive action to democratize the ILO GB, we can ensure fair representation, strengthen the governing arm of the organization and reaffirm our commitment to social justice and equality in the world of work.   **ON DEMOCRATIZATION OF THE SCREENING GROUP AND GOVERNMENT GROUP**   The ILO was founded in 1919 and Article 7 of the ILO Constitution deals with the composition of the Governing Body. Article 7 (2) & (3) refers to the Members of Chief Industrial Importance and empowers the GB to determine which member qualifies to be of chief industrial importance. Paragraph 3 of Article 7 states:   > *“The Governing Body shall from time to time determine which Members of the Organisation are to be deemed of chief industrial importance and shall make rules to ensure that all questions relating to the selection of the Members of chief industrial importance are considered by an impartial committee before being decided by the Governing Body. Any appeal made by a Member from the declaration of the Governing Body as to which Members are deemed to be of chief industrial importance shall be decided by the Conference, but the appeal shall not suspend the operation of the declaration until the appeal has been decided."*   Article 36 deals with amendments or revision of the ILO Constitution and clearly stipulates that the founders with two-third majority votes of delegates present once adopted/accepted by two-third votes of those affected shall come into force. “The Members of the Organisation include five of the ten Members. It is evident that if the Members of chief industrial importance are considered as a group, whether the language was “half, simple majority, two-thirds or three-fourths” the placing of a number clearly shows there was no intent to treat these countries as a group.   The founding members and drafters of the ILO Constitution never envisaged the Members of chief industrial importance to be a group. As documented in para 35 of the Summary notes of proceedings of the 6th sitting of the Tripartite Working Group on full, equal and democratic participation in ILO's tripartite governance (TWGD) “.......IMEC was established in the mid-1970s – over 50 years after the ILO’s founding. Had it been the ILO's intention to treat IMEC as a group, this institution would not have waited over 50 years for its establishment. Relevant excerpts from para 35 are:   > *35. The Legal Adviser noted that the records showed that IMEC had been established in the mid-1970s and began presenting group positions at ILO meetings in the early 1990s. While IMEC membership had probably grown over time, the Office had no information on the details of that evolution ........*   One of the objectives of the 1986 Amendment was to make GB membership as representative as possible, including by eliminating non-elected or guaranteed permanent seats for Members of chief industrial importance.   Representation in Screening Group like the records of formation of IMEC is not traceable. The entire argument is based on ILO’s “non-binding policy note” which perhaps was a background note for 2011 reforms package. Neither Article 3.1.1 of GB Standing Orders nor the source document (GB.310/9/1) for 2011 reforms refers to the six regional groups, let alone IMEC. Article 3.1.1 of GB Standing Orders states:   > *3.1.1 The agenda of each sitting shall be settled by a tripartite Screening Group comprising the Officers of the Governing Body, the Chairperson of the Government group, regional coordinators in representation of governments, the Employers’ and Workers’ spokespersons or their representatives. This group shall be assisted by the Director-General or other senior officials selected by the Director-General.*    The Screening Group determines the agenda for each GB sitting. (GBSO, para 3.1.1). Additionally, before Officers introduce urgent matters arising in between sessions or during a particular session to the GB agenda, there has to be consultation with the Screening Group (GBSO, para 3.1.3 & 3.1.5). Also, the Screening Group clears the side events and decides, if requested, whether documents submitted are for discussion or information only (GBSO, prefatory note, paras 42 & 44). It is also consulted if the date of GB sitting needs to be changed (GBSO, para 3.2.3.).   It is evident that the current composition of Screening Group is in contravention of Constitutional draft proposed in 1986 Amendment (Article 7 refers to Africa, Americas, Asia and Europe as regions) and reference to Article 7 (3) (b) (i) of 1986 Amendment Instrument to justify representation of sub-regional coordinators as “Resolution concerning the principle of equality of ILO member States and fair representation of all regions in the ILO's tripartite governance” adopted at the 109th ILC session is flawed. The 2021 statement declares "....the concept of “socialist” Eastern European states referred to in Article 7(3)(b)(i) of the 1986 Constitutional Amendment instrument is no longer consistent with current geopolitical reality and is therefore considered obsolete."   Similarly, a document titled “Role and responsibilities of the regional coordinators in the ILO” prepared by the Official Meetings, Documentation and Relations Unit (RELOFF) affirms that “There are six recognized regional coordinators in the ILO, although this is not regulated by any rule. The text may be updated following the adoption of ILC.109/Resolution IV "Resolution concerning the principle of equality of ILO member States and fair representation of all regions in the ILO's tripartite governance"   Article 3.1.1 GBSO mandates governments to be represented by the four regional coordinators and not inter-regional groups like IMEC or sub-regional groups such as EEG, WEG and GRULAC. Similarly, the Chairperson of government group should only consult with regional coordinators under the conceptual framework. If IMEC or other sub-regional groups are accommodated in Screening and also GG meetings then other groups like OIC, Arab group, Gulf Cooperation Council, ASEAN etc. also merit seats at the table.   