ieg-dossier

European Union

ieg-dossier coverage

Volume 1 Edition 2 ¦May 2006

New York, 15 May 2006: EU: Statement on the Effective Coordination of Humanitarian Assistance Efforts: In a statement to the Informal Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly on Mandate Review, Cluster D and E, Ambassador Gerhard Pfanzelter, Permanent Representative of Austria to the UN, on behalf of the European Union outlined the Group's views on the: Relationship to other UN reform processes, including the Secretary General's High-Level Panel on System-wide Coherence; decision making in the General Assembly (GA) and the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC); Internally Displaced Persons; disaster management; the transition for relief to recovery; and finance

New York, 8 May 2006: EU Presidency: Statement on the Mandate Review Volume on Promotion of Sustainable Development and Africa: In a statement to the Informal Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly on Mandate Review by Ambassador Gerhard Pfanzelter, Permanent Representative of Austria to the UN, on behalf of the European Union outlined the EU's views on: reporting requirements; distribution of work between General Assembly/Main Committees – ECOSOC/functional commissions; distribution of work between the Secretariat and Funds and Programmes; regular programme of technical cooperation and development of Africa

Volume 1 Edition 1 ¦May 2006

New York, 29 April 2006: EU statement to the General Assembly Informal Consultations on International Environment Governance: Speaking during the informals of the General Assembly on Environmental Reform (29 April 2006), Ambassador Gerhard Pfanzelter, Permanent Representative of Austria to the United Nations, presented a “tour d'horizon of issues the EU would like addressed in depth” on behalf of the European Union

Brussels, 10 April 2006: EU Council adopts conclusions on UN Reform, calls for UNEO: The European Union's 2722nd General Affairs Council meeting held in Luxembourg on April 10, 2006 adopted Conclusion on follow-up to the UN World Summit, including humanitarian emergencies, Management Reform, the Mandate Review, the Secretary-General's High-level Panel on System-wide coherence, and transforming the UNEP into a UN Environment Organisation

New York, 6 April 2006: EU statement to the High-level Panel: In his address to the informal consultation of the General Assembly with members of the Secretary-General's High-level Panel on System- wide Coherence (6 April 2006), Ambassador Gerhard Pfanzelter, on behalf of the European Union, suggested that for the informals, the Panel should lay a particular emphasis on the needs of and the results in developing countries.

New York, 6 April 2006: EU Commission and Panel Member proposes new reform ideas: According to a 6 April press release, European Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Assistance and member of the Secretary-General's High-level Panel on System-wide Coherence, Louis Michel, said those who wish to reduce the UN to the role of a niche player, to see it fragmented, or who consider it as no more than an operational tool, dangerously diminish the hope of a peaceful and equitable world.

EU: Statement on the Effective Coordination of Humanitarian Assistance Efforts

Volume 1 Edition 2 | May 2006

New York, 15 May 2006: In a statement to the Informal Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly on the Mandate Review, Cluster D and E, Ambassador Gerhard Pfanzelter, Permanent Representative of Austria to the UN, speaking on behalf of the European Union*, outlined the Group's views on the: relationship with other UN reform processes, including the Secretary General's High-Level Panel on System-wide Coherence; decision making in the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC); internally displaced persons; disaster management; the transition for relief to recovery; and finance.

Regarding the effective coordination of humanitarian assistance efforts , the EU said they welcomed the recommendations in the Secretary-General ' s report that highlighted worrying gaps in implementation as useful. Ambassador Pfanzelter stressed that “humanitarian assistance and the relevant mandates have close links with the Secretary General's High-Level Panel on System-wide Coherence, General Assembly revitalisation, and the humanitarian reform process initiated by the Emergency Relief Coordinator.” He said “while waiting for the Panel ' s recommendations, we should not delay the review of respective mandates. We welcome improvements in operational coordination resulting from the development of the cluster approach.”

Regarding decision making , the EU suggested that “discussions in the General Assembly and in ECOSOC should be streamlined by bringing together humanitarian-related matters under a 'humanitarian umbrella' agenda item in the General Assembly Plenary.” He stressed that “efforts should also aim at reducing inconsistency and duplication in the work of the GA and ECOSOC.” On the issue of internally displaced persons (IDPs) , the EU called for the mandates and responsibilities of agencies related to assistance to IDPs to be clarified, as a matter of urgency.” The EU said these “mandates ought to comprehensively improve protection and assistance based on properly assessed needs. UNHCR should play a central role, addressing the issue in close collaboration with governments and others, including NGOs.” Ambassador Pfanzelter also proposes that there was “scope for reinforcing the role of the Emergency Relief Coordinator in coordinating country-level assistance and protection.”

In the field of disaster management , the EU welcomed the progress made in reforming the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR) and stressed that “the UN's leadership should be strengthened”. The EU said “close cooperation of Member States with the UN, in particular UNDP and the ISDR are crucial to ensure the effectiveness of the risk reduction process.” “Handling the complex endeavour of the transition from relief to recovery also calls for clarity in the responsibilities of actors in the UN system, such as the Emergency Relief Co-ordinator and UNDP,” said the EU. Noting that this applies in both the cases of natural disasters and complex emergencies, the EU said “this is an important issue facing the High Level Panel on System-wide Coherence.” Ambassador Pfanzelter also expressed hope that the Peace Building Commission (PBC) would “play a key role in supporting post-conflict transitional efforts, through ensuring increased coherence with other agencies. Post-conflict repatriation and reintegration of returnees constitute a serious concern where the PBC shall undertake efforts to promote coherence.” With regard to the transition phase following natural disasters, he said the ISDR was well placed to ensure coherence.” On finance , the EU emphasised the importance of a more timely and predictable funding for humanitarian response, including funding of the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and for disaster risk reduction.” Welcoming the upgrading of the Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF), Ambassador Pfanzelter said “improvements to the Consolidated Appeals Process were needed, for instance through better needs assessment, and other ways of improving the timeliness and effectiveness of funding.”

* Speaking on behalf of the European Union. The Acceding Countries Bulgaria and Romania , the Candidate Countries Croatia, Turkey, and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the Countries of the Stabilisation and Association Process and potential candidates Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Montenegro and the EFTA countries Iceland and Norway, member of the European Economic Area as well as Ukraine align themselves with this statement.

Source: EU, 2006; Internet:
http://www.ue2006.at/en/News/Statements_in_International_Organisations/UN/
1505MandateReviewClusterDandE.html

EU Presidency: Statement on the Mandate Review Volume on Promotion of Sustainable Development and Africa

Volume 1 Edition 2 | May 2006

New York, May 2006: In a statement to the Informal Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly on Mandate Review, Ambassador Gerhard Pfanzelter, Permanent Representative of Austria to the UN, speaking on behalf of the European Union*, outlined the EU's views regarding: reporting requirements; distribution of work between General Assembly/Main Committees – ECOSOC/functional commissions; distribution of work between the Secretariat and Funds and Programmes; regular programme of technical cooperation and development of Africa.” In their General Remarks the EU reiterated that the Mandate Review was “not intended as a cost-cutting exercise.” Ambassador Pfanzelter said “at this stage, we do not believe it is advisable to earmark any potential savings for any particular use. Our approach is that we should first try to generate spare capacities before deciding within the competent organs on those functions most in need of reinforcement.” He also said that the Mandate Review should be seen as “complementary to other ongoing processes such as Management Reform, the High-Level Panel on System-wide coherence, General Assembly revitalisation, environmental governance or ECOSOC reform, all of which are interlinked and mutually reinforcing.”

On reporting requirements, the EU supported the “Secretary General's proposals on reducing the volume of documentation such as substituting reports prepared specifically for the General Assembly on social groups (youth, ageing and disabled persons, family) by simply referring to reports prepared for the Commission on Social Development.” The EU also stated there was “merit in examining other means of reducing the number of reports such as the use of external information sources, flagship publications and core policy reports or reader surveys to determine whether reports and publications are actually read and satisfying demands.”

On the distribution of work between General Assembly/Main Committees – ECOSOC/functional commissions , the EU stressed the “clear need for a more coherent and unified UN approach to follow-up to the internationally agreed development goals, including the Millennium Development Goals and to rationalise the work of, and, distribution among the UN's principal organs.” Ambassador Pfanzelter said “ECOSOC should better review, guide and monitor the work of its subsidiary machinery by highlighting areas of overlap and duplication and by making recommendations to its subsidiary bodies on how to overcome such duplication. ECOSOC should live up to its role by more comprehensively and analytically integrating its various reported inputs into a distilled concentrate of policy recommendations for the GA and its Main Committees. Likewise ECOSOC should critically examine its subsidiary bodies' mandates on a regular basis and advise its functional commissions on potential transgressions on their respective mandates,” he said. Regarding the distribution of work between the Secretariat and Funds and Programmes , the EU called for a “more clear-cut division of work, consolidation of capacities and a strategic reprioritisation of work between the Secretariat and Funds and Programmes in order to eliminate overlaps and redundancies, and requested the Secretary-General to report on the work of the Executive Committee on Economic and Social Affairs to identify further options in this regard.”

On the regular programme of technical cooperation , Ambassador Pfanzelter called for the “clarification from the Secretariat on, inter alia , the scope and operating modalities of this regular programme, on its comparative advantage as well as link and possible overlaps with other voluntarily funded programme funds for technical cooperation and on the logic for its separate funding..” Regarding coordination and leadership , the EU supported the Secretary-General's proposal that, when adopting resolutions, Member States should provide strategic direction and objectives while the Secretary General should determine the entity or department most competent to lead and coordinate the implementation efforts. On Cluster C issues- development of Africa - the EU “strongly encouraged improving the coherence and coordination between the different actors in the area of Development of Africa, in particular between the ‘focal point,' the Office of the Special Adviser on Africa and the Office of the High Representative for Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States. In addition, better complementarity with the work of other UN entities, including but not limited to the Department of Political Affairs, should be encouraged.”

* Speaking on behalf of the European Union. The Acceding Countries Bulgaria and Romania , the Candidate Countries Croatia, Turkey , the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , the Countries of the Stabilisation and Association Process and potential candidates Albania , Bosnia and Herzegovina , Serbia and Montenegro as well as Ukraine and Moldova align themselves with this statement.

Source: EU, 2006:
Internet: http://www.ue2006.at/en/News/Statements_in_International_Organisations/UN/
0805MandateReview.html

EU statement to the General Assembly Informal Consultations on International Environment Governance

Volume 1 Edition 1 | May 2006 |

Speaking during the Informals of the General Assembly on Environmental Reform (29 April 2006) Ambassador Gerhard Pfanzelter, Permanent Representative of Austria to the United Nations, on behalf of the European Union, presented a “tour d'horizon of issues we would like to address in depth” during the consultations. He suggested that it was not yet “time for negotiations” and welcomed the opportunity to discuss the current situation, gaps and areas in need of more detail. He highlighted that the “system of international environmental governance has created valuable instruments, norms and institutions.” However, he stressed, the “very evolution of the system has created new challenges, and the need for swift action has led the system to outgrow itself. International environmental governance today is characterised by fragmentation, duplication and sometimes incoherence leading to inefficiency and a deficit in leadership and participation. Especially developing countries face a lack of resources and capacity to always take part effectively in international environmental meetings, which could affect the legitimacy and effective implementation of decisions taken at such meetings.” He said that “the EU considers that current institutions, practices and procedures are not satisfactory. The system has created valuable instruments, norms and institutions, such as UNEP. However, new challenges have emerged from the rapid deterioration of the environment, and these instruments and institutions will no longer be sufficient. The current system is not delivering effectively and efficiently for the benefit of the global environment and the peoples, in particular in developing countries.

Regarding the upgrading of UNEP into a specialised agency, the EU said it supports the option of transforming UNEP into a specialised agency for the environment - with a revised and strengthened mandate and supported by stable, adequate and predictable financial contributions - which would be in a better position to allow the UN to address the challenges mentioned and to assist developing countries. Ambassador Gerhard Pfanzelter stated that “UNEP has however not evolved into the environmental pillar of the UN system that was hoped for,” that “UNEP's activities continue to be hampered by uncertain financing”, and that “the UN Environment Management Group has not met expectations, suffering from a relatively weak mandate and status.” He said that despite the 2002 Cartagena reform package, particularly on the Bali Strategic Plan, “a lot still needs to be done.” He further stressed the EU's commitment to implementing the Cartagena agenda. Regarding Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs), the EU identified several issues requiring further discussion, including the: coherence of existing international arrangements; efficiency of actions carried out; participation of Member States; and legitimacy of the decisions taken.

Source: EU, 2006:
http://www.eu2006.at/en/News/Statements_in_International_Organisations/UN/
1904EnvironmentalReform.html

EU statement to the High-Level Panel

Volume 1 Edition 1 | May 2006

In his address to the informal consultation of the General Assembly with members of the Secretary-General's High Level Panel on System- wide Coherence, Ambassador Gerhard Pfanzelter, Permanent Representative of Austria to the United Nations, on behalf of the European Union, suggested for the informals, the Panel should lay a particular emphasis on the needs of and the results in developing countries. He said that “the aim and justification for reforming the UN operational activities must be to generate a clear dividend that will fully benefit the recipient countries and their people. Any improvement in efficiency that can be achieved will release much needed financial and organisational resources as well as personnel capacities.” Ambassador Pfanzelter further stressed that the EU was “looking forward to the development of a concrete and comprehensive analysis and recommendations that will help to further strengthen UN operational activities.” He said that “in order to ensure wide acceptance and a successful subsequent implementation of the findings of the panel, it will be essential for the panel to consult widely both with member states and relevant stakeholders.”

