The Group of 77 - News Center

Statement on behalf of the Group of 77 and China delivered by the delegation of Uruguay at the second informal consultations on the Global Dialogue on AI Governance (New York, 8 April 2026)

Excellencies, distinguished delegates,

I am honored to deliver this statement on behalf of the G77 and China.

We thank the Co-Chairs of the Global Dialogue on AI Governance for convening today's consultations, which provide an opportunity to share the Group's views and suggestions on the proposed themes and overall structure of the Global Dialogue.

Before moving to the specific comments on the themes and structure, the Group would like to underscore the importance of facilitating the participation of representatives of developing countries in the Dialogue, including by offering travel support, as established in the modalities resolution 79/325. This would help ensure broad representation and foster richer, more impactful discussions, ultimately contributing to the overall success of the Dialogue. In this regard, we would appreciate an update from the Co-Chairs and the Secretariat on any progress made toward the implementation of paragraph 11 of said resolution.

That said, the Group would like to share the following reflections:

Regarding the proposed thematic clusters:

We thank the Co-Chairs for the proposal. Overall, the Group supports the clusters proposed by the Co-Chairs, as they reflect all the topics identified in the modalities resolution 79/325 including many of the main priorities for the Group, such as capacity building and bridging the digital divides.

Notwithstanding this, there are several areas of particular importance to the Group that are not explicitly reflected in the thematic clusters, but which can be addressed during the various discussions scheduled throughout the two-day programme.

In that sense, regarding the proposed structure:

The Group recognizes that the structure also aligns with the modalities, as it includes a multistakeholder plenary meeting, a high-level governmental segment, provides time for the presentation of the annual report of the International Scientific Panel on AI, and includes thematic discussions.

That said, we have some questions and suggestions to make both on the structure and its substance:

o Regarding the substance:

As previously noted, the Group believes that certain important areas are either missing or not adequately reflected in the proposed structure and should therefore be included in the Dialogue's discussions.

Among these, the Dialogue should provide a clearer link with Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals, with a stronger focus on development.

There should also be greater attention to financing, including financial mechanisms for capacity building, infrastructure, and the participation of developing countries. This includes references to the Global Fund on AI, which also appears to be absent on the document. These issues could be addressed within the thematic discussion on capacity building.

The Group further considers that the environmental impacts of AI should be addressed in the Dialogue. This area does not seem to fit within any of the current segments, so the Group requests its inclusion, taking into account the already proven impacts of AI data centers on energy and water, as well as on critical minerals used for AI development, which often originate in the Global South.

In the thematic discussion on "AI Opportunities and Implications: Societal, Cultural, and Economic Dimensions," the Dialogue should also consider the impact of AI on the labor market, as well as the effects of unilateral coercive measures on developing countries' capacities to develop and benefit from AI.

The Dialogue's structure should also provide space for practical discussions on AI solutions for development, including applications in agriculture, education, and health, as well as for discussions on the accountability of the private sector and technology platforms, on the importance of ensuring equitable participation of developing countries in AI governance and on the central role of the UN on the AI global governance.

o Regarding the structure and other procedural matters:

The Group appreciates the Co-Chairs' efforts to avoid simultaneous sessions. Given that many G77 delegations are relatively small, overlapping meetings could limit effective participation. The Group therefore encourages the Co-Chairs to maintain this approach.

The Group would also like the Co-Chairs to allocate more time to the High-Level governmental plenary segment and suggests that this segment not be divided into two parts, as it currently stands. It is essential to ensure sufficient time for all delegations to participate and be heard during the plenary.

In the same vein, the Group notes that the time currently allocated for the presentation of the Scientific Panel report may not allow adequate interaction with the experts. The Group would therefore like to ask the Co-Chairs whether other opportunities for engagement with the experts are envisioned.

Finally, the Group further considers that a recap session at the beginning of the second day may not be necessary. Instead, a summary could be presented at the conclusion of the Dialogue, thereby freeing additional time for substantive breakout discussions on Day 2.

On other procedural matters, the Group would like to seek clarification from the Co-Chairs on the following points:

o Considering the importance of multilingualism, the Group would like to know whether interpretation services will be provided during the Dialogue.
o The Group would also like clarification on how delegations will register to speak in the different sessions, and how it will be ensured that all delegations have the opportunity to speak.
o Will a list of civil society organizations participating in the Dialogue be published in advance?
o Will the thematic discussions be co-chaired by Member States?
o Are the Co-Chairs considering providing opportunities for engagement between governments, and between governments and the private sector, to facilitate further partnerships or pledges?

In closing, the Group reaffirms its readiness to contribute constructively to the Global Dialogue. We are committed to ensuring that AI governance evolves in a way that is inclusive, development-oriented, and aligned with the aspirations of the Global South.

I thank you.

Statement on behalf of the Group of 77 and China by the delegation of Uruguay at the informal consultations on ECOSOC FfD Forum agreed conclusions and recommendations (New York, 7 April 2026)

Distinguished Co-Facilitators,
Colleagues,

The Group appreciates the work and efforts of the co-facilitators in preparing the REV1 of the FfD Forum outcome document. Notwithstanding, the Group considers that there remains space for further improvement, particularly to better reflect the needs and priorities of developing countries.

Before turning to our section-by-section comments, we wish to reiterate the Group's preference for line-by-line negotiations, as these allow delegations to present their proposals in a structured manner and engage constructively with those put forward by others. That said, we appreciate the co-facilitators' efforts in providing a schedule of informal informals for this week, which will enable more in-depth discussions on each section of the text.

