Informal meeting of the plenary to hear a briefing on the UN80 Initiative - General Assembly, 80th session

I call to order the informal meeting of the plenary on the UN 80 initiative.
Like to welcome you all here.
This is the seventh in our series of monthly briefings intended to keep the membership informed and to sustain the momentum as the UN eight initiative advances.
Today, we will hear an overall update on the UN 80 initiative from Under Secretary-General Guy Ryder, followed by briefings on two work packages.
Work package 22, prevention, peace building, peace support, and Work package 18 and 21 on funding mechanisms and systems wide results management.
I give the floor to Mr.
Guy Ryder, under Secretary-General for policy.
The floor is your, sir.
Thank you very much Chair.
Good morning to everybody.
Chair, Excellencies, thank you for joining us for today's briefing on the UN 80 Initiative, and through you, Chair, thanks to the PGA for once again providing us with this opportunity and for her very steadfast commitment to advance the initiative.
I want to take the chance to reflect briefly on progress overall since our last briefing and then turn to the work that lies ahead of us.
In June, I underlined the importance in particular of the EcoSok resolution then under negotiation on the quad annual comprehensive policy review of operational activities for development of the UN system.
Today, I'm pleased to note that EcoSc adopted the resolution by consensus last week.
In our view, it reaffirms the direction of travel for reconfiguring country teams around what countries really need, deploying expertise where it is required, expanding shared back office services, following up on the funding compact, and recalibrating the resident coordinator system.
Member States also requested further information on financing, governance, and country level implications, amongst other things.
These are central implementation questions on which the Secretary-General will revert to you with concrete responses through the established processes.
On Workstream two, that's the one on mandates, the General Assembly resolution on strengthening EcoSOc adopted last Friday requested EcoSoc to apply the outcomes of the mandate implementation review consistently through its own decision making processes.
I think that this is welcome recognition and application of the progress made under this workstream of UN 80 and of EcoSoc role in carrying it forward.
Let me thank the permanent representatives of Barbados and Malta and Switzerland for facilitating these resolutions.
Together, we are adapting the UN system to deliver better based on a strong shared foundation and other elements have advanced as well.
Excellencies, we published the Unified Services roadmap alongside a feasibility study on global shared services on the 1st of July.
It provides for the first time, shared evidence in a joint approach to common operational services across pillars and at both the global and the country levels.
Member states can support the roadmap in the relevant governing bodies.
If that is done, cost savings of 20 to 80% for key back office services will become possible.
Internally, the Executive Office of the Secretary-General, through the Chef de cabinet has also issued new reporting guidance this month.
Reports will become clearer, more focused, and we hope accordingly more useful for member states.
Work has also continued in our support to member states efforts in the ad hoc working group on the mandate implementation review.
Here I think one lesson stands out very clearly, and that is that effective review depends on accessible information on how specific resolutions and decisions are implemented and we'll be reverting to that question in our examination of specific work packages today.
Now, looking forward, between now and September, member states can expect further important developments in three areas of work.
Firstly, we will continue to share information briefs, reports, and other products as work packages within the Secretary-General authority progress.
Implementation will also continue where authority already rests with the Secretary-General, including on the mechanics of expertise on demand, on technology acceleration, and on the data Commons inter alea.
Secondly, proposals requiring intergovernmental consideration will proceed through the appropriate processes which have been set out, whether in this session, the 81st session, or the governing bodies of relevant entities.
The immediate proposal requiring member state consideration during this session is the Secretary-General report on the proposed merger of the United Nations System Staff College and UTR.
It is a clear articulation of how we can deliver better if we join forces, platforms and services where this makes sense.
Thirdly, we will continue supporting the work of the ad hoc working group by making relevant information more readily accessible to member states.
This includes enhancing the mandate registry so you can navigate from each resolution to its implementation as seen in reports and other materials, and to the funding and results of the programs that make reference to them.
Our purpose is to make implementation easier to understand and review and needless to say, authority over mandates remains with you, our member states.
Our aim in all of this work, of course, is enable you to be more effective stewards of these mandates.
Underpinning all of this work is our shared responsibility to move the organization forward for the benefit of the people that it serves.