Source: EU, 2006;
http://www.eu2006.at/en/News/Statements_in_International_Organisations/UN/
0604UNCoherence.html

EU Commission and Panel Member proposes new reform ideas

Volume 1 Edition 1 | May 2006

According to a 6 April press release, European Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Assistance and member of the Secretary-General's High-level Panel on System-wide Coherence, Louis Michel said “those who wish to reduce the UN to the role of a niche player, to see it fragmented, or who consider it as no more than an operational tool, dangerously diminish the hope of a peaceful and equitable world.” Speaking following the first informal meeting of the High-Level Panel and the General Assembly, he stated that the UN “is the only institution to embody global governance. No other player is capable of fulfilling this role in the same spirit.” Noting that “the UN's many agencies tend to give it a disjointed and bureaucratic image,” he states the “the organisation's legitimacy must be reinforced through the introduction of more transparent forms of political accountability.” He proposed that failing moves to streamline or consolidate the UN system, “a first step should at least be the organisation of the agencies around thematic pillars.” He suggested that “these pillars could operate under the auspices of Deputy Secretaries-General, who would be directly accountable to the Secretary General, the General Assembly, the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).” He also proposed giving more extensive powers to ECOSOC so that it becomes a “political instrument to bring globalisation under control and humanise it.” He also proposed closer links between the World Trade Organisation and the UN, or even a merger; the creation of a ‘world atlas of donors' as a vital resource for more effective and coordinated aid; the need for partner countries' ownership of development; regional approaches.

Source: EU, 2006:
http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/
475&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

EU Council adopts conclusions on UN Reform, calls for UNEO

Volume 1 Edition 1 | May 2006

The European Union's 2722nd General Affairs Council meeting held in Luxembourg on 10 April 2006 adopted Conclusion on follow-up to the UN World Summit, including humanitarian emergencies, Management Reform, the Mandate Review, the Secretary-General's High-level Panel on System-wide coherence, and transforming the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) into a UN Environment Organisation. The Council welcomes efforts to make the UN more reactive to humanitarian emergencies, including through the establishment of the Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) by the General Assembly. The Council concluded that Management Reform was central to achieve a stronger and more effective UN. The Council supports the steps already taken to improve the management of the organisation, in particular by ensuring ethical conduct and strengthening oversight and accountability within the Secretariat. The Council also underlined the importance of the Mandate Review as a necessary stock-taking exercise to strengthen the organisation and increase UN efficiency for the benefit of all member states. The Council further concluded that the “Mandate Review is neither a cost-cutting exercise nor intended to reduce the activity of the UN or put into question the priorities set by the General Assembly.” On the Secretary-General's High-level Panel on System-wide Coherence, the Council invited the panel to present an action-oriented plan for reform with clear benchmarks. The Council conclusions noted that “the EU will strive for the establishment of a UN agency for the environment, based on UNEP, with a revised and strengthened mandate, supported by stable, adequate and predictable financial contributions and operating on an equal footing with other UN specialised agencies.” The Council also welcomed “efforts to make the UN's Economic and Social Council more effective in order to help fulfil its mandate as the central coordinating body at the UN for economic, social and environmental affairs, inter alia, by the establishment of a biennial Development Cooperation Forum.” In addition the 2723rd External Relations Council meeting (10-11 April 2006) had a brief exchange of views on the implementation of the outcome of the UN World Summit and adopted conclusions on the subject. The Council also held a discussion on the development aspects of the UN reform process and agreed on the need to continue working to make international humanitarian assistance more coherent and more effective. Further, the Council took also note of information on the preparation of an informal meeting on this issue to be held in Vienna on 9 June. In addition the 2713 th Environment Ministers Council Meeting in March, 2006, adopted Council Conclusions relating to the Convention on Biological Diversity, climate change, and the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.

Source: EU, 2006
2722nd General Affairs Council meeting held in Luxembourg on April 10, 2006:
http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/gena/89218.pdf
2723rd External Relations Council meeting (10-11 April 2006)
http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/gena/89219.pdf
2713 th Environment Ministers Council Meeting in March, 2006
http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/envir/88721.pdf

Go up in this page

Canada, Australia and New Zealand

ieg-dossier coverage

Volume 1 Edition 2 ¦May 2006

New York, 8 May 2006: Canada, Australia and New Zealand: Mandate Review on Sustainable Development : In a statement to the informal consultations on the Mandate Review, Australia's Ambassador to the UN, Robert Hill, speaking on behalf of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, remarked that “in the field of promoting sustained growth and sustainable development, perhaps more than in any other, the maze of UN bureaucracy has grown too large.”

Volume 1 Edition 1 ¦May 2006

New York, 6 April 2006: Statement of Canada, Australia and New Zealand (CANZ) at the informal meeting of the plenary with members of the High-Level Panel on UN system-wide coherence: In a statement to the informal meeting of the plenary with members of the Secretary-General's High-level Panel on System-wide Coherence (6 April 2006), Australia, speaking on behalf of Canada and New Zealand, presented a preliminary set of principles for the Panel to consider in its programme of work.

Canada, Australia and New Zealand : Mandate Review on Sustainable Development

Volume 1 Edition 2 | May 2006

New York , 8 May 2006: In a statement to the informal consultations on the Mandate Review, Australia 's Ambassador to the UN, Robert Hill, speaking on behalf of Canada , Australia and New Zealand (CANZ) remarked that “in the field of promoting sustained growth and sustainable development, perhaps more than in any other, the maze of UN bureaucracy has grown too large.” He called on the “mandate review to consider both the relevance of functions undertaken by Secretariat bodies working on sustainable development issues, and the best institutional arrangements for discharging functions which should be retained.” Regarding complementarity with other UN reform process - such as the Panel and environment informals- he proposed setting “aside from the review issues which fall expressly within the Panel's terms of reference, such as work done by the UN funds and programmes.” Ambassador Hill said the “duplication of work should be eliminated, both within the UN, and between the UN and other actors, most notably the Bretton Woods Institutions,” and “operational activities should be left to those best equipped to undertake them.” He stressed the importance of reviewing the division of labour between the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), the Regional Commissions , and other bodies working on sustainable development. Ambassador Hill said these bodies “should each take a close look at their internal workings to review their priorities and programmes in light of Summit outcomes. This should occur across the full spectrum of issues on which they all work from trade analysis, an area of particular interest to CANZ, to finance and environment activities.” Regarding DESA, he said “it is sometimes difficult to understand exactly what outcomes DESA seeks to achieve.” He said “DESA should focus on areas where it has a comparative advantage. For example, DESA should continue to provide valuable support to the Commission on Sustainable Development, and the Commission on Population and Development.” But, as a start,” he said “DESA should consider streamlining its work by leaving operational activities to UN funds and programmes.” On the role of the UN Regional Commissions , he suggested that the “Commissions focus their work to better serve regional interests and cooperation. For example, the Commissions need not duplicate work in UN General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council to follow-up on UN conference and summits, and the Commissions' operational work could be better delivered by UN funds and programmes.” On the UN's Regular Programme of Technical Cooperation , CANZ called attention to “doubts about the utility and cost of this Programme, which the General Assembly decided to fundamentally review two years ago. The General Assembly's concerns have not abated: the Programme remains a supply-driven vehicle, and over 80% of its funds go towards senior UN positions,” said Ambassador Hill.

Source: New Zealand 's Mission to the UN, 2006; Internet:
http://www.mfat.govt.ns/speech/minspeeches/8may06a.html

Statement of Canada , Australia and New Zealand (CANZ) at the informal meeting of the plenary with members of the High-Level Panel on UN system-wide coherence

Volume 1 Edition 1 | May 2006

In a statement to the informal meeting of the plenary with members of the Secretary-General's High-level Panel on System-wide Coherence, Caroline Millar, Ambassador and Chargé d'Affaires of Australia to the UN, speaking on behalf of Canada and New Zealand, presented a preliminary set of principles for the Panel to consider in its programme of work. She proposed that the Panel “begin with a sound analysis of the strengths, weaknesses and the true comparative advantage of the UN operational system,” for example examining “where the UN has a unique and value-added role in development operations, in humanitarian assistance and in the environment.” Based one on a mutual understanding of appropriate roles and responsibilities of each and effective partnerships, she stated that “closer harmonisation and cooperation between the UN, International Financial Institutions, other international organisations and bilateral actors is also essential.” She said Canada , Australia and New Zealand “do not advocate structural change for the sake of change but do consider some restructuring is likely to be necessary – this should be based on sound analysis and a clear rationale. It must also be focused on supporting agreed outcomes and contribute to a more coordinated ‘one UN' at a country level, better equipped to deliver results in support of national ownership and improved aid effectiveness.” Regarding cross-cutting issues such as gender equality, human rights and sustainable development, Ambassador Millar said these issues “must be appropriately addressed and ways found to ensure effective delivery of results. On gender equality we welcome the fact that the Secretary General has explicitly requested the Panel, in his report on mandates, to focus on how gender equality can be better and more fully addressed by the UN.” Regarding procedural issues, she expressed concern over “the time-frame that has been set for the Panel to report back” to the General Assembly. She said that “deadlines that are too tight may undermine the quality and comprehensiveness of the process and its outcome.”

Source: Australia 's Mission to the UN, 2006:
http://www.australiaun.org/unWeb/content/statements/other/2006.04.06_OTH_system-wide%20coherence.pdf

Go up in this page

Group of 13 Donor Countries

ieg-dossier coverage

Volume 1 Edition 1 ¦May 2006

G-13 Proposals for system-wide coherence: Martin Khor of the Third World Network reports that on 23 February 2006, the UN Ambassadors of 13 countries, calling themselves a group of 13 donor countries (or the G13) including Canada and twelve European countries - Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and United Kingdom- presented a letter to the Prime Minister of Norway in his capacity as Co-Chair of the Secretary-General's High-level Panel on UN System-wide Coherence.

G-13 Proposals for System-wide coherence

Volume 1 Edition 1 | May 2006

Martin Khor of the Third World Network reports that on 23 February, the UN Ambassadors of 13 countries, calling themselves a group of 13 donor countries (or the G13) including Canada and twelve European countries - Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and United Kingdom- presented a letter to the Prime Minister of Norway in his capacity as Co-Chair of the Secretary-General's High-level Panel on UN System-wide Coherence. Among the main proposals of the G-13 are (i) a strategic coherent model of the UN system consisting of a small number of strong organisations in the area of development, humanitarian action and environment; (ii) one consolidated representation at country level (namely, one UN team, one budget, one programme); (iii) Specialised Agencies to be seen as “Centres of Excellence” concentrating on the development of normative and substantive policies in their respective fields and translating these into concrete programmes in close cooperation with the operational organisations; and (iv) an operational focus on the provision of high-quality capacity-building and institutional development services. According to Khor the G-13 letter included an Annex listing 8 key issues for strengthening the UN operational system: the core role of UN operational system; the structure of UN operational system; governance of UN operational system; country level reform; funding of UN operational activities; main-streaming cross cutting issues; managing change and human resources; and UN contribution to improving aid effectiveness.

Regarding the core role of UN operational system, the G-13 has proposed that the Panel should consider the core normative and operational roles of the UN. It should ask what are the comparative advantages of the UN, are there tasks done by the UN that should be better left to other actors, and what are the complementary roles of the UN, the global funds, bilateral donors and multilateral development banks?

On the structure of UN operational system, the G-13 has proposed that the Panel should assess how can the UN operational system, including field-related activities of the specialised agencies and Secretariat be organised to provide maximum support at country level? The current fragmented structure hinders achievement of results at country level. How can the system be better organised at HQ and field level to achieve synergies, avoid overlaps and rationalise its work?

On governance of UN operational system, the G-13 has proposed that the Panel consider how to streamline governance functions, eliminate duplication and clarify roles of existing governance structure of operational activities, including the General Assembly, Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), the boards of funds and programmes, governing bodies of specialised agencies, and the inter-agency mechanisms (Chief Executive Board, UN development group, executive committee on humanitarian affairs, inter-agency standing committee).

Regarding country level reform, the G-13 proposed that the Panel should assess on-going reform efforts and propose ways to strengthen them. What should the UN do to maximise its contributions to the international development goals including the MDGs?

On funding of UN operational activities, the G-13 proposed that the Panel consider funding mechanisms that can better respond to challenges raised and broaden the donor circle, including private financing. The letter notes that the UN funds and programmes have urged for adequate, predictable and multi- year funding to the regular budgets. On mainstreaming cross cutting issues, the G-13 proposed that the Panel address how the UN's comparative advantage working with mainstreaming crosscutting issues (mentioning human rights, environment and gender), can be strengthened, for example, how to improve the fragmented gender architecture of the UN. On managing change and human resources, the G-13 proposed that the Panel address the corporate culture and key skills needed by the UN system and what can be done to meet these needs? Regarding the UN's contribution to improving aid effectiveness, the G-13 proposed that the Panel could assess the implementation by the UN Development Group of the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness.