On this basis, we will provide some general comments at this stage in line with the detailed written submission already provided, and look forward to more substantive exchanges during the upcoming informal informals:

Regarding the global financing for development framework:

In general, the Group is supportive of this section. Notwithstanding, we have proposed a number of edits across several paragraphs. With regard to the new subheading entitled "Updates on Implementation", the Group proposes merging this subsection with the "Next Steps" section, retaining the title "Updates on Implementation" and positioning it immediately after the "Data, Monitoring and Follow-up" section. That section should also include references to the Spring and Annual Meetings of the IMF and the World Bank, including to reflect any relevant announcements, as appropriate.

The Group also considers that the paragraph included under the "Cross-cutting Issues" subheading is overly lengthy and, in some instances, re-writes agreed language from Sevilla. While we understand the intention of the co-facilitators to consolidate elements into a single comprehensive paragraph, the Group proposes a more streamlined alternative in order to avoid excessive detail and the reopening of previously agreed language.

Notwithstanding this concern, the Group reaffirms its support for many of the elements contained in the paragraph, including references to the right to development and CBDR. If the co-facilitators decide to proceed with this paragraph, the Group suggests that its elements be separated into distinct paragraphs, based on agreed language from Sevilla or from the written inputs already submitted by the G77.

In regards to domestic and international private business and finance:

The Group considers that this section remains largely aspirational and requires further strengthening to ensure that its paragraphs are action-oriented rather than merely diagnostics. The text should clearly translate agreed mandates into concrete and implementable actions. In this regard, the Group has proposed a number of edits across several paragraphs.

Among its proposals, the Group has included language aimed at supporting the establishment and operationalization of concrete initiatives for the benefit of LDCs, LLDCs, SIDS, MICs, and African countries.

Regarding International trade as an engine for development:

The Group is concerned that international trade is increasingly affected by heightened geopolitical tensions. These dynamics are contributing to a rise in trade-restrictive measures, increased uncertainty, and a more fragmented global trading landscape, as well as a growing competition in strategic sectors, including critical minerals. These tensions and supply chain disruptions are hindering developing countries from integrating into global markets on fair and equitable terms, including through participating in global value chains.

In this regard, the Group has proposed a number of edits to this section, including the addition and substitution of paragraphs, particularly in light of the fact that a significant number of the Group's proposals to the Zero Draft were not reflected in REV1.

The Group is concerned over the rise of protectionist measures, including high tariffs, nontariff barriers and trade distorting practices, which undermine the rules-based multilateral trading system and disproportionately affect developing countries. Similarly, trade-related environmental measures, including unilateral ones like carbon border adjustments, should not constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade. The language proposals made by the Group also aim to promote a level playing field and fair competition, while discouraging market distortions. The Group also calls on States to refrain from adopting unilateral economic, financial, or trade measures that are inconsistent with international law and that hinder development, particularly in developing countries.

In regards to the International financial architecture and systemic issues:

The Group considers that REV1 contains important elements and addresses key areas, as was also the case with the Zero Draft. Notwithstanding this, the Group remains of the view that the language requires further strengthening. In this regard, the Group has proposed several additional paragraphs, in line with its previous written submission, particularly given that many of its proposals were not reflected in the current version.

The lack of references to Credit Rating Agencies in the text is not acceptable for the Group, so we maintain our language proposals made for the Zero Draft in this regard, including with regard to MDBs' collective engagement with credit rating agencies.

The Group also proposed language to highlight the need for strengthened international cooperation to address the implications of geopolitical tensions and technological changes on the global monetary system, including digital assets and payment infrastructures, while ensuring greater participation of developing countries in these discussions. For the G77, strengthening the voice and participation of developing countries in the International Financial Institutions is fundamental.

The Group also considers the outcome document should reaffirm the key role of Multilateral Development Banks in supporting development and poverty reduction, while recognizing ongoing reform efforts-such as the G20 MDB Roadmap and the Capital Adequacy Framework-to enhance their lending capacity and effectiveness.

Regarding Data, Monitoring and Follow-up and Next Steps:

Overall, the Group supports the "Next Steps" section. We reiterate the Group's preference to merge "Updates on Implementation" and "Next Steps" into a single section entitled "Updates on Implementation."

Regarding "Data, Monitoring and Follow-up," the Group wishes to reiterate several previously submitted proposals that were not reflected by the co-facilitators, including those concerning South-South cooperation data and the SIDS Centre of Excellence. These additions are in line with the Group's previously stated preference to underscore key achievements and ongoing initiatives and were proposed primarily as revisions to existing paragraphs put forward by the co-facilitators, rather than as standalone paragraphs.

Finally, regarding other actions areas:

The Group remains of the view that the language in this section requires strengthening, particularly to align it with the language in Seville commitment, and has therefore proposed certain edits in this vein.

In the debt paragraph, The Group reiterates its call for inclusion of language on 'initiating the intergovernmental debt process at the United Nations', as well as language regarding the use of innovative debt instruments, such as debt swaps. The group has also proposed language calling to the Group of 20 to strengthen the implementation of the Common Framework for Debt Treatments beyond the Debt Service Suspension Initiative, in a predictable and coordinated manner.

Furthermore, The group once again reiterates its call for inclusion of paragraphs on reaffirming the call on multilateral development banks to expand and optimize their annual lending capacity while maintaining financial sustainability; and underscoring commitments to enhance South-South and triangular cooperation.

Co-facilitators and colleagues,

All of the Group's positions and proposals will be explained in greater detail during the informal informals. We reiterate our commitment to work constructively toward a balanced, ambitious, and action-oriented text that clearly reflects the priorities of developing countries.

I thank you.