In that regard, let me draw attention to the fact that on the 9th of July, the Secretary-General joined 500 civil society representatives in person and hundreds more online for an open dialogue on the United Nations of the future.
The civil society representatives voiced strong support for a more inclusive, effective, and responsive United Nations and they engaged constructively on how the work under the UN AT Initiative can help shape precisely that.
Their message was, I think, quite straightforward but compelling.
Renewal must be shaped with people and not only for them.
Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, the work packages that we will discuss today and chair, you've already outlined what they are, take that proposition from principle to practice.
They examine how we bring together dispersed capacities so that they serve people better, how we design funding so that it serves mandates better, and how we connect mandates and resources more clearly to results to demonstrate the difference that we all want to make together.
So in conclusion, I think that UNA is now becoming a test not of our willingness to discuss reform, but of our ability to deliver on it.
The next phase, therefore belongs to all of us, and we look forward to your guidance and to turning that guidance into action.
And I thank you for your attention.
I thank the Under Secretary-General for policy.
I give the floor to miss Elizabeth Spehar, Assistant Secretary-General for Peace Building and Peace Support.
Thank you very much, Chair and thanks to all of you member states who have come this morning in great numbers for this session.
I'm really honored to have been asked to brief you this morning on work package 22 on prevention, peace building, and peace support, and in particular on what is identified as action 55, aligned surge capacity for peace and security, rule of law, disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration, security sector reform, small arms control, mission transitions, prevention of extremist violence and counterterrorism to support regional needs.
I will refer to the work that is being conducted in two parts, one longer than the other.
The first part is the establishment of the Peace Building and Peace Support Office, which speaks precisely to this imperative of trying to bring our tools more coherently together in support of prevention, peace building, and peace support.
Then secondly, a mapping exercise that is intending precisely to capture the information on what surge capacity exists in the system in the areas that I just mentioned a moment ago.
First of all, on the first part, I wanted to start by underscoring, as we all know that peace and security, including conflict prevention and sustaining peace, have been central to the purpose of the UN since its inception.
In the evolving global context marked by multipolarity, fragmentation, and surging violent conflict, they're more urgent than ever.
We have some very strong messages and commitments and decisions from member states through the Pact for the future, the 2025 review of the UN peace building architecture, Its unanimous twin General Assembly and Security Council resolutions, all affirming a shared commitment to nationally led prevention and peace building efforts and to having a more comprehensive approach to building and sustaining peace.
We also, of course, have the guidance of the new agenda for peace of the Secretary-General that came out in the middle of 2023.
In the pact for the future, member states also requested the Secretary-General to undertake a review of the future of all forms of United Nations peace operations.
I've heard many member states express the hope that that particular review, which I understand will be coming out very soon, and the outcome of last year's peace building architecture review will somehow speak to each other.
Indeed, the Secretary-General expresses, I would say, the same sentiments in his report shifting paradigms United to deliver, which was an update report on the UN AD initiatives, where he acknowledged that peace and security work has been split across mandates, offices, and missions, often disconnected from the rest of the system.
The report commits that and here I quote the Secretary-General.
The peace and security pillar will emphasize prevention, peace building, and political solutions.
It will adapt its systems and architecture to be lean, agile, and field focused, delivering impact across mission and non mission settings, end of quotation.
Um, we are also in the process through this new office of working to bring peace building and rule of law efforts closer together.
This also aligns with the Secretary-General vision of the rule of law itself as and here I quote him from his new vision for the rule of law of 2023, rule of law being the foundation for conflict prevention, peacemaking, peacekeeping, sustaining peace, and peace building, end of quote.
So in response to these imperatives and the call of yourselves the member states, one of the first outputs of the UN 80 initiative focusing on structural reforms has been the establishment of the Peace Building and Pea Support Office or PBPSO in DPPADPO.
So it spans both the Department of Political and Peace Building Affairs and the Department of Peace Operations.
The creation of this office was intended to bring together tools, expertise, financing, and partnerships so that support to member states and partners is more integrated on prevention, peace building, and sustaining peace.
The goal indeed is to make the UN's prevention, peace building and peace support capacities easier to identify, coordinate, and deploy to missions as well as in non mission settings as appropriate and in support of nationally led priorities.
The office was established in January of 2026.