Source:
Third World Network/ South-North Development Monitor, 2006: Martin Khor; Developed countries press for big changes in UN structure; http://www.twnside.org.sg/un_reform.htm

Go up in this page

France

ieg-dossier coverage

Volume 1 Edition 2 ¦May 2006

Paris, 17 May 2006: France: Girardin on the UN Environment Organisation: According to official press releases, during a meeting between Brigitte Girardin, Minister Delegate for Cooperation, Development and Francophone, and Achim Steiner, Director-General of the World Conservation Union (IUCN) and future executive director of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), the minister delegate reaffirmed France's commitment to the proposal to transform UNEP into a United Nations Environment Organisation

Vienna , 12 May 2006: France : Chirac on the UN Environment Organisation: In an address to the 4th Summit of Heads of State and Government of the European Union, Latin America and the Caribbean, French President Jacques Chirac called on “ Latin America to join the European Union in promoting the rapid creation of a UN Environment Organisation”

Volume 1 Edition 1 ¦May 2006

New York, February 2006: French Proposal on a UN Environment Organisation submitted to General Assembly: In February 2006, the French Ambassador to UN, Jean-Marc de la Sablière, submitted a progress report on the Group's activities to be circulated as an official document of the sixtieth session of the General Assembly, under agenda items 46 (Integrated and coordinated implementation of and follow-up to the outcomes of the major United Nations conferences and summits in the economic, social and related fields) and 120 (Follow-up to the outcome of the Millennium Summit)

France: Girardin on the UN Environment Organisation

Volume 1 Edition 2 | May 2006

According to official press releases, a meeting between Brigitte Girardin, Minister Delegate for Cooperation, Development and Francophone, and Mr Achim Steiner, Director-General of the World Conservation Union (IUCN) and future executive director of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) too place on May 17 2006.

In addition to IUCN action, the talks will focus on the troubling state of the earth's environment and the central role of the UN in addressing these new threats. Given these circumstances, the need to continue UNEP reform and, beyond that, to strengthen international governance of the environment will be insisted on. The minister delegate will reaffirm France 's commitment to the proposal to transform UNEP into a United Nations Environment Organisation.

Source: France, 2006; Internet:
http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/france-priorities_1/international-organisations_1100/united-nations-environment-organisation-uneo_1966/meeting-between-ms-girardin-and-mr-steiner-17.05.06_4732.html

France: Chirac on the UN Environment Organisation

Volume 1 Edition 2 | May 2006

Vienna, 12 May 2006: In an address to the 4th Summit of Heads of State and Government of the European Union, Latin America and the Caribbean First Round Table :"The New Multilateralism as a Response to our Common Challenges", French President Jacques Chirac identified three avenues for multilateral cooperation. The first avenue, Chirac said, required addressing the “aspirations for greater justice and solidarity voiced by peoples in elections.” The second avenue, Chirac said, required the strengthening of global cooperation on the major threats to security and peace. The third avenue identified by Chirac was dealing with global environment challenges. Chirac said “we face a global ecological crisis which leaves us little time to react, and it is both necessary and urgent that we strengthen environmental governance.” Chirac stressed that this challenge “can only be faced by an organisation with genuine authority, as are the UN's other major missions.” He called on “ Latin America to join the European Union in promoting the rapid creation of a United Nations Environment Organisation. He said “by taking such concrete steps, which bring the European Union and Latin America together on the basis of our shared values, as we did in adopting the Convention on Cultural Diversity, we will help to overcome the imbalance of globalisation and contribute to the building of a world that is more secure and also more just and more humane.”

Source: France, 2006; Internet:
http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/actu/bulletin.gb.asp?liste=20060515.gb.html#Chapitre1

French Proposal on a UN Environment Organisation submitted to General Assembly

Volume 1 Edition 1 | May 2006

On 23 September 2003 at the UN General Assembly, France 's President Jacques Chirac called for the creation of a UN Environment Organisation (UNEO) based on the present UN Environment Programme (UNEP). The idea of developing a UN Environment Organisation has been circulated on the international stage in the past, but has often been met with scepticism and hesitation. Lack of political will to engage in the debate and concern over the complexities surrounding the development of such an organisation meant that this discussion did not progress. In February 2004, France launched an informal intergovernmental working group of developed and developing countries to discuss rationalising and strengthening international environmental governance (IEG). Among the countries participating in the informal group were Belgium, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Canada, China, Colombia, Czech Republic, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Luxembourg, Mexico, Morocco, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Senegal, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom and Vietnam, together with the European Commission. In April 2005, the outcomes of the consultative process were presented to UNEP Executive Director Klaus Töpfer. In February 2006, the French Ambassador to UN, Jean-Marc de la Sablière, submitted a progress report on the Group's activities to be circulated as an official document of the sixtieth session of the General Assembly, under agenda items 46 (Integrated and coordinated implementation of and follow-up to the outcomes of the major United Nations conferences and summits in the economic, social and related fields) and 120 (Follow-up to the outcome of the Millennium Summit).

The French proposal, which is supported by the European Union, aims to establish the UNEO by transforming UNEP (and not in parallel to UNEP) as well as by building on the strengthening of UNEP based on the recommendations adopted at Cartagena. The Proposal recommends that UNEO headquarters would remain at the UN Office in Nairobi , and that a UNEO is not intended to compete with WTO. The proposal also outlines a range of other k ey issues such as : strengthening the coherence and efficiency of the current international system, including its regional dimension; increasing scientific expertise, communication and early warning systems; responding to the specific needs of developing countries; addressing financial aspects, including resource mobilisation; and resolving Institutional and legal aspects. The French have also proposed that UNEO should be connected to the United Nations under the terms of Articles 63 and 64 of the Charter. An agreement negotiated between the Economic and Social Council and UNEO would strengthen the relationship between the two organisations. UNEO should take the Council's recommendations fully into account and should report to it regularly on its own activities. The Council could communicate its observations to the General Assembly and offer recommendations in order to contribute to coordination and coherence within the UN system.

Further, the French have proposed that the UNEO institutional structure should satisfy two criteria in particular: ensuring the legitimacy of decisions made by Member States; and giving the organisation the capacity to fulfil its mandate. They suggest that transforming UNEP into a United Nations specialised agency should give UNEO the necessary legitimacy to guarantee the efficient implementation of its mandate through its various functions. Among the institutional components included in the French paper, which need to be the subject to more in-depth study, include: an Assembly with universal membership; a Director General elected by the Assembly (or appointed by the Secretary General); possibly an executive board; a secretariat established from the UNEP secretariat; and strengthened regional offices.

The French paper proposes assigning two main functions to the UNEO: defining strategic guidelines approved by Member States and coordinating; and in some cases, pooling certain cross-sectoral activities (for example, data collection and exchange, early warning and scientific expertise, capacity-building and technology transfer and follow-up of agreements). The proposal recognises the need to ensure coordination without affecting the legal autonomy of the Conventions, in particular their regulatory activities. Noting that this issue is delicate and should be developed further, the French have proposed that the difference in membership between a UNEO and specific conventions should be taken into account. In order to address the issue of participation and legitimacy, the French have suggested giving the UNEO a clear mandate regarding: rationalising the planning and venues for meetings; harmonising and streamlining requests for reports and information; and simplifying the mechanisms for follow-up of agreements.

On addressing the s pecific needs of developing countries, the French paper proposes that t he UNEO mandate clearly address the environment in the context of sustainable development. The UNEO could contribute to strengthening capacity-building and technology support through the coordination of capacity-building programmes in full cooperation with UNDP, assistance in identifying projects. It could help to strengthen scientific expertise by strengthening scientific capacity, and involvement of researchers from developing countries. A UNEO could also promote a regional approach in this field by strengthening regional offices, and encourage the inclusion of environmental considerations in national policy, emphasise the benefits of measures taken and promote mechanisms for underwriting certain associated costs. Concerning Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs), the paper suggests that a UNEO could assist developing countries in their participation in decision-making as well as in the inclusion of MEAs in their national legislation and implementation of them at the national level.

Regarding financial aspects , the paper proposes that financing the environment at the international level involves two types of issues, notably: the budget and resources of UNEO (and the Convention bodies) and financing from the Global Environment Facility (GEF). The French have noted that several forms of funding could be possible. In particular, they proposed a system that would combine in a clearer manner assessed contributions and non-core, voluntary contributions was considered, taking into account the advances made possible thanks to the voluntary indicative scale of contribution. On the GEF, the French paper suggests that the way the Facility operates and the resources it controls give the Facility a de facto coordinating role among the MEAs, and thus a UNEO could improve the way the system operates by: providing integrated scientific and technical expertise; presenting, with the Conventions, strategic guidelines set by Member States and the Conventions; and improving its role as an executing agency.

Source: France 's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2006:
http://www.franceonu.org/IMG/pdf/Lettre_ONUE.pdf

Go up in this page

The Netherlands

ieg-dossier coverage

Volume 1 Edition 1 ¦May 2006

Netherlands' proposals for a 'Brave New UN': The developed country charge has been led by the Netherlands , in particular the Minister for Development Cooperation, Agnes van Ardenne-van der Hoeven. With an annual contribution of ninety million euros, as part of a multi-year commitment, the Netherlands is the UN Development Programme's (UNDP) main donor. The Dutch have also initiated a non-paper with an ambitious reform package and are a leading initiator of the G-13 countries.

Dutch Paper on UN operational system for development fit to face the challenges of reaching the MDGs: According to Martin Khor of the Third World Network, the Netherlands produced a paper on a UN operational system for development fit to face the challenges of reaching the MDGs, which was presented for discussion at the OECD's Development Assistance Committee on 6-7 December.

Netherlands' proposals for a ‘Brave New UN'

Volume 1 Edition 1 | May 2006 |

The developed country charge has been led by the Netherlands , in particular the Minister for Development Cooperation, Agnes van Ardenne-van der Hoeven. With an annual contribution of ninety million euros, as part of a multi-year commitment, the Netherlands is the UN Development Programme's (UNDP) main donor. The Dutch have also initiated a non-paper with an ambitious reform package and are a leading initiator of the G-13 countries. Several of the Dutch proposals were outlined in a speech – ‘A brave news worlds needs a brave new UN' given by Minister Agnes van Ardenne-van der Hoeven at the UNDP Global Management Team Meeting in The Hague on 31 January 2006 and also in an editorial commentary in The Washington Times on 5 March 2006 entitled ‘UN: Radical Reform Needed Now'. The Minister has articulated a vision of the UN as a “three-pronged unit augmented by a few think tanks. Each country would be assigned a single UN team, responsible for a single UN programme. The team should work under the leadership of one UN resident coordinator selected from one of the agencies. At the same time, we could start the undertaking at central level by merging smaller agencies like UNIFEM, UNCDF and UNV into UNDP.” The Minister has also issued a stern warning suggesting that “n o international organisation is indispensable. The public's message for multilateral organisations is clear: prove your added value, or be sidelined.” She has even suggested that “Member States should not be afraid to use the power of the purse when necessary.” Regarding the role of UN agencies, programmes and funds, the Minister stated that “in an interdependent world, it makes no sense to carve up international problems and divide them among thirty-eight UN organisations. The result is too little coordination and too much bureaucracy. Too little efficiency and too much overlap. Too little action and too much talk.” She has suggested that the “only rational solution, as proposed by the Secretary-General, is to select those organisational units that have proven their worth. We could reorganise them into three strong operational agencies, dealing with development, humanitarian affairs and the environment. The EU already supports the creation of a single United Nations environmental organisation. Apart from that, we would need a few global centres of excellence, which would develop norms and standards and provide a platform for international dialogue on issues like health, energy and agriculture.”

Source: Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2006
Agnes van Ardenne-van der Hoeven; A brave new world needs a brave new UN, speech to the UNDP Global Management Team Meeting in The Hague, 31 January 2006;
http://www.minbuza.nl/default.asp?CMS_ITEM=4DADB075E1AA41AA9B00B1ECC8E58F02X
3X40032X8
Agnes van Ardenne-van der Hoeven; UN: Radical Reform Needed Now; the Washington Times, 5 March 2006;
http://www.minbuza.nl/default.asp?CMS_ITEM=A086555355D44FD78C9A97F231D50774X
1X42227X56

Dutch Paper on UN operational system for development fit to face the challenges of reaching the MDGs

Volume 1 Edition 1 | May 2006

According to Martin Khor of the Third World Network, the Netherlands produced a paper on a UN operational system for development fit to face the challenges of reaching the MDGs , which was presented for discussion at the OECD's Development Assistance Committee on 6-7 December. According to Khor, the Dutch paper provides three reform options:

In option 1 (fundamental restructuring), there would be only three UN organisations: a UN development agency (comprising the activities of UNDP, UNICEF, UNFPA, UNCTAD, UNIDO, UN HABITAT (partly), UNDCP, UNCDF, UNV, UNIFEM and UNAIDS); a UN Humanitarian Agency (comprising the activities of WFP, UNICEF, UNHCR, UNDP/BCPR and UNRWA); and a UN Environment Organisation (comprising the activities of UNDP, UN HABITAT, UNEP, MEAs and GEF).

In Option II (grouping), there would be 3 remaining agencies under the pillar of UN development organisations - UNDP, UNICEF and UNFPA. UNCTAD would merge into the WTO; UNAIDS would merge with UNFPA; while UN-HABITAT, UNIDO, UNIFEM and UNCDF and UNV would merge into UNDP. In the humanitarian area, 4 organisations would exist (WFP, UNICEF, UNHCR and UNDP/BCPR) while UNRWA would merge into UNHCR. In the environment area, there would be a new UN environment organisation, integrating UNDP, UN-HABITAT, UNEP and the MEAs.

In Option III (rationalisation), there would be 7 development organisations (UNDP, UNICEF, UNFPA, UNIDO, UNCTAD, UNDCP, UNAIDS) while UNHABITAT would merge into UNEP, and UNDP would absorb UNIFEM, UNCDF and UNV. The scenario for humanitarian organisations would be the same as in Option II. In the environment area, there would be two organisations - UNEP and UNDP – with the MEAs integrating with UNEP and UN-HABITAT merging into UNEP.