The Legal Adviser in the 6th sitting of TWGD informed that the primary objective of 2011 reforms was to establish improved agenda setting mechanism for GB and respond to governments’ desire to become more active as a group, with more effective participation in GB work both in preparatory process and decision making. Time has proven that presence of IMEC and Europe (two sub-regional coordinators) in Screen Group aids in achieving neither of the two objectives. Relevant excerpts from para 19 of Summary report of proceedings of sixth sitting of the Tripartite working group on full, equal and democratic participation in ILO's tripartite governance (TWGD) are reproduced for reference:   > *The Legal Adviser recalled that the Screening Group had been introduced under the 2011 reform package and pursued a dual goal: on the one hand, it created an improved agenda-setting mechanism for the Governing Body; and on the other hand, it responded to the wish of governments to become more active as a group, with more effective participation in the Governing Body’s work both in preparatory process and decision-making.*    As per para 33 of the Summary report of proceedings of sixth sitting of TWGD, “.......Recognizing the four regions in the prefatory note to the compendium of applicable rules for the GB and in the 1986 Amendment was essentially for the purposes of elections to the GB and allocation of seats. Beyond that aspect, it was for the Government group to decide how it structured itself.” This was affirmed by the Legal Adviser in the 343rd GB session that the current configuration of six regional Government groups "has no legal foundation based on rules". He further noted that this configuration exists in practice on the basis of ILO's "non-binding policy note". Well documented in para 174 INS section of 343 GB minutes:   > *The ILO Legal Adviser, responding to the request to legally clarify representation of the Government of Pakistan, said the role of the four regional groups as well as the composition and functioning of the tripartite Screening Group were in the prefatory note to the Standing Orders, which was a compendium of long-standing working methods that the Governing Body had yet to decide to codify into a set of binding rules. Recognizing the two European subregional groups, and the right of participation and expression of groups like IMEC, which were constituted on criteria other than geographical, were part of these embedded practices. Such matters could be discussed more broadly in the tripartite working group framework.*    IMEC countries wield a dominant role in ILO decision making process at GB due to their simultaneous presence across three regional groups. This often impedes emergence of Government group consensus and consensus within regional groups. We take note of the undue advantage accorded to IMEC due to its inter-regional nature, while we belong to geographical regions of three continents. It is in this glaring fact that despite opposition from majority of member countries in ASPAG, Africa and GRULAC on issue of multiple/dual representation, IMEC countries continue to assert their dominance.   The four regions are recognized for Governing Body elections (para 9, page 11 Compendium of rules applicable to the GB of ILO), as well as rotation of Conference Committees, Presidency of Conference and Chairpersonship of Governing Body.   As a way forward, we believe that the initial proposal made by Brazil and supported by the US and other member countries in the January 2023 GG meeting to have two representatives from each of the four regional groups (Africa, Americas, Asia and Europe) in the Screening Group as well as the Government Group is the best option on the table. Government representatives in the Screening Group may be accorded one vote per region. The same could be replicated for the Government group composition.   On that basis, Article 3.1.1 of the GB Standing Orders is suggested to be amended as below in the 350th GB Session in March 2024:   > *3.1.1 The agenda of each sitting shall be settled by a tripartite Screening Group comprising the Officers of the Governing Body, the Chairperson of the Government group, regional coordinators from the four geographical regions specified in Article 7 (3) (a) of the ILO Constitution representing governments, the Employers’ and Workers’ spokespersons or their representatives. This group shall be assisted by the Director-General or other senior officials selected by the Director-General.*    The Chairperson of Government group could inform the Office decision to introduce two representatives from each of the four regional groups (Africa, Americas, Asia and Europe) in the Screening Group as well as the Government Group.   ASPAG while thanking the DG and Office, particularly the ILO Legal Adviser for assistance in preparing relevant documents and supplementary records and evidence, hopes that with a position taking in the 350th GB session as well as necessary amendments in the composition of Screening Group and GG, the democratization of the structures of the organization and achieving social justice in this organization should be an effective and operational action.