It comprises the former Peace Building Support Office, which includes the management of the Secretary-General Peace Building Fund.
It serves as a Secretariat for the Intergovernmental Peace Building Commission, and it has quite robust programmatic and partnership assistance.
This new office has brought together those three areas together with three components of the former Office of the Rule of Law and Security Institutions of the Department of Peace Operations, namely the Disarmament demobilization and reintegration Unit, DDRU, the Justice and Correction Service, JCS, and the Security Sector Reform Unit, SSRU, which now together form the core of PBPSOs integrated support to member states, partners, and the UN system.
I would recall that again in his shifting paradigms report, PBPSO was envisaged by the Secretary-General as a center of excellence on prevention, peace building, and peace support, unquote.
So as I mentioned a moment ago, the office was formally set up in the middle of January 2026 following member state approval and since then has been working to consolidate and enhance a more coherent and effective offer, as we call it, in the area of peace building and peace support in mission and non mission contexts, and to do so more effectively and in a more integrated manner, aiming to become, as I often say to my interlocutors, greater than the sum of its six parts and working closely with other parts of the UN and other partners to this end.
And I wanted to underscore, I think, an important role within the system that we can contribute to as PPPSO and that is that in addition to its own tools and capacities that I've very briefly mentioned, PPPSO has tools to enhance a bridging and hinge role.
Across the system.
What I mean by that is PBPSO can serve as a very useful bridge between the work of the peace and security pillar and the prevention peace building work of the broader system through the agency's funds and programs.
We are part of the peace and security pillar, but we also work very closely with the agency's funds and programs across the board, given the comprehensive nature of peace building and sustaining peace.
Also plays a hinge role as the Secretary-General has mentioned in many of his prior reports on peace building and sustaining peace by really working cross pillar and trying to bring together the humanitarian development and peace elements of the system to work more coherently together in service of member states for building and sustaining peace over time.
The PPPSO does this in various ways, including through specialized coordination networks, and I'll name some of them.
We co lead with UNDP, some of these.
We have the interagency working group on DDR, the interagency SSR task force, the global focal point for rule of law, interagency Task Force on Transitional justice, and the UN system wide peace building contact and strategy groups.
These are some of the mechanisms we have as an office to really try to contribute to a more integrated, coherent UN when it comes to peace building and peace support and sustaining peace.
Um, the office has identified in these early months of its existence, four core areas where we believe we could add particular value as a cohesive support entity, working, of course, very closely alongside other actors, including alongside many of our UN partners.
Um.
In addition to UN mission settings, of course, I think we can have a particularly useful role in settings of UN mission transitions, um, the area of institution building for sustaining peace, support for nationally owned and led prevention and peace building strategies, and in the area of peace finance.
I can elaborate on some of those areas if you wish in the question and answer period.
Um.
I'd like to, if time permits, I hope, give you a couple of examples of the integrated approach that we hope to continue to support going forward.
Um, with two country examples.
One is the example of Santome and Principe, where PBPSO has played quite, I think, a useful role, first of all, as Secretariat to the Intergovernmental Peace Building Commission, to which Santome and Principe, um, um, went to talk about its peace building priorities and to get accompaniment and support.
We were able, upon the request of the government to provide some very critical support in the area of access to more equitable access to justice and security sector reform through a peace building fund project, and we also were able to put forward important tools that we have now in PPPSO in the area of support to security sector governance and reform and rule of law tools in order to help the country, including with the production or the establishment of its first ever comprehensive security sector review, and also its first ever national prevention strategy, which it presented to the PBC last year.
Another example is in the Central African Republic where the office working in close coordination with UN field presences, has been instrumental in advancing transitional justice and the fight against impunity.
This again was in relation to the role of the Peace Building Commission, which we backstop as Secretariat.
The PBC helped sustain political support for key peace building priorities including transitional justice and aligned with Minus's mandate through the global focal point arrangement and our own PPPSO standing capacities.
We were able to support collaboration between Minusk, UNDP, and other partners to strengthen the Special Criminal Court, while peace building fund financing has been critical in supporting the Truth Justice Reparation and Reconciliation Commission and the complementarity between that commission and the Special Criminal Court.
To finish on the issue of the new office, I should say that the establishment and now the consolidation of this new office remains a work in progress.