Source: Third World Network/ South-North Development Monitor, 2006: Martin Khor;
Developed countries press for big changes in UN structure;
http://www.twnside.org.sg/un_reform.htm

Go up in this page

United Kingdom

ieg-dossier coverage

Volume 1 Edition 2 ¦May 2006

US, 26 May 2006: Blair: Calls for UN Reform, including UNEO : In an address to Georgetown University UK Prime Minister Tony Blair outlined several proposals for reforming the United Nations, including the: Security Council; role of the UN Secretary-General; humanitarian and development operations; IMF and World Bank; safe enrichment of nuclear power; the G+5; and a UN Environment Organisation. The address was the third of series of speeches by the Prime Minister on the challenges facing the international community

New York, 8 May 2006: UK: Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry speaks on UN Reform: Speaking at the UCLA Center for Globalisation on UN Reform and Africa's Opportunity, the UK Ambassador to the UN, Sir Emyr Jones Parry, welcomed the Secretary-General's High-Level Panel on System-wide Coherence as a major opportunity to take stock of the UN's development architecture and identify methods of improving coordination

Volume 1 Edition 1 ¦May 2006

UK non-paper on ‘system-wide coherence, a vision for the UN': According to Martin Khor of the Third World Network, the UK has floated a consultant ' s discussion paper on "system-wide coherence, a vision for the UN", stressing it is "not UK government policy”

United Kingdom's visions for the 21st century development architecture: Further UK thinking on international development reform is to be found in the recent Department for International Development's consultations on a White Paper on International Development, which has as one of its three central themes as “reforming the international development system: how can the international development system be reformed so that it delivers better results for development, and be more responsive to the needs of poor people

Blair: Calls for UN Reform, including UNEO

Volume 1 Edition 2 | May 2006

US: 26 May 2006: In an address to Georgetown University, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, outlined several proposals for reforming the United Nations, including the: Security Council; role of the UN Secretary-General; humanitarian and development operations; IMF and World Bank; safe enrichment of nuclear power; the G+5; and a UN Environment Organisation. The speech was the third of series of speeches by the Prime Minister on the challenges facing the international community.

On the reform of the Security Council, Blair said “a Council which has France as a permanent member but not Germany , Britain but not Japan , China but not India to say nothing of the absence of proper representation from Latin America or Africa , cannot be legitimate in the modern world.” Blair further said it was “necessary let us agree some form of interim change that can be a bridge to a future settlement.”  Regarding the UN Secretary-General , Blair proposed giving the Secretary-General new powers: over the appointments in the Secretariat - it is absurd they have to be voted on, one by one, in the General Assembly; and over how the resources of the UN are spent.” Blair also called for ‘radically streamlining' the humanitarian and development operations “so that the UN can act effectively as one agency in country: single UN offices, with one leader, one country plan and one budget.” Blair suggested there was a case for “establishing one humanitarian agency that allows for better prediction of an impending crisis; for swifter action to remedy it; and sees the different aspects, from short-term relief to longer term development as linked not distinct.”

Regarding the World Bank and IMF , Blair said “there is a case, as has been argued before, for merger,” but that “in any event there is certainly a powerful case for reform.” He said that in order for the IMF to fulfil its role in ensuring the stability of the international monetary and financial system, it must focus on surveillance, both of individual countries and the wider system, which is independent of political influence.  It also must become more representative of emerging economic powers and give greater voice to developing countries.” He also said “the World Bank must remain focused on fighting world poverty,” and called for management reform, “including to appointments and administration, to make the Executive Board more effective.” Suggesting there was a “strong argument for establishing a multilateral system for ‘ safe enrichment ' for nuclear energy, Blair said the “IAEA could oversee an international bank of uranium to ensure a reliable fuel supply for countries utilising nuclear power without the need for everyone to own their own fuel cycle.” Finally, Blair proposed that the regular G8+5 meetings continue as “the norm,” and emphasized “the need for a UN Environment Organisation , commensurate with the importance the issue now has on the international agenda.”

Source: UK , 2006; Internet: http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page9549.asp

UK: Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry speaks on UN Reform

Volume 1 Edition 2 | May 2006 |

New York , 8 May 2006: Speaking at the UCLA Center for Globalisation on UN Reform and Africa's Opportunity, the UK Ambassador to the UN, Sir Emyr Jones Parry welcomed the Secretary-General's High-level Panel on System-wide Coherence as a major opportunity to take stock of the UN's development architecture and identify methods of improving coordination. He said the Panel's recommendations “should deliver for the UN better policy, better funding and better programmes, and give Africa a better chance of achieving the Millennium Development Goals.” Ambassador Parry said that “the current UN policy and strategy units are scattered across its funds, programmes and the Secretariat” and suggested that “a coordinated planning system which can provide an adequate response, to Africa 's needs was needed.” He said the “ongoing reforms to establish resident coordinators and coordinated country programs have enhanced coherence, but for Africa 's benefit, much more needs to be done to align UN programmes behind country strategies and strip out bureaucratic waste. A network of unified offices will be intrinsic to this aim,” he said. Noting the fragmented nature of the UN's funding mechanisms, with the 30 plus UN funds and programmes competing for resources, he said the “fragmented approach could be addressed by consolidating the existing funding mechanisms.” The Ambassador also highlighted the need for reforms at the programme level, and called for greater policy coherence at the regional. He said such reforms “need to find efficient ways of drawing down the advice provided by specialised agencies to the country level.”

Source: UK Mission to the UN, 2006: Internet:
http://www.britainusa.com/sections/articles_show_nt1.asp?d=0&i=41020&L1=&L2=&a=41796

UK non-paper on 'system-wide coherence, a vision for the UN'

Volume 1 Edition 1 | May 2006

According to Martin Khor of the Third World Network, the UK has floated a consultant ' s discussion paper on "system-wide coherence, a vision for the UN", which stresses it is "not UK government policy." The UK "non-paper" provides examples of what it calls the "fragmentation and incoherence" of the UN system at country level, which it says is due to systemic, structural, financing and political/historical causes. The paper notes that there has been an "unspoken assumption" that the reform will create three separate operational entities for the three areas, but "the Summit outcome by no means binds us to that conclusion." It then proposes establishing a new UN environment organisation, with the Global Environment Facility being retained as a stand-alone funding instrument. It notes that reforms are under way in the humanitarian area and proposes further reforms such as better flash appeals, a mechanism to enable the military to play a role in natural disasters and greater accountability. For the long term, the paper argues that the UN should continue with its policy focus on the Millennium Development Goals by consolidating the teams dealing with policy issues in the funds, programmes and UN secretariat. This policy capacity should also deal with development in fragile and post-conflict countries. According to Khor, the UK non-paper suggests reforms in 4 phases:

Under Phase 1 (2006-8), 40 new-look UN country teams would be set up following the "three ones" principles of one office, one plan, one budget, and a Central Millennium Development Fund would be established. There would be early mergers of some agencies, with UNIFEM, UNCDF, UNV and UNDP to be a single organisation.

In Phase 2 (2008-10), a central programming and office as conduit for programme funding to the UN country offices will be created. This will incorporate the programming and financial management functions of existing agencies, especially UNICEF and the enlarged UNDP. Existing funds and programmes will develop plans for merger of their policy functions. Plans will be developed to consolidate the policy functions of specialised agencies that are relevant to the work of the development entity.

In Phase 3 (2010-12), consolidation at country and HQ levels will approach completion. In Phase 4 (2012-15), full merger at HQ and country levels will be achieved; high profile brands will be retained but UN Development brand is now well known; and the Millennium Development Fund is now the principal source of finance for programme and policy work.

Source: Third World Network/ South-North Development Monitor, 2006:
Martin Khor; Developed countries press for big changes in UN structure; http://www.twnside.org.sg/un_reform.htm

United Kingdom's visions for the 21st century development architecture

Volume 1 Edition 1 | May 2006 |

Further UK thinking on international development reform is to be found in the recent Department for International Development's consultations on a White Paper on International Development, which has as one of its three central themes as “reforming the international development system: how can the international development system be reformed so that it delivers better results for development, and be more responsive to the needs of poor people.” DIFID recently concluded an 11 week consultation, which was based on a consultation document and a series of six speeches given by Hilary Benn, the Secretary of State for International Development. The speeches and consultation document laid out a series of issues and questions relating to the themes that the White Paper will cover, including: Growth and poverty reduction; Humanitarian reform and conflict issues; Governance and development; Public services; Development beyond aid; and Reform of the international development system.

In a 14 March speech, the Secretary of State for International Development, Hilary Benn, outlined some possible elements of an international development system fit for the 21st century. Benn proposed that such as “system would need to respond effectively to conflict and disasters, improve global governance, and become better at supporting development.” In order to meet the new challenges, he said the “international system needs to better recognise and deal with the fact that there are many policies and actions which affect development, not just about aid - but also climate change, global corruption, managing shocks, peace and security and human rights - and we need a more effective system to deal with every single one of them.” A key element of Benn's speech was need the for better international governance, particularly with regard to governance “where all countries have a say in how international affairs are run, setting standards and aspirations, and protecting human rights.” Benn also posed the question: “is it really acceptable that the presidencies of the World Bank and the IMF should be restricted to European and US nationals respectively because of a cosy deal made 60 years ago?” He said UN reform “needs to be built on a frank and honest assessment of what the UN and the International Financial Institutions should and shouldn ' t do.” Regarding reform of the UN at the country level, Benn proposed that the “best way to improve the UN ' s role would be to adopt the principles of four ones - One UN Office, One UN Representative, One Programme and Budget, and One Funding Mechanism.” He said this would provide “a clear, common UN plan for what you plan to do in the country to help development and if we think its right we will then fund it.” He also stressed that “the UN has become excessively bureaucratic and slow, and in terms of staffing is far from being a meritocracy; too many agencies, with overlapping mandates spend too much time chasing funds and brand recognition.” On the issue of financing the UN, Benn said there was a “need to provide longer term, more predictable finance.” He stressed that “too much funding for the UN is heavily earmarked,” noting that in some agencies as much as 80 % of the overall budget takes the form of earmarked finance which may or may not be consistent with an agency ' s medium term strategic plan.

Source: DFID, 2006
Hilary Benn, An international development system fit for the 21st century, 14 March, 2006;
http://www.dfid.gov.uk/news/files/Speeches/wp2006-speeches/architecture140306.asp
DFID White Paper on International Development; http://www.dfid.gov.uk/wp2006/default.asp

Go up in this page

Germany

ieg-dossier coverage

Volume 1 Edition 2 ¦May 2006

Germany , 26 April 2006: Germany: Discussion Paper on UN Reform: In April 2006, Germany 's Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development released a discussions paper ‘The reform of United Nations' operational activities: challenges and goals'. The paper outlines initial views on the need for reform of the UN operational activities, and outlines Germany 's objectives regarding: programme countries; monitoring by the member states (intergovernmental level); merging of units, and financing issues.

Volume 1 Edition 1 ¦May 2006

Germany , March 2006: Germany: Support for UN Environment Organisation: Following the appointment by the General Assembly of Achim Steiner as the new Executive Director of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) in March 2006, German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel and Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier issued a joint statement reiterating Germany 's support for a UN Environment Organisation (UNEO).

Germany: Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development Discussion Paper on UN Reform

Volume 1 Edition 2 | May 2006

Germany , 26 April 2006: In April 2006, Germany 's Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development released a discussions paper ‘The reform of United Nations' operational activities: challenges and goals'. The paper argues that the “launch of the High-Level Panel” has opened a unique avenue of opportunities to make the United Nations fit and competitive in its indispensable role in the international aid architecture. In order to make this effort a true success story, it is of utmost importance that Member States establish a joint perception on the concrete shortcomings of the present system, they actually want to address. The depth and concreteness of this diagnosis will decide over impact, effectiveness and sustainability of the current reform process of the UN aid architecture. The paper argues that “the role of the UN in international development cooperation is weakened through the lack of a coherent and effective operative arm of the international community in the field of human development. The fragmentation of the UN development cooperation results in overlapping mandates, sometimes even duplication of work and, hence, a loss of efficiency.” The paper outlines initial views on the need for reform of the UN operational activities, and outlines Germany 's objectives regarding: programme countries; monitoring by the member states (intergovernmental level); merging of units, and financing issues. The paper concludes by proposing a series of supportive measures. Regarding objectives, the Paper identified the need for more efficiency and a better performance in favour of the recipient countries. Our vision is to have one integrated system of operational activities of the UN, which is able to contribute consistently and effectively to implementing the development objectives established by the international community.

In the Programme Countries
First of all, the system of the "UN Resident Coordinator" (RC) must be strengthened. His current coordinating role without genuine authority must be expanded into becoming a real monitoring task, i.e. he must be given authority to give instructions to the UN Country Team. All the operational activities of the UN should be commonly represented by the Resident Coordinator. In countries implementing major programmes in particular, the interlocking function of being both RC and UNDP Resident Representative must be dissolved so as to give the RC sufficient time and capacities for coordination and action on an impartial basis. In the medium term, it will be important to expand the UN Resident Coordinator's monitoring ability to include also the technical cooperation activities of the Specialised Agencies. Additionally, common premises or UN houses and, wherever possible, joint offices should be established. Common country programmes for Funds and Programmes, based on comprehensive national development strategies, must be put on a binding basis; incentives must be created for Specialised Agencies to participate in these programmes. The common coordinated approach in the wake of disasters and conflicts, which has already got off the ground, must be intensified further, and a functioning transition of aid contributions must be ensured, from humanitarian to development organisations. Pursuing the ideas of the Paris Declaration, the UN development system must improve its cooperation with other donors – based on a joint and coherent positioning – (e.g. through accompanying technical cooperation in the case of SWAPs, or budget aid).

Monitoring by the Member States (Intergovernmental Level)
A first important step is to ensure that a common and binding decision-making process of the governing bodies of Funds and Programmes is introduced (e.g. for common country programmes). In the long term, this should gradually be expanded – corresponding to the progress being made in acting jointly at the country level – into joint executive boards having the final say in decision-making. Moreover, there is need to streamline the work of ECOSOC and improve its coordinating function with regard to Funds and Programmes, and to achieve a more focused work of the General Assembly.

Merging of Units
This centrepiece of the reform process implies, initially, a gradual merging into major, more efficient operative units. This merging should not be based on sector or target group aspects, but rather on the holistic understanding of development. An interim target could be to form a cluster for sustainable development having a homogeneous organisational structure, and comprising also the environment sector. Discussion could initially be concentrated on operative tasks, currently spread over UNDP, UNICEF, UNFPA, UN-Habitat, UNEP, UNIDO, and parts of the Secretariat. Gender mainstreaming and the empowerment of women in development processes must be effectively and discernibly embedded in this new organisational set-up. Regarding the UNEO proposal the paper suggests that discussions take account of the fact that as a Specialised Agency it should focus on establishing standards, with operative issues remaining with the cluster for sustainable development It suggests that as long as such an institutional merging has not been achieved, better focus could be achieved by concentrating support on UNDP, which has been founded as the central financing and coordinating body of the UN development cooperation.

Financing Issues
The paper proposes that the aim of the reform process must “aim to assure reliable and adequate financing for the UN's operational activities. Any increase in contributions should also be directed at ensuring a more even burden-sharing, with middle-income countries and also some high-income countries, being called upon to play a more active role. Another important prerequisite for achieving our reform aims is a switch to multi-year funding.” The paper further proposes a move “away from non-core to more core financing, so as to ensure a balanced ratio here. If donors wish to make use of the specific advantages of single UN organisations in order to put down thematic or regional markers, this must be fitted into the common country programmes under the administration of the UN Resident Coordinator.”

Supportive Steps
The paper further argues that “our dialogue with the G-77 countries will have a special focus on demonstrating the common interest in strengthening the UN's operational activities, also with regard to institutional competition for more ODA funds. As the developing countries' influence is greatest with regard to the UN system, any improvement in the performance and, thus, competitiveness of the UN operational activities will at the same time strengthen the voice of the recipient countries.”

Source: Germany 's Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development
http://www.bms.de/de/presse/aktuelleMeldungen/20060425_VN/Discussion_Paper_engl_final.pdf

Support for UN Environment Organisation

Volume 1 Edition 1 | May 2006 |

Following the appointment by the General Assembly of Achim Steiner as the new Executive Director of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) in March 2006, German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel and Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier issued a joint statement reiterating Germany 's support for a UN Environment Organisation (UNEO). In the statement, the Ministers said “the projected reform of the UN also means changes in the Organisation ' s environmental activities and UNEP.” They stated that “the Federal Government and its European partners strongly support efforts to address international environmental policy, such as climate protection, resource and energy efficiency, preservation of biological diversity, chemical safety.” They said that “in the Federal Government ' s view - a view shared by its European partners - UNEP should be transformed, however, from a UN programme into a fully-fledged UN environment organisation that is capable of addressing these challenges over a broad front and with all due vigour.” Germany is current the second largest donor of UNEP. During a working dinner at the UNEP Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum in February 2006, Minister Gabriel stated that the key issue of UN environmental reform is the need to address the current institutional imbalance in the UN system. He said “nobody would think of assigning international health policy to a World Health Programme or international economic relations to a World Trade Programme.” He noted that “international environmental protection remains entrusted to a small, underfinanced programme and a range of environmental agreements” and pointed out that the “World Summit was right to criticise this structure: it is incoherent and therefore far from ideal; it is not efficient enough.” He stressed that “cosmetic reform is not enough if we want to make progress in reconciling growth, employment and environmental policy. The UN environment authority must stand on equal footing with other specialised agencies in the UN system.”

In May 2005, Spain 's Minister for the Environment, Cristina Narbona Ruiz, France 's Minister for the Environment, Serge Lepeltier, and Germany 's Minister for the Environment, Jürgen Trittin co-authored a public appeal for a UN Environment Organisation. The three Ministers argued that “33 years after the establishment of UNEP, it is evident that the institutional structures of the UN in the field of environmental policy do not live up to the growing challenges.” The Ministers suggested that “the architecture of international environmental governance has to be adapted to the challenges of the 21st century.” They said “it is not acceptable that the institution which stands up for the survival of our planet is still given little say within the UN.” They also proposed that a UNEO would have a broader and stable financial basis and would be in a better position than UNEP to:

• Develop suitable rules and frameworks to create a balance between economic globalisation and global environmental protection;
• Issue policy recommendations to the various sovereign decision-making structures of the multilateral environmental agreements, to the UN system as a whole as well as to international financial institutions;
• Make sure, as the environmental pillar for sustainable development within the UN system, that the commitments made at the Rio and Johannesburg Summits are taken seriously by the international community and properly monitored, since their implementation has to be advanced;
• Support the developing countries in cooperation with the most important development organisations, in particular through capacity building measures to promote the implementation of international, regional and national environmental policies;
• Tackle pressing environmental problems such as the loss of biodiversity, climate change, water and air pollution, environmental disasters, non-sustainable patterns of consumption and production as well as the prevention of transboundary conflicts and post-conflict management in cooperation with other international organisations, for example the World Bank, the United Nations Development Programme , the Global Environment Facility and the competent bodies of the multilateral environmental agreements; and
• Raise awareness worldwide for the precarious situation of the environment.

Source: German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, 2006
Joint Statement by German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel and Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, 16 March 2006; http://www.dfid.gov.uk/wp2006/default.asp
Minister Sigmar Gabriel address to the informal dinner at the UNEP Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum, 8 February 2006;
http://www.bmu.de/english/renewable_energy/press_statements_speeches/doc/36612.php
Joint Appeal Spain 's Minister for the Environment, Cristina Narbona Ruiz, France 's Minister for the Environment, Serge Lepeltier, and Germany 's Minister for the Environment, Jürgen Trittin, 26 May 2005; http://www.bmu.de/english/international_environmental_policy/current/pm/35574.php

Go up in this page

United States of America

ieg-dossier coverage

Volume 1 Edition 2 ¦May 2006

New York, 17 May 2006: US: Statement on Management Reform on Gender Equality and Empowerment of Women : In a statement on Gender Equality and Empowerment of Women in the Informal Plenary on Mandate Review US Representative for UN Management and Reform, Ambassador Mark Wallace, outlined the US views regarding reporting, concrete ways to advance gender equality, the International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of women, UN Research and Training institutions.

New York, 8 May 2006: US: Statement on the Mandate Review on Sustained Growth and Sustainable Development : In a statement by US Representative for United Nations, Ambassador Mark D. Wallace, to the informal plenary on the Mandate Review: Sustained Growth and Sustainable Development and Development of Africa, Wallace outlined the US views on early action, UNCTAD, DESA and the Regional Commissions.

New York, 25 April 2006: US: Statement to the Informals on Environment In statement by Samuel Kotis, Adviser, during the informal plenary session of the General Assembly on the environment, the US outlined their views on the proposals for a UNEO, strengthening the science base, mainstreaming capacity building, and improving policy advice and guidance.

Volume 1 Edition 1 ¦May 2006

New York, 6 April 2006: United States of America: Statement on the High-Level Panel: In a statement prior to the informal meeting between the Secretary-General's High-level Panel on System-wide Coherence, the US Under-Secretary for Economic, Business, and Agricultural Affairs, Josette S. Shiner stated that "this new UN reform effort represents a historic opportunity for the international community to make changes that will greatly enhance the ability of the UN system to quickly respond to humanitarian relief needs and improve the effectiveness of every dollar spent on development assistance.”

US: Views on UNEP and proposals for a UN Environment Organisation: The US has, as yet, no specific proposals on international environmental governance. In an April 2005 statement in the General Assembly informals, Howard Stoffer, Minister Counsellor at the US Mission in New York stated that “the principal responsibility for environmental governance should remain with national governments, not with a supranational authority.”

US : Views on financing treaty bodies from the UN Core budget: Another key issue to possibly surface during the UN reform discussions is the financing of treaty bodies and the secretariats of multilateral environmental agreements from the UN Regular Budget.

US: Statement on Management Reform on Gender Equality and Empowerment of Women

Volume 1 Edition 2 | May 2006

New York, 17 May 2006: In a statement to the Informal Plenary on Mandate Review on Gender Equality and Empowerment of Women US Representative for UN Management and Reform, Ambassador Mark Wallace, outlined the US views regarding reporting requirements, concrete ways to advance gender equality, the International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of women, UN Research and Training institutions. On the number of reports , the US proposed that “the numerous reports on women-related issues be consolidated and/or prepared less frequently, for example every two or three years instead of annually.” He said the “US agrees that the reports concerning women in development and rural women can readily be combined, and that the Secretary-General's upcoming in-depth study on violence against women may eliminate the need for separate reports on trafficking, harm suffered by migrant women, and honour crimes.” Addressing the issue of concrete ways to advance gender equality , Ambassador Wallace said the “US recognises that UN mandates or documents often do not contain the level of specificity needed to bring about changes on the ground.  As a result, Member States can say in good faith that they have ‘implemented' these mandates or documents in that they have committed to supporting broad statements of principles. But such action does not lead to concrete improvements in the lives of women,” he said. In response to the Secretary-General's proposal for a comprehensive review of institutional resources, he said that such “a review would be worth the time and effort if it enhanced the efficiency and effectiveness of these institutions, by for example resulting in cost savings and termination of duplicative or irrelevant bodies.” Regarding the International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (INSTRAW), the US said it has no “comparative advantage” in the UN system, and that it “should be fully voluntarily funded.” He said it was “regrettable that the regular budget money INSTRAW has received has gone largely to covering administrative and personnel costs, rather than to projects that have directly improved the lives of women.” He also said that that UNIFEM should “continue to focus on this mission in order to maintain its identity and comparative advantage.”

On the general theme of UN Research and Training Institutions , Ambassador Wallace stressed that “like INSTRAW, UNITAR and UNIDIR also have mandates to be funded through voluntary contributions.  Despite these mandates, they have received subventions from the UN regular budget for a number of years.  The United States opposes subventions for these organisations and proposes that they be entirely funded through voluntary contributions. If the work of an organisation is worthwhile, then we believe that donors will support its programmes by providing contributions.  If sufficient funds are not contributed, it is time to review whether the institute is meeting donor needs and whether it has a comparative advantage over other entities, either in or out of the UN system.  A system of voluntary contributions demonstrates that donors have enough confidence in an organisation's work to be willing to back it financially.”

Source: US Mission to the UN, 2006; Internet: http://www.usunnewyork.usmission.gov/06_122.htm

US: Statement on the Mandate Review on Sustained Growth and Sustainable Development

Volume 1 Edition 2 | May 2006

New York, 8 May 2006: In a statement to the informal plenary on the Mandate Review: Sustained Growth and Sustainable Development and Development of Africa, US Representative for UN, Ambassador Mark D. Wallace, outlined the US views on early action, UN Conference on Trade and Development, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, and the Regional Commissions. The US statement called for special attention to UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) and the Regional Commissions, as “these bodies were in serious need of reform.” Ambassador Wallace also focused on the Committee of Experts on Public Administration and the Regular Programme of Technical Cooperation, both of which he said “should be discontinued.” The US also outlined several items on which they believe early action should be taken, such as an improved architecture for the overall reporting on the follow-up to the Millennium Declaration, the use of information and communication technology, and UN observances and international days. On Africa, the US called for the Secretary-General to “provide a paper to assist Member States in identifying possible shortcomings in the coherence and coordination of UN entities supporting African development, and to suggest the measures to address them.” He also called on the Secretary-General to submit “proposals for the consideration of Member States for a review and streamlining of the subcategory of analytical reporting mandates stemming from various resolutions.”

Regarding UNCTAD's mandates , Ambassador Wallace stated that “UNCTAD should place a higher priority on Technical Assistance and Trade Capacity Building ,” and “should use its strength in trade capacity building to coordinate a practical, results-based approach that provides real deliverables for developing countries.” He said that UNCTAD should “eliminate or reduce policy dialogue activities,” and “instead of conducting policy-oriented studies on the Doha round, we believe that focusing on technical assistance to individual countries would help them participate more fully in the global trading system.” He also said that “UNCTAD's policy dialogue should not seek to influence WTO negotiations, but rather UNCTAD should focus on areas not covered by WTO, such as investment and supply-side constraints.” On DESA's mandates , Ambassador Wallace said that “because of the overlap among the wide range of intergovernmental bodies promulgating resolutions with mandates for DESA, the Department is tasked to provide more reports than can reasonably be expected to contribute to effective economic and social development strategies.” He said the US “believe that DESA needs to develop an effective cost-accounting system and a clear work plan to justify its use of resources.” Regarding the Regional Commissions, Ambassador Wallace called for “a significant reduction in total resources and/or greater use of voluntary funding.” He said the US believes “it is time for the role and specific functions of the regional commissions to be carefully examined and we urge that that they have external evaluations conducted, modelled after the one conducted for Economic Commission for Europe, to determine which activities of the commissions are of real value to Member States.” He also proposed that “consideration be given to discontinuing the mandate for the commissions to prepare for and follow up on UN conferences and summits.  This function duplicates work more appropriately carried out by the Economic and Social Council functional commissions and by the Council itself.”