It is only about six months into this, into this new configuration.
I really hope to have more opportunities to engage with member states on the new office, perhaps in smaller groups because I feel that we are in a very important moment of co creation and clearly because this office as all of the Secretariat is in service of member states needs, it would be very important to hear from you and to co create.
Finally, Um, in support of the comprehensive overview, that's the second part of this work package that I wanted to underscore.
In support of the comprehensive overview called for under Work Package 22, Action 55, which I described a moment ago, PBPSO is coordinating a mapping to capture the capacities within the Secretariat that provide surge support to the UN and member states in the areas of peace and security.
Um, broadly, but in particular rule of law as well, disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration, security sector reform, small arms control, mission transitions, prevention of extremist violence and counterterrorism from across DPO and DPPA in addition to the Office of Disarmament Affairs and the UN Office of Counterterrorism.
We've already had several meetings with our colleagues on this issue.
As we know, these capacities play a crucial role, both in mission and non mission settings and the mapping, I think will be particularly useful.
I'm hoping it will be also again utilized in conjunction with the work that's being done on expertise on demand, which is another part of the UN AT process, mapping capacities written large across the system that are available to member states.
But this particular mapping, will provide information about existing capacities, their offer, profiles, location, funding arrangements, deployment, notice period, and contacts, ensuring that the information is fully accessible and well connected to complementary UN workstreams such as the one I just mentioned, expertise on demand, also regional reset, and several others.
We hope to share the results of this mapping exercise by September.
Thank you very much.
I thank the Assistant Secretary general for peace building and peace support.
I give the floor now to Mr.
James Wandll, special advisor to the Secretary-General on reforms, who will be joining us online.
The floor is your, sir.
Thank you, Mr.
President.
Excellencies, Distinguished delegates.
Let me begin with the common thread that connects the two work packages I will present today.
The United Nations has been entrusted by member states with thousands of mandates.
They range from very specific tasks to the implementation of complex conventions, global frameworks, and agendas, such as the sustainable development goals.
Delivering these mandates require United Nations that can work across organizational boundaries, bring together different capabilities, and adapt its presence and response to very different contexts.
And ultimately, delivery happens somewhere.
It happens globally, it happens regionally, but above all, it happens country by country, responding to national needs and in the development system to the priorities agreed with governments through the cooperation framework.
That brings us a to a very simple question.
Can we draw a clear line from the mandates member states give us as the United Nations to the resources we use and to the results we achieve? Today, that line is often difficult to see.
The two work packages address this challenge from two connected directions.
The Work package 21 is about managing for results and Work package 18 is about financing for results.
So let me make the following points.
We need a clearer system wide line of sight from mandates to results.
The UN has many strong systems, funds, programs, specialized agencies, and secretariat entities plan, monitor, and report extensively.
The gap is at the system level.
We still lack a sufficiently credible and consistent way to connect mandate, resources, and resource.
I think that matters for member states.
You receive a great deal of reporting, but it can still be difficult to see the collective picture, what the United Nations as a system is trying to achieve, what resources and capabilities are being applied, and where the constraints are and what collective results are being achieved.
It also matters for the UN leadership because managing a system requires the ability to see across institutional boundaries.
Work package 21 therefore proposes a system wide management for results mechanism.
The idea is, you can say deliberately practical and it's also a light touch.
As its center would be a structured management process through which the Secretary-General and the UN principles can periodically look across the system, identify the small number of results that matter most for collective performance, understand constraints, and adjust where needed.
This requires common norms and standards that allow us progressively to connect mandates, resources, and results across organizations without replacing the management and accountability system of individual entities.
It is a mechanism for better collective management of the United Nations.
Here, member state dialogue is an integral part of that mechanism because management for results requires a structured dialogue between UN leadership and member state.
That dialogue should be strategic, focused, and facts based.
What results are we collectively seeking? What is working? Where are the constraints? Where do priorities and capabilities need to adjust? This creates an opportunity for continuing political conversation about mandate delivery rather than relying primarily on a succession of individual reports.
Importantly, we envisage developing this through consultations with member states.
The comment period therefore includes consultations, development of system wide results standards and norms, and ultimately piloting, you can say, an executive resource dialogue before a full mechanism is proposed or even finalized.