Source: US Mission to the UN, 2006; Internet: http://www.usunnewyork.usmission.gov/06_107.htm

US: Statement to the Informals on Environment

Volume 1 Edition 2 | May 2006

New York , 25 April 2005: In statement by Samuel Kotis, Adviser, during the informal plenary session of the General Assembly on the environment the US outlined their views on the proposals for a UN Environment Organisation, strengthening the science base, mainstreaming capacity building, and improving policy advice and guidance.

Kotis stated that the US “supports substantive coordination and increased efficiencies in the environmental field.” However, he said “we should not draw hasty conclusions from the mere existence of many multilateral environmental agreements that greater coordination and efficiency demands a new, unified, overly bureaucratic international structure.” Regarding the need for better integration of environmental activities in the broader sustainable development framework at the operational level , including through capacity building, the US stated that “UN Environment Programme (UNEP), Member States and other relevant institutions should fully implement the Bali Strategic Plan and that, when implemented, it will constitute an important step forward in addressing this identified need.” Among other potential avenues that UNEP could explore, Kotis identified:

• coordination with the UN Development Programme (UNDP) and other UN bodies -- and in this context UNEP and UNDP should focus on implementing the recently signed UNEP-UNDP Memorandum of Understanding;
• improving UNEP's role in disseminating its activities across the UN system and mainstreaming them in country-specific initiatives at the field level;
• creating and maintaining a database on major activities for capacity building and technology support across the UN system; and
• promoting partnerships. 

On the need for strengthened scientific knowledge, assessment and cooperation , the US statement encouraged UNEP “to bolster its ties to academic institutions, national and regional governmental programmes, the private sector and NGOs.” He said “capacity building aimed at strengthening the scientific capabilities of governments to collect, monitor and assess environmental data is crucial to improving the scientific base of UNEP.” According to Kotis, the US believes that the proposal of the outgoing UNEP Executive Director for an Environmental Watch framework should be “focused in a manner that fills gaps and builds on UNEP's comparative advantage -- and does not duplicate the efforts of others.” Regarding the need for enhanced coordination , Kotis said “the single greatest contribution can be achieved at the domestic level, where primary responsibility lies for ensuring coherence within and among environmental issues.”  In addition, he said the US believes that “the Environmental Management Group should continue to meet, within its mandate, and should be located in either Geneva or New York to facilitate and enhance coordination with other UN Agencies.” On the need for improved policy advice and guidance , the US stated that that UNEP could make “one simple adjustment that would make a big difference.” According to Kotis, the US believes that “in order to enhance decision-making at Governing Council sessions, thus enabling governments to better prepare for Governing Council sessions and make Governing Council sessions more efficient, Member States should submit all substantive proposals for decision well in advance of Governing Council meetings.”

On the issue of a more coherent institutional framework , the US stated that “establishing a new institution, as some have suggested, could deter some governments from focusing on their own responsibility for environmental stewardship.” Kotis stressed that the “US does not support the transformation of UNEP into a UN Environment Organisation (UNEO).” He said the “current decentralised system is flexible, specialised, and not overly bureaucratic. It is capable of substantive coordination and we should focus on improving this as appropriate.” He further said that given the “lack of international consensus on the need for a UNEO, negotiations to establish such an institution would be costly and time consuming, and divert attention and resources from the very coordination and implementation activities its proponents favour. Organisationally, an integrated structure with purported directive responsibility over the MEAs would result in an added layer of bureaucracy and could possibly encroach on the work of the conferences of the parties to the agreements.  Not only would this lead to inefficiency, but also to confused lines of authority.  It is critical to remember that it is the parties to MEAs that have the responsibility for their implementation, and that the set of parties differs from one MEA to another.”

Source: US Mission to the UN, 2006; Internet: http://www.un.int/usa/06_091.htm

Statement on the High-level Panel

Volume 1 Edition 1 | May 2006

In a statement prior to the informal meeting between the Secretary-General's High-level Panel on System-wide Coherence, the US Under-Secretary for Economic, Business, and Agricultural Affairs, Josette S. Shiner stated that "this new UN reform effort represents an historic opportunity for the international community to make changes that will greatly enhance the ability of the UN system to quickly respond to humanitarian relief needs and improve the effectiveness of every dollar spent on development assistance." She said the reform efforts “can make a real difference in the lives of millions of the world's most vulnerable citizens, helping them attain their goal of being able to raise their family out of poverty." She stated that to accomplish this “will require thinking outside conventional models and beyond half-measures to create reforms."

Source: US State Department, 2006; Internet: http://www.state.gov/e/travel/64159.htm

Views on UNEP and proposals for a UN Environment Organisation

Volume 1 Edition 1 | May 2006

The US has, as yet, no specific proposals on international environmental governance proposals. In an April 2005 statement in the General Assembly informals, Howard Stoffer, Minister Counsellor at the US Mission in New York stated that “the principal responsibility for environmental governance should remain with national governments, not with a supranational authority.” He said the US believes “that the current system of international environmental governance achieves the right balance between coordination and decentralisation” and that “there is already substantial spontaneous cooperation and coordination between multilateral environmental agreements (MEA ' s) and among specialised agencies.” He also said that “it is neither necessary nor desirable to have a centralised authority oversee the development and implementation of such agreement,” but “should concentrate on further refining coordination among the MEAs and specialised agencies.” During the General Assembly's Second Committee deliberations on the Report of the UNEP Governing Council/Global Environment Ministerial Forum in December 2005, the US re-stated much of its April position, and added that it “prefers to focus on improving UNEP, not changing its status.”

Source: US Mission to the United Nations, 2006
Howard Stoffer, Minister Counsellor, statement in the General Assembly informals; http://www.un.int/usa/05_087.htm
US Statement to the General Assembly's Second Committee deliberations on the Report of the UNEP Governing Council/Global Environment Ministerial Forum December 2005; http://www.un.int/usa/05_244.htm

US Views on financing treaty bodies from the UN Core budget

Volume 1 Edition 1 | May 2006

Another key issue to possibly surface during the UN reform discussions is the financing of treaty bodies and the secretariats of multilateral environmental agreements from the UN Regular Budget. During the General Assembly's Second Committee deliberations in December 2005 the US opposed, and voted against resolutions allowing for certain treaty body functions to be financed from the Regular Budget. In negotiations on the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Samuel Kotis, Adviser to the US Mission in New York said “the United States has called for a vote and will vote ‘no' on operative paragraph 7 because we are disappointed by the continued diversion of resources from the UN regular budget to subsidise independent and self-sustaining treaty bodies such as the UNFCCC.  He said that “as a matter of principle, treaty bodies can and should collect the necessary funds from their membership to finance their activities.  We are not opposed to the UNFCCC, and will continue to do so through our voluntary contributions to the convention.”

Source: US Mission to the United Nations, 2005
Samuel Kotis, Adviser, Statement to the General Assembly's Second Committee deliberations on climate change, December 2005; http://www.un.int/usa/05_260.htm

Go up in this page

Belgium

ieg-dossier coverage

Volume 1 Edition 2 ¦May 2006

New York, 6 April 2006: Belgium: Statement to the Panel: In a statement to the informal meeting of the plenary with member states, observers and members of the High-Level Panel on System-wide Coherence, Belgium outlined its views in relation to harmonisation and cooperation at the operational level, the concept of tightly managed entities, the creation of individual structures, humanitarian and development architecture, and procedural issues.

Volume 1 Edition 1 ¦May 2006

Belgium : Proposal for redesigning the UN Development Architecture: According to Martin Khor of the Third World Network, last October, Belgium prepared a paper on entitled "redesign of the UN development architecture.'

Belgium : Political Note on Multilateral Cooperation: A 2004 Political Note on a Policy for the development cooperation department further outlines some of Belgium 's proposals for reform.

Belgium: Statement to the Panel

Volume 1 Edition 2 | May 2006

New York , 6 April 2006: In a statement to the informal meeting of the plenary with Member States and members of the High-Level Panel on System-wide Coherence, Belgium outlined its views in relation to harmonisation and cooperation at the operational level, the concept of tightly managed entities, the creation of individual structures, humanitarian and development architecture, and procedural issues. While recognising existing efforts for better harmonisation and increased cooperation among Funds and Programmes, Belgium stated that these “efforts should be continued while more systemic reforms are being prepared. We are also convinced that much remains to be done in order to reach a level where the whole UN-system is operating at the field level with one office, one representative, one programme and one budget.” Belgium also stressed the necessity to integrate the field level operational activities of the Specialised Agencies into one consolidated country programme that would guide the operational activities of the whole UN-system. Regarding reform-proposals that suggest a different structure is needed to cover humanitarian as opposed to development interventions , Belgium cautioned against “building walls between humanitarian and development activities. Lessons from the past very clearly point to the need for better links between the two. Especially in countries that recover from conflict, there is a huge need for support in the area between emergency assistance and traditional development finance.” Belgium said the perspective of “pillars” or “ tightly managed entities ” is not a “fruitful” exercise. “We do not think that this is the right concept, or that we need three of them in order to improve the coherence of the system. What we need are clusters or networks where there is a smooth and continuous interaction between humanitarian and development interventions as between development and environment interventions.” Belgium also stated it was “not in favour of creating separate individual structures,” stressed the “urgent need for more coherence and integration between Funds, Programmes and Agencies,” and said that “entities can and should be further integrated without losing their specificity and constituencies. On procedural issues , Belgium proposed “a broad debate, especially with the partner countries that are most dependent on the aid provided through the UN-System.”

Source: Belgium 's Mission to the UN, 2006:
http://www.diplomatie.be/newyorkun/default.asp?id=103&mnu=103&ACT=5&content=15

Belgium's proposal for redesigning the UN Development Architecture

Volume 1 Edition 1 | May 2006

According to Martin Khor of the Third World Network, last October, Belgium prepared a paper on entitled "redesign of the UN development architecture." The Belgian paper questions the need for independent institutions, mentioning IFAD, UNIDO, UNFPA, WFP, with their own mandates and governing bodies. According to Khor the paper suggests “that by 2015 there be one Millennium Fund replacing all existing general and sector funds, providing for education, health, water, AIDS, refugees and environment.” The paper proposes an “ideal model of a single UN Development Agency that would take over the mandate and activities of the present UN Funds and Programmes. The field staff of specialised agencies would also be integrated in the field offices of the UN Development Agency.” The paper suggests that by “2015, IFAD, UNCTAD and UNIDO would be merged with other relevant bodies (such as FAO, UN secretariat or the new UN Environment Organisation) and cease to exist as independent entities. While the activities of the Regional Commissions would also over time be re-assigned to the relevant parts of the new UN development architecture.”

Source: Third World Network/ South-North Development Monitor, 2006: Martin Khor; Developed countries press for big changes in UN structure; http://www.twnside.org.sg/un_reform.htm

Political Note on Multilateral Cooperation

Volume 1 Edition 1 | May 2006

A 2004 Political Note on Policy for the development cooperation department further outlines some of Belgium 's proposals for reform. The note underscores that the current fragmentation of international organisations has led to unnecessary competition, higher administrative costs, and higher transaction costs for the developing countries. In particular, it says “that the fragmentation into numerous small funds and programmes is especially prevalent within the UN-system and in the environmental treaty sector.” The note underscored the need to “explore various approaches, such as consolidating smaller funds within a larger organisation, integrating smaller organisation ' s country offices into the UN Development Programme (UNDP), using the agreement between UN Industrial Development Organisation and UNDP as an example, and stimulating joint programmes between several organisations instead of separate projects working alongside one another.” It also identifies the “need to encourage further reforms of the UN organisations, notably with regards to improved cost control, more result-oriented programming, more rational personnel policy, better evaluation and simplifying procedures.” The note also urges the “need for coherence between development cooperation and international trade policy,” noting that “there is no sense in increasing the development cooperation budgets while at the same time development opportunities are being deterred by export subsidies or other protectionist measures.”

Source: Belgium 's Ministry of Development Cooperation, 2005;
http://www.dgci.be/en/the_minister/political_note/index.html

Go up in this page

Sweden

ieg-dossier coverage

Volume 1 Edition 1 ¦May 2006

Sweden: Report of the Panel: Issues of the Secretary-General's High-level Panel on System-wide Coherence were also addressed during the High-Level Dialogue between the UN's Economic and Social Council and the Bretton Woods Institutions on 24 April. According to transcripts provided by the UN's Department of Public Information, Ruth Jacoby, Sweden 's Director-General for Development Cooperation, speaking in her capacity as a Panel member, briefed the Dialogue on a recent meeting between the General Assembly and members of the Panel.

Sweden's strategy in the United Nations Environment Programme 2004-2006: Sweden 's strategy for the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) 2004-2006 gives priority to issues of environmental monitoring, chemicals, water, sustainable consumption and production patterns, NGO participation and the implementation of environmental agreements (MEAs).

Sweden: International seminar on the future governance of UNEP: In November 2004, the Swedish government hosted an international seminar on the future governance of UNEP.

Report on the High-level Panel

Volume 1 Edition 1 | May 2006

Issues of the Secretary-General's High-level Panel on System-wide Coherence were also addressed during the 24 April High-Level Dialogue between the UN's Economic and Social Council and the Bretton Woods Institutions. According to transcripts provided by the UN's Department of Public Information, Ruth Jacoby, Sweden 's Director-General for Development Cooperation, speaking in her capacity as a Panel member, briefed the Dialogue on recent meeting between the General Assembly and members of the Panel. In her statement Jacoby said “that the Monterrey Consensus, the Millennium Declaration, the Millennium Development Goals, the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation Plan and the 2005 World Summit showed that there was now consensus on where the world needed to go.  She said that the “meeting of the High-level Panel had demonstrated that it was not just about reforming international institutions, but also about coherence by Governments in ensuring that they say the same thing, whether speaking in Washington, New York or Geneva. In addition to consensus on the goals, there was a consensus on the need to support nationally owned and tailored strategies.” She noted that “many had questions on what the scope of the panel's recommendations would be regarding the agencies represented here.” She said “the answer, for now, would have to be that the panel was looking into the relationships.  In the end, the issue was to position the UN to achieve results on the ground and help countries achieve their development vision.  It was evident that a major responsibility for system-wide coherence rested with the Member States themselves.  There was also a need to define a vision of the role of the UN system in development, and how it should be equipped to respond to that role,” she said.

Source: UN Department of Public Information, 2006;
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/ecosoc6193.doc.htm

Sweden's strategy in the United Nations Environment Programme 2004-2006

Volume 1 Edition 1 | May 2006

Sweden 's strategy for the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) 2004-2006 gives priority to issues of environmental monitoring, chemicals, water, sustainable consumption and production patterns, NGO participation and the implementation of environmental agreements (MEAs). The six theme areas have been chosen within UNEPs five priority areas of the work and are significant components of international environmental work where UNEP has an important role to play. Moreover, Sweden wants to promote a gender perspective and to take action to strengthen the possibilities for developing countries to take part in UNEPs various areas of work. According to the Strategy, Sweden 's priorities should focus on:

• Environmental monitoring: Producing environmental information, assessing environmental threats and natural resources management, spreading knowledge and establishing electronic networks for the exchange of environmental information and analysis.
• Chemicals: Drawing up a global chemicals strategy, phasing out the heavy metals mercury, cadmium and lead, coordinating the follow-up of conventions in the chemicals area and clarifying the links between the areas of environment and health.
• Sustainable consumption and production patterns: Coordinating and developing a ten-year global framework of programmes, supporting increased environmental awareness and shaping policy development at national and regional level.
• NGO participation: Promoting the participation of civil society and business in the definition of environmental problems, giving voluntary organisations a greater chance of participating in negotiations and decisions.
• Implementation of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs): Providing support to build up and integrate national and regional development strategies according to environmental conventions, especially for biological diversity. Supporting increased cooperation with the WTO to clear up possible conflicts between environmental conventions and trade rules.
• Water: Developing and implementing policy and strategy, establishing an integrated approach to freshwater and marine natural resources, including marine environmental protection, and following up the Global International Water Assessment.

Source: Sweden 's Ministry for Sustainable Development, 2006
Sweden's UNEP Strategy in 2004-2006; http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/497/a/28294
Background Information; http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/4071

International seminar on the future governance of UNEP

Volume 1 Edition 1 | May 2006

In November 2004, the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of the Environment hosted an international seminar on the future governance of UNEP. The seminar was designed to allow all participants to actively contribute in the development of scenarios and possible solutions, which were outlined in two background documents: Strengthening the governance of UNEP: A discussion of reform issues and Preparatory questions, History of UNEP and Possible reform of UNEP. The Outcome of the seminar was a Chairperson's summary which outlines various options related to strengthening UNEP, UNEP's mandate, and Universal membership. On strengthening UNEP, meeting participants agreed on the need to strengthen the role and governance of UNEP at different levels with sufficient funding, including predictability of core funding for the Environment Fund, seen as a priority requirement to enable UNEP to effectively carry out its mandate. Participants also called for strengthening UNEP's coordination activities. A discussion was also held on ways to further enhance UNEP's legitimacy as a standard setting organ. Several participants noted a discrepancy between what Ministers would like to discuss and the role they are currently playing in the UNEP institutional setting. In order to further identify ways to strengthen UNEP, participants identified the need for an external performance review or evaluation of UNEP.

On UNEP's mandate, meeting participants suggested viewing UNEP's mandate in two parts. On the one hand, it should articulate the overarching goals and, as such, provide a framework within which the programmatic work of UNEP can proceed. On the other hand, there is a need for an operational aspect of the mandate- this part may require more frequent revision to accurately reflect the changing nature of global environmental issues. The discussion also revealed various views on the normative and catalytic mandate of UNEP. UNEP's present mandate was also explored, with participants suggesting the mandate was sufficient but needs to be further operationalised, and that a strengthened UNEP would require further clarification of its normative and catalytic roles. Regarding UNEP's relations to other bodies, UNEP's programmatic role to focus on cross-cutting issues such as capacity building was underlined. Furthermore, the participants suggested that the political relationship between UNEP and multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), while critical, needs to be handled with care. Several participants noted that an acceptable role of UNEP could be to engage in cross-cutting, horizontal issues such as capacity building and research. Regarding capacity building, the meeting suggested that UNEP could provide support to enhance coordination at the national level in order to respond to domestic environmental concerns and capacity issues in a coherent way. It also proposed that UNEP and UNDP clarify their cooperation with regard to their respective mandates on environmental issues. On UNEP's role at the country level, the meeting suggested that UNEP's participation in the UNDG could help to compensate for its absence from field operations and that it would also be important to analyse the role of UNEP within the UN system.

On the issue of universal membership of the Governing Council, the Chairperson's Summary notes that two views emerged with respect to the issue of universal membership versus ownership. One view stated that a sense of ownership of UNEP activities is important and that such ownership can be seen to lie in the current system of universal membership of governments in the United Nations as a whole. Elected representation in the UNEP Governing Council is an expression of this. The other view maintained that the present institutional arrangement, with elected representatives, impedes universal ownership by excluding countries not represented in the Governing Council from effective decision-making. Universal membership would thus be one way of remedying this imbalance by increasing ownership and legitimacy. Meeting participants also discussed the proposal for an Executive Board. Some participants said an Executive Board could bring an increased sense of ownership and legitimacy of UNEP as well as the ability to respond rapidly, monitor activities and funds, and give strategic directives to the Secretariat. However, other participants noted that a possible consequence of an Executive Board could be a less efficient democratic process, as well as increased costs. Participants suggested that a comprehensive discussion on the costs and benefits of universal membership needs to be further elaborated. Some participants said that universal membership would not automatically lead to the application of assessed contributions and a fear was also expressed that universal membership may pave the way for the establishment of a new organisation. The idea that universal membership is proposed with the ultimate goal of enforcing stricter environmental criteria was refuted. Rather, the goal of introducing universal membership was said to be increased legitimacy. A call was made for advocates of universal membership to clearly state the ultimate intentions behind such an institutional change to eliminate any confusion over alternative agendas.

Source: Sweden , Ministry of Sustainable Development and Environment, 2006
Chairperson's Summary;"http://www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c6/03/24/92/8abcf89c.pdf
Background Information; http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/4071/a/32492

Go up in this page

Norway

ieg-dossier coverage

Volume 1 Edition 2 ¦May 2006

New York , 25 April 2006: Norway : Statement to the Informals on the Environment: In a statement to the Informal Consultations of the Plenary of the General Assembly on the Environment, Ambassador Johan L. Løvald outlined Norway 's views regarding the process, building on existing environmental structures, funding, science base, coherence, and normative functions.

Spain, 7 April 2006: Norway: Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg remarks to the UN Chief Executives Board meeting: In his address to the UN Chief Executive's Board meeting, Norway's Prime Minister and co-chair of the High-level Panel on System-wide Coherence said the Panel “will look at how the structures we have created to deal with development, environment and humanitarian assistance can be made more effective, on how we can create more system-wide coherence.” He said the “focus will be in particular on the millennium development goals, and the prime aggregate expressions of our common targets for human development.

Volume 1 Edition 1 ¦May 2006

Norway: Foreign Minister Identifies Four UN Reform Challenges: In a briefing on Norway's UN policy during a meeting with the Forum of Non Aligned Movement Ambassadors Resident in Oslo, on 14 March 2006, Norway's Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre stated that the “UN is struggling with at least four major challenges.”

Norway: Statement to the Informals on the Environment

Volume 1 Edition 2 | May 2006

New York , 25 April 2006: In a statement, to the Informal Consultations of the Plenary of the General Assembly on the Environment, Norway 's Ambassador to the UN, Johan L. Løvald, outlined Norway 's views regarding the process, building on existing environmental structures, funding, science base, coherence, and normative functions. Regarding the process , Ambassador Løvald cautioned against “starting discussions at the outset by looking straight into specific solutions or outcomes.” Noting that “form must follow function,” he said a “stepwise approach is preferable. We must start by assessing the challenges and shortcomings of today's system both in relation to normative and operational functions. Thereafter we must ask ourselves which key functions and elements could be the key building blocks of a future UN structure on environment, in order to remedy the shortcomings of today.” He also said the process should take due account of building on existing structures such as UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs), avoid the reopening of negotiations on existing agreements, and clarify the roles and relationships between relevant UN bodies and bodies outside of the UN-system. Similarly, he noted that the “future environmental structure of the UN must be viewed in light of the broader UN reform work. Ambassador Løvald also a said that “without prejudice to the UN General Assembly process, Member States should continue to pursue the “International Environmental Governance” reform package for a strengthened UNEP. There should be no artificially set deadline for the UN General Assembly process, but one should aim to carry out the work, and to conclude, within a reasonable and mutually agreed timeframe.”

Ambassador Løvald drew attention to the fact that the “environment has a weak voice in relation to major driving forces such as trade, globalisation and production and consumption patterns.” He said “there is a lack of mechanisms to monitor and enforce compliance with internationally agreed regulations and objectives” and that “financing of environmental structures and activities are inadequate and unpredictable.” He called for the strengthening of the normative environmental work of the UN, including “better co-ordination in order to give better and more coherent guidance to Member States and development agencies.” He also called for the gap between the normative agencies, providing knowledge and advice, and the operational entities doing work on the ground to be bridged in order to integrate the environmental dimension properly into the development work.” In this regard, he said it was Norway 's opinion that:

• “Stable, adequate and predictable financing cannot primarily be based on voluntary funding. There must be put in place a broad-based ownership founded on burden sharing and legitimacy.
• The capacity for science and knowledge , and for advocacy based on its results, must be considerably strengthened, including also outreach activities – using knowledge to raise awareness at the country level, within the UN-system, and among other stakeholders.
• The normative functions with relevance to the environment, today handled by different UN bodies such as UN Habitat, UN Development Programme (UNDP), Food and Agriculture Organisation, UN Industrial Development Organisation etc, should be coordinated by the lead UN environmental body.
• Coherence between the normative functions of the UN environmental structure and the operational level and activities at country level (i.e.UNDP) should be established through a more specific definition of the mandates and roles of each body.
• Mechanisms for monitoring and enforcement of compliance must be strengthened, both with regard to the legal framework committing member states, and with regard to the institutional capacity both within the UN and at national level.
• One must ensure that environment is an essential part of the development dialogue , responding to the capacity-building needs of developing countries and countries with economies in transition.”

In concluding, Ambassador Løvald said a more coherent and effective framework for the “UN's environment activities would best be served through a UN environment body based on universal membership. To make sure environmental concerns are given due consideration when decisions are made, we need a strong body with legitimacy and the necessary resources.”

Source: Norway 's Mission to the UN, 2006.

Norway: Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg remarks to the UN Chief Executives Board meeting

Volume 1 Edition 2 | May 2006

Spain, April 2006: In his address to the UN Chief Executives' Board meeting Norway's Prime Minister and Co-chair of the Secretary-General's High-Level Panel on System-wide Coherence said the Panel “will look at how the structures we have created to deal with development, environment and humanitarian assistance can be made more effective, on how we can create more system-wide coherence.” He said the “focus will be in particular on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), and the prime aggregate expressions of our common targets for human development. There are other targets, yes, but if we reach the MDGs, so much else will subsumed and settled in that process.” He said the “friends of the system should be open and serve constructive criticism if the system at time fails to adapt to expectations and best practices found elsewhere in the world.” Noting that 20 different UN bodies work on the issue of access to clean water, Prime Minister Stoltenberg, said this “example illustrates that reform and change must be possible, that it is possible to reduce fragmentation, avoid duplication, and tighten control and audit.” He said there was a need to “develop incentive systems sets a premium on effectiveness.” He also stressed that while exploring “the rooms for improvement the Panel will seek to formulate a vision of what the UN should be like ten years from now, taking account of global trends and management yardsticks by which we should measure it.”

Source: Norway : Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg remarks to the UN Chief Executives Board meeting, Segovia 7 April 2006;
Internet: http://www.odin.no/smk/norsk/aktuelt/taler_artikler/taler_statsmin/001001-090892/dok-bn.html

Foreign Minister Identifies Four UN Reform Challenges

Volume 1 Edition 1 | May 2006

In a briefing on Norway's UN policy during a meeting with the Forum of Non Aligned Movement Ambassadors Resident in Oslo, on 14 March 2006, Norway's Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre stated that the “UN is struggling with at least four major challenges.” First, he said, there is a “growing tendency for member countries to take an à la carte approach to the UN. States claim their rights but are often unwilling to put an equal emphasis on their duties and responsibilities. They are often unwilling to compromise on their own interests, and sometimes unwilling to contribute to the common good without getting something in return. We continue to see and hear about examples of states opting for unilateral approaches. In their interpretation of international law, states sometimes look for loopholes rather than abiding by the standards.” The second challenge he identified was the “tendency to protect the established order at any cost.” He said it was “understandable that many developing countries are concerned, and that they wish to counter what they see as attempts to transfer functions from the General Assembly to a small circle of rich and powerful nations,” a concern, he said that was shared by Norway. The third challenge, he said “concerned the weaknesses in the UN administration.” Noting that Norway contributes a substantial amount of public money through the UN, including about half of Norway 's development aid, he stated that “if the UN is to have full credibility, it must have a transparent, effective and accountable system for managing its resources. We have a responsibility to our taxpayers and to the UN to monitor the organisation in order to ensure effective and efficient management of its resources.”