Now, that brings me directly to work package 18, which is about funding.
Once we ask what results the system is expected to deliver, we also have to ask how those results are financed.
The funding review starts from the financing reality we expect to face.
Resources are under pressure, co funding is constrained.
Earmarked funding accounts for the large majority of voluntary resources and is likely to continue doing so.
Pool funding has important strategic value, but remains comparatively small.
Proposition is to see the funding mix as a mix and see how we can get it to work better for mandate delivery.
In other words, C, pooled, and earmark funding, they all have a role.
They perform different functions, and we need to use each where it creates the greatest value and manage them increasingly as a coherent portfolio or if you will, as a funding mix.
Let me just go through them.
Core funding provides the institutional foundation.
It creates the capacity to maintain expertise, country presence, normative and policy capabilities, oversight, strategic planning, and the ability to respond when circumstances change.
These capacities support the delivery of all forms of funding.
The UN therefore has work to do in demonstrating what value core funding creates more clearly.
One of our recommendation is very practical.
Entities should be able to explain simply and credibly what your core funding supports.
Member states should be able to see the country's reach, the capabilities sustained, and the results that flexible resources make possible.
Better results communication and greater transparency are essential to making the case for flexible funding or core.
Let me now turn to pool financing.
Pool financing or pool funding allows member states to finance a collective UN response rather than a series of separate organizational interventions.
That can be especially valuable where challenge cuts across mandates or sectors, or where a corporation framework requires several UN entities to combine their capabilities around national priorities.
We therefore propose stronger strategic positioning of pool funding, updated guidance to capture recent positive innovations, and a clearer portfolio perspective across the system.
We also propose to repositioning the joint SDG fund as a Secretary-General fund for development, a principal instrument for catalytic development action alongside the established models providing by the central emergency response Fund, the SRF, and the Peace Building fund that Elizabeth Spaha heads.
Let me turn to earmarking.
Earmarking we need to acknowledge that it has become central to the UN's financing model and will remain so.
It's design though matters enormously.
A large multi year contribution allied with an agreed program or cooperation framework can provide substantial strategic value, a good quality earmarking.
A small, short term, highly customized project that requires separate agreements, reporting, and visibility arrangements and management processes, sometimes create costs disproportionate to the resources provided, and we consider that a lower quality earmarking.
We therefore propose a common framework for assessing the quality of earmark funding, looking at alignment, duration, scale, flexibility, and reporting requirements, risks, and institutional costs.
And we propose greater discipline on the UN side as well to understand the costing of low quality earmarking, and increasingly phase it out where possible.
Let me now turn to the funding dialogue.
Here, the idea is that the funding dialogue must become more strategic, particularly at the country level.
This may be one of the most important practical implications for member states.
At country level, we already have strategic framework, national priorities, and the cooperation framework.
But we need a funding dialogue that increasingly asks, are resources aligned with those priorities? What are the financing gaps? Where pooled financing create real value and where is the earmarking that increased fragmentation, and what adjustments would allow the UN system to respond better to the country needs.
We think that resin coordinators can help create that strategic space with governments, member states, and UN country teams and financing partners.
At the global level, we similarly recommend a stronger funding compact dialogue through existing mechanisms, including a more strategic annual review within a suitable member state mechanism.
This is where the two packages, they come together.
They come together around results because better financing depends on greater confidence and greater confidence depends on transparency, accountability, and credible evidence of results.
So Work Package 21 proposes the system wide mechanisms through which we can strengthen the connection between mandate, resources, and results system wide, while Worpckage 18 proposes a funding architecture that increasingly finances and reports against the same results logic.
Over time, the ambition is therefore quite practical.
When member states give the United Nations a mandate, we should increasingly be capable of showing the strategic results we're pursuing, the capabilities and resources being applied, and the constraints we face and the results being achieved.
And that, in our view is also the foundation for more mature funding conversation.
So where do we go from here? In my view, there's room for actions on both sides of the partnership.
On the United Nations side, we need to strengthen system wide standards, improve transparency and communication, demonstrate more clearly what core funding enables, make pool funding more strategic and easier to understand, improve the quality and costing of earmark funding, reduce unnecessary fragmentation, and create stronger management mechanisms for reviewing results and financing across the system.
If you're asking yourself how you could support, then there are equally important opportunities for member states to engage actively in the results and funding dialogues, to protect and strengthen core resources where possible, and to use pool funding where the collective action offers the greatest value, and to provide earmarked resources, supporting strategy, and discontinue low quality earmarking.
To support full and transparent costing on both sides, managing institutional financial fragmentation, and to work with us in reducing that fragmentation alongside a more harmonized approach to reporting, disability and accountability.
Excellencies, Before closing, let me just say the common objective of these two work packages is better mandate delivery.
We want the United Nations that can see more clearly what it's trying to achieve across the system, organizes capabilities around those results, finance those capabilities more strategically, and have a more facts based and continuous dialogue with member states about performance, resources, and choices.
That is the direction of travel we are putting forward.
The proposals before you remain work in progress.
The next stage is therefore important to develop them with member states, test what is useful, build mechanisms that strengthen both performance of the United Nations and the confidence of those who mandate and finance its work.
With those words, thank you.
Mr.
President, I'd like to hand back to you.
I thank the special adviser to the Secretary-General on reform.
I now open the floor for comments or questions.
As indicated in the journal, there is no pre established list of speakers for this meeting.
Delegations wishing to take the floor are invited to press their microphone button.
I wish to remind delegations that as announced in the letter dated 20th of July, speaking time during this informal meeting shall be limited to 3 minutes for delegations, speaking in their national capacity and 5 minutes for delegations or statements made on behalf of a group of states.
Delegations speaking on behalf of groups are invited to approach the list of speakers, table and be given priority.
To assist allegations in managing their time, a countdown clock will be displayed on the screen.
Please be advised that these time limits will be strictly enforced, including through the use of an automatic microphone cut off when the allotted time has expired.
I thank you for your cooperation.
I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Uruguay will be speaking on behalf of G 77 and China, and then followed by Solomon Islands on behalf of the Pacific Island Forum, Australia, on behalf of the Ks and European Union.
Uruguay, the floor is you.
Thank you, Mr.
President.
The Group of 77 and China appreciates the overview provided by USG Guy Ryder, as well as the briefings on work packages 18 21 and 22 by ASG Elizabeth Seja and Special Adviser Jens Wandle.
The group welcomes the circulation of the pre briefing materials and reiterates the importance of receiving documentation sufficiently in advance to enable the substantive and informed engagement.
The group reaffirms its support for the objective of the UNA initiatives strengthening the ability of the United Nations to deliver effectively and achieve greater impact on the ground.
The process must remain transparent, inclusive, and intergovernmental and fully respect mandates approved by member states.
Reform efforts should neither dilute mandates nor weaken the organization's presence in program countries.
The group emphasizes that reforms identify as require intergovernmental consideration must not be implemented before such consideration has substantively taken place.
The secret must apply this principle consistently.
Regarding Work package 18, the group takes note of proposals aimed at improving the coherence and sustainability of the voluntary funding architecture.
We recognize the complementary roles of core pooled and earmark resources.
Nevertheless, predictable and sustainable voluntary funding, particularly core funding, remains indispensable.
Any review of the UN funding architecture must not come at the expense of developing countries.
Group would welcome additional clarification on positioning pool funding strategically, the proposed repositioning of the joint SDG fund, the development of system wide results standards, and how these initiatives will take into account the diversity of mandates and operational contexts across the United Nations system.
Concerning Work package 21, the group acknowledges the value of strengthening the connection between mandates, resources, and results across the United Nations system.
A system wide management for results MFL mechanism should build on existing reporting, avoid duplication, and the creation of additional administrative layers, and respect to mandates and governance arrangements of individual entities.
Regarding the proposed mechanism of dialogue between UN system principles and member states, the group underscores the importance of ensuring that this engagement is meaningful, transparent, and inclusive, with the secretary playing a neutral role throughout the process.
On actions 49 55 and 58 in work package 22, the group takes note of the efforts to enhance coherence in prevention, peace building, and peace support, particularly in response to nationally identified priorities.
Nonetheless, the group stresses that its exercise and the broader discussions on the regional reset and expertise on demand initiatives constitute two distinct conversations.
Weaffirm that operational activities for development must remain firmly focused on poverty eradication in all its forms and dimensions as the overarching objective of the United Nations development system.
Moreover, the group further underscores that the primary purpose of the resident coordinator system is to support sustainable development in program countries.
The system should therefore avoid mandate overlap, duplication, and unnecessary reporting burdens while ensuring that development functions are not diverted from their core objectives and that an effective and robust country presence is maintained.
More broadly, the group underscores the need for greater clarity regarding the way forward, including the sequencing, timelines, and intergovernmental consideration of proposals requiring member state decisions.
The group looks forward to receiving the outstanding information and reports sufficiently in advance and to continued engagement aimed at the identifying realistic priorities, safeguarding the prerogatives of relevant governing bodies, and ensuring transparent, inclusive, and well informed consultations.
Group remains committed to engaging constructively in the UNAT process to advance a more effective, efficient, equitable, and representative United Nations that strengthens mandate delivery.
I thank you.
I thank the distinguished representative of Uruguay.
I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Solomon Islands speaking on behalf of the Pacific Island Forum.
Thank you, Your Excellency.
I have the honor to speak on behalf of the members of the Pacific Island Forum represented in New York.
I thank the Under Secretary-General and his team for today's briefing.
On the UN ATA review for funding mechanisms, we support a UN funding architecture that is sustainable, predictable, and coherent.
We support proposals that advance meaningful funding reform and strengthen the UN's ability to deliver as a single system.
The UN resident coordinator system has the potential to play a critical role in strengthening the UN funding architecture through convincing partners, directing resources towards priorities identified in the cooperation frameworks, and strengthening accountability.
The RC system is not yet delivering on its potential, and we support strengthening of the RC leadership.
This requires stronger incentives of UN entities to work through the RCs, including through changes to accountability, reporting, and funding structures.
We also need to ensure RCs have the right skills, tools, experience, knowledge, and seniority to be effective.
We call on all member states to meet the targets set out in the funding compact.
The compact is a key component in making the funding system more sustainable and coherent.
On system wide results management, we support efforts to ensure accountability across the UN system by ensuring that mandates are linked to resources which are then linked to results.
Without these linkages, what we negotiate in New York has little impact on the ground where it actually matters at country level.
Strengthening system wide results management should not mean increased reporting burdens.
Practical, streamlined, managed for result frameworks are needed and should be developed.
Finally, on prevention, peace building, and peace support, the Pacific has benefited from the UN peace building and peace support through UN supported dialogue, mediation, electoral processes, institution building efforts that have helped address the root cause of conflict and promote long term stability.
We support efforts to strengthen peace and advisory support in RC offices and encourage search capacity for peace and security support to be accessible and flexible enough to quickly respond to the needs on the ground.
We note the Secretary-General proposal to host regional peace and development advisors in the regional commissions and encourage thought to be given to concentrating expertise at sub regional level.
This is particularly important for the remote provision of services in areas where local context and established relationships are important for delivery.
In conclusion, PIF members wish to reiterate their support for the UNA reform agenda and our commitment to work with you to ensure that these reforms deliver the best possible outcomes.
In this regard, we approach the end of the 80th session of the General Assembly.
PIF members would be grateful for an update on the process for the forthcoming reports under Workstream three, including how decisions will progress through the General Assembly.
Thank you.
I thank the distinguished representative of Solomon Islands.
I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Australia on behalf of Cats.
Thank you, President.
I have the honor to deliver this statement on behalf of Canada, New Zealand, and my own country, Australia.
Cans thanks to the briefers for their presentations.
Today, we'd like to make three points.
First, on work package 18, CAS welcomes the Secretary-General review of funding mechanisms and encourages the implementation of recommendations.
At a time of fiscal constraint, it is more important than ever that all UN entities demonstrate better value for money, enhance transparency, achieve tangible results on the ground, and operate as one UN.
Implementing the recommendations can reduce fragmentation and transaction costs, improve transparency and accountability, and promote system wide coherence.
We see particular value in recommendation seven, better demonstrating the distinct value of core funding and what it enables compared to other modalities to increase donor confidence and recommendation ten, strengthening country level funding compact dialogues to drive more progress against funding compact commitments.
This should include resident coordinators as managers of corporation frameworks being empowered to convene partners, direct resources towards agreed priorities, and strengthen accountability for system wide results.
Member states must also play their part.
This includes advancing meaningful funding reforms such as the proposals discussed in the operational activities for development segment through forthcoming intergovernmental processes, including the second committee and paying their assessed contributions in full and on time in accordance with our obligations under the charter.
Second, on Work Package 21, CAS welcomes the Secretary-General development of a management for results mechanism to strengthen how the UN's outcomes are measured and communicated.
This work builds on member states' requests of the Secretary-General in OP 19 of resolution 80 slash 251, mandate Creation, implementation and Review for an efficient and effective UN.
This work package can provide member states with a clearer picture of the UN's collective results and limitations and improve senior leadership's ability to steer the UN system collectively.
We welcome the progress already being made by the Secretariat in strengthening its reporting, as well as creating digital tools to improve visibility across the mandate life cycle by linking mandates, resources, results, and reports in a transparent and user friendly manner, as also requested in resolution 80 slash 251.
We encourage the Management for results mechanism to focus on a limited number of agreed system wide outcomes while avoiding additional reporting burdens and respecting the distinct mandates of UN entities.
Third, on Work Package 22 can support the Secretary-General efforts to build more coordinated, agile, and field orientated prevention, peace building, and peace support.
The new unified Peace Building and Peace Support Office will help provide more coordinated assistance to member states, supporting lasting peace, stronger institutions, and development.
We welcome the focus on making the UN's prevention and peace building capacities easier to identify, coordinate, and deploy.
However, as prevention is truly a system wide priority, we encourage the UN to think beyond the traditional peace and security architecture.
Many of the risks that drive instability are addressed through development, humanitarian governance, human rights, climate, and economic interventions.
In this regard, we support hosting regional peace and development advisors and regional commissions, integrating peace and development support in resident coordinator offices and aligning surge capacities.
This more integrated approach could leverage complementarity expertise to better deliver system wide outcomes on the ground.
We would welcome more information on how this will be funded.
Also welcome the emphasis on support to nationally owned prevention strategies and peace finance.
In our view, these provide a useful organizing framework for bringing together the UN's political development and financial tools around a common set of national priorities and for strengthening partnerships with international financial institutions and regional development banks.
In closing, CAS will be grateful for an update on the process for the forthcoming reports under Workstream three, including what decisions will be sought and how decisions will progress through the General Assembly.
Thank you very much.
I thank the distinguished representative of Australia.
I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of European Union.
Mr.
President, distinguished colleagues, I deliver the statement on behalf of the European Union and its member states.
The candidate countries North Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Albania, Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Georgia, as well as Andora align themselves with this statement.
We thank the briefers for the overview on the three work packages at hand.
The EU is encouraged by the steps taken by the Secretariat to build a principled, more effective, cost efficient, and responsive United Nations.
First, on Work Package 21, system wide results management, the EU fully supports efforts to harmonize how impact is measured and communicated across the UN system.
A consolidated and system wide results management framework is central to fostering a culture of continuous improvement and to enhance strategic coordination and coherence.
Design of this new framework should be as concrete as possible.
This is crucial to strengthening trust among member states and donors who must see UN funds being used efficiently, transparently, and effectively.
We reiterate, as we have in the ad hoc working group of Work Stream two, that member states cannot review mandates and their implementation effectively without access to clear and evidence based data from the Secretariat.
We suggest that the Secretariat considers best practices from other international organizations which have recently successfully adopted new methodologies to assess their work.
The EU appreciates the idea to introduce performance dialogues and would like to hear more on their budgetary implications.
On Work package 18, funding mechanisms, we must shift the balance towards more predictable, flexible, and quality funding that allows the UN development system to act as one, not a collection of competing agencies.
The funding compact was a step in the right direction, yet its implementation remains uneven.
While ensuring that agencies funds and programs can deliver on their mandates, resident coordinators must have the authority and resources to lead integrated development plans, contributing to an efficient and effective UN at the country level focused on delivering on the SDGs.
We are deeply concerned by the organization's ongoing liquidity constraints which carry serious operational implications, including for the UN development system.
We encourage the strengthening of the joint SDG fund as the principal UN financing instrument for