Regarding the UN's fourth challenge, Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre, said that “while the demand for the services of UN funds, programmes and specialised agencies is greater than ever, the UN is underfinanced and overloaded. There is a gap between what member countries and their citizens expect the UN to do, and the resources available to do the job.” Regarding the Secretary General's High-level Panel on System-wide Coherence, he said Norway 's “point of departure will be to create a more unified UN at the country level; which requires greater coherence at Headquarters, including a more coherent governance structure and more predictable funding. He also said Norway would “place great emphasis on outreach and consultation to ensure that all actors have the possibility to provide input to this process, so that the Panel's proposals are well received and finally accepted by Member States.”

Source: Norway 's Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre, address to the Forum of Non Aligned Movement Ambassadors Resident in Oslo , 14 March 2006;
http://odin.dep.no/ud/english/news/speeches/minister_a/032171-090531/dok-bn.html

Go up in this page

Belarus

ieg-dossier coverage

Volume 1 Edition 1 ¦May 2006

New York, 6 April 2006: Belarus: Statement to the Panel: In statement to the informal meeting between the General Assembly and the Secretary-General's High-level Panel on System-wide Coherence (6 April), Sergei Rachkov, the Deputy Permanent Representative of Belarus, encouraged the Panel to hold “informal meetings with the members of the Executive Boards of UNICEF and UNDP/UNFPA, since these bodies provide a strategic guidance to the activities of the largest UN agencies at the country level.”

Statement to the Panel

Volume 1 Edition 1 | May 2006

In statement to the informal meeting between the General Assembly and the Secretary-General's High-level Panel on System-wide Coherence (6 April), Sergei Rachkov, the Deputy Permanent Representative of Belarus, encouraged the Panel to hold “informal meetings with the members of the Executive Boards of UNICEF and UNDP/UNFPA, since these bodies provide a strategic guidance to the activities of the largest UN agencies at the country level.” He suggested that the “Panel thoroughly examine possible positive and negative outcomes of joint programming by UN agencies, including whether common country programmes should serve as the only possible instrument of UN programming at the country level or if other existing options should be continued.” He also proposed that the “Panel provide conclusions and recommendations on how the UN Representatives in recipient countries could better interact with resident and non-resident donors in order to encourage their support of the national development strategies and priorities, and how the predictability of the flow of assistance resources in operational activities of the UN system could be increased.” Finally, “as the country most affected by the Chernobyl disaster,” he said “that Belarus was interested in the integration of the environmental perspective in the country programmes of the UN agencies.”

Source: Belarus Permanent Mission to the UN, 2006;
http://www.un.int/belarus/UN%20Reform/Coherence_06_04_06.pdf

Go up in this page

Japan

ieg-dossier coverage

Volume 1 Edition 2 ¦May 2006

New York , 8 May 2006: Japan: Statement to the Mandate Review on Sustainable Development: Statement to the informal consultations on the Mandate Review on the promotion of sustainable growth and sustainable development by Japan 's Ambassador Toshiro Ozawa.

New York , 25 April 2006: Japan : Statement to the Informals on Environment: In a statement by Ambassador Toshiro Ozawa to the Informal Plenary of the General Assembly on the Environment, Japan supported the improvement of international environmental governance.

Japan: Statement to the Mandate Review on Sustainable Development

Volume 1 Edition 2 | May 2006

>

New York, 8 May 2006: In a statement to the informal consultations on the Mandate Review on the promotion of sustainable growth and sustainable development, Japan's Ambassador, Toshiro Ozawa, stressed that by “revitalising itself through reform, the UN system would be able to make more positive impacts on the ground through more effective and efficient use of that funding.” In this regard, Japan stated that the “the merits of programmatic shifts through the mandate review will benefit all Member States.” Japan also reiterated that the “our main goal is not cost-cutting per se.” Ambassador Ozawa stressed the importance of discussing mandates of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and called for such a review to “commence expeditiously.” He said the “Mandate review should be an ongoing process aimed at revitalising the entire UN system, and as such, mandates stemming from the subsidiary bodies should also be examined at a later stage of this exercise.” On the overlap and redundancy amongst the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), the Regional Commissions and the Funds and Programmes , including UNDP and UNEP , he said there is a need to “identify rationalisation measures which could bring tangible results in the short term. Because we will need to take into account the recommendations of the High-Level Panel on System-wide Coherence, we should look at these matters in the medium and long term range as well.” He also called for a serious review of the Regional Commissions. On UNCTAD , Japan said “UNCTAD has stretched its work beyond its original mandate in the area of trade and development, and it would be more appropriate for UNCTAD to concentrate on its core competence, including capacity-building and investment analysis.” On the regular programme of technical cooperation , Japan said this “programme has long failed to meet the basic requirements for oversight, performance review, accountability and budget procedures. He proposed combining this programme and the development account into a single section. Regarding Africa , Ambassador Ozawa said in order to achieve the “Millennium Development Goals, UN activities for African development need to be more efficient and action-oriented” stressing that “further efforts are required to enhance coherence and coordination amongst UN entities for that purpose.” He supported the “recommendation that priority be placed on the implementation of New Partnership for Africa 's Development (NEPAD) and on sustained support for the African Union (AU). In this regard, Japan “welcomed the proposal to rationalise and simplify pre-NEPAD mandates into the context of NEPAD and request the Secretariat to provide concrete proposals to make this happen.” He also proposed that “the Secretariat, including the Economic Commission for Africa (ECA), should also make assessment on what their comparative advantages are vis-à-vis other multilateral organisations such as the AU,NEPAD and the African Development Bank.”

Source: Japan 's Mission to the UN, 2006; Internet:
http://www.mofa.go.jp/announce/speech/un2006/un0605-2.html

Japan: Statement to the Informals on Environment

Volume 1 Edition 2 | May 2006

New York , 25 April 2006: In a statement by Ambassador Toshiro Ozawa to the Informal Consultations of the Plenary of the General Assembly on the Environment, Japan supported the improvement of international environmental governance. He said that “what we need now are not new ideas but rather practical proposals that can produce real improvements in international environmental governance. Japan stressed that “streamlining and clustering our activities may produce such improvements.” Ambassador Ozawa also highlighted the importance of focusing on “streamlining the various functions of multilateral environmental agreements rather than enlarging organisations” and supported the “Co-chairs visiting both Geneva and Nairobi to conduct a dialogue with experts in those locations.” Regarding a more coherent institutional framework Japan said the “need to discuss how to integrate the environmental perspective into development will only grow with time. For this reason, there must be a particular focus on operations at the national level. We must ask ourselves carefully whether it is really more effective to address environmental issues in a framework that is separate from the existing development system.”

Source: Japan's Mission to the UN; http://www.mofa.go.jp/announce/speech/un2006/un0604-7.html

Go up in this page

Iceland

ieg-dossier coverage

Volume 1 Edition 2 ¦May 2006

New York , 19 April 2006: Iceland : Statement to the Informals on Environment: In a statement to the informal consultation of the plenary on environment, Iceland 's Ambassador, Hjálmar W. Hannesson, outlined Iceland 's views on scientific knowledge, and strengthening existing institutional frameworks.

Iceland: Statement to the Informals on Environment

Volume 1 Edition 2 | May 2006

New York , 19 April 2006: In a statement to the informal consultation of the plenary on environment, Iceland 's Ambassador, Hjálmar W. Hannesson, remarked that “in seeking to come up with better solutions, we might wish to entertain ambitious new ideas.” However, he said, the “first and foremost challenge should be to find ways of improving the operation of the system that we currently have in place.” He stressed the need to “build our work on the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation, in which we emphasised the need for more coherent institutional framework of international environmental governance, with better coordination and monitoring.” On strengthening the scientific knowledge within the current institutional framework he said the focus should be on “better assessments and integration of existing environmental activities into the UN policy framework for sustainable development.” Regarding the strengthening of existing institutional framework he said UNEP, the leading environmental programme, “faces difficulties in playing fully its proper role, and greater attention should be given to the implementation of the Cartagena decision on international environmental governance.” He expressed Iceland's “support to the suggestion that analytical and technical debates take place on how the agency could improve its performance, including a debate on UNEP's  mandate and links to other fora within the international system. A transformation of UNEP into an UN Environment Organisation has been proposed and we appreciate the important initial work that has already been done by the informal working group of 26 countries, set up to consider that possibility. While Iceland has supported the principle of universal participation in the important work of UNEP, we would want to see how this debate develops before committing to a specific position on the institutional framework.”

Source: Iceland 's Mission to the UN, 2006; Internet:
http://www.mfa.is/speeches-and-articles/nr/3038

Go up in this page

New Zealand

ieg-dossier coverage

Volume 1 Edition 2 ¦May 2006

New York, 19 April 2006: New Zealand: Statement to the Informals on the Environment: In a statement to the informal plenary on environment, New Zealand's Ambassador, Rosemary Banks, outlined New Zealand's views on multilateral environmental agreements, technology transfer, coordination among the UN Environment Programme and the Commission on Sustainable Development, funding, improving coordination, and procedural issues.

New Zealand: Statement to the Informals on the Environment

Volume 1 Edition 2 | May 2006

New York, 19 April 2006: In a statement to the informal plenary on environment New Zealand's Ambassador to the UN, Rosemary Banks, outlined New Zealand's views on multilateral environmental agreements, technology transfer, coordination among the UN Environment Programme and the Commission on Sustainable Development, funding, improving coordination, and procedural issues. Ambassador Banks said New Zealand is a “strong supporter of calls for improvements in the UN system of environmental governance.” She said “ New Zealand believes that multilateral environment agreements are appropriate in situations where the environmental issue is global or regional in nature and requires a global or regional action. But not all environmental issues call for such responses.” Ambassador Banks noted there was a “tendency for multilateral environment agreements to operate as ‘works in progress', by successive refinements of their principles and protocols.” She said this has led to, on the one hand, “policy creep, where multilateral environment agreements (MEAs) either extend beyond or fall back from their originally agreed mandates.” On the other hand, she said, this has had the positive impacts of “allowing complicated negotiations to proceed to an agreement in manageable steps and multilateral environment agreements to be informed by latest scientific evidence as it becomes available.” While noting that MEAs generate more than 150 days of major formal negotiations per year – most of which take place in the northern hemisphere, she said the “the demands of participation in multilateral negotiations, coupled with compliance and onerous reporting requirements, can and does detract from domestic implementation and addressing nationally assessed environmental priorities.”

On the challenge of funding environmental protection , particularly in developing countries, she said this issue “has not been satisfactorily resolved” and “UNEP is generally agreed to be under-resourced and contributions to funds that have been created under multilateral environment agreements have not met expectations.” Ambassador Banks also expressed concern that there “are few examples of successful dissemination of technology to developing countries under MEAs,” and proposed that “more work may be needed to develop incentives for research and development into environmentally beneficial technologies, as well as balancing environmental objectives with protection of intellectual property rights.” She also questioned whether MEAs “provide the best method of technology transfer and capacity building to developing countries,” suggesting that “other methods, such as donors responding to an individual country's priorities and capacity to provide locally appropriate assistance, may be more effective.” Ambassador Banks further suggested that “more could be done to improve cooperation between the UN Commission on Sustainable Development and UNEP, particularly given the way in which UNEP work increasingly intersects, not only with the work of multilateral environment agreements, but also in terms of the wider sustainable development agenda.” On procedural issues , she said “ New Zealand would be more comfortable, in the first instance, with an incremental process of improvements based on the International Environmental Governance (IEG) recommendations than with an all out restructuring process.” The process, she said, should aim “to launch an ongoing and incremental process of change.” She proposed that “following procedural steps be taken over the coming months: first a co-chairs' summary of our exchanges on the broad ranging issues, which could then be picked up by the Second Committee to discuss in more detail.”

Source: New Zealand Mission to the UN, 2006; Internet:
http://www.mfat.govt.ns/speech/minspeeches/19apr06.html

Go up in this page

Ireland

ieg-dossier coverage

Volume 1 Edition 2 ¦May 2006

5 April 2006: Ireland: Financial Support to the Panel: In a statement by Ireland's Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dermot Ahern T.D., to the Joint Committee on European Affairs, he said Ireland “has already contributed €100,000 to the extra-budgetary expenses of the Panel and we are working closely with like-minded donors to ensure that genuine reforms are put in place.”

Ireland: Financial Support to the Panel

Volume 1 Edition 2 | May 2006

5 April, 2006: In a statement to the Joint Committee on European Affairs, Ireland's Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dermot Ahern T.D noted that the Secretary-General's High-Level Panel on System-wide Coherence is expected to report to the General Assembly in the autumn with recommendations on how to increase effectiveness by improving co-ordination between the UN bodies and between the UN and other donors. He said that “ Ireland will of course support this, striving towards practical improvement and will seek to ensure that the UN has sufficient flexibility to provide adequate support to governments of developing countries in their policy analysis and planning.” “ Ireland , he said “has already contributed €100,000 to the extra-budgetary expenses of the Panel and we are working closely with like-minded donors to ensure that genuine reforms are put in place.”

Source: Ireland Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Internet:
http://foreignaffairs.gov.ie/Press_Releases/20060405/2021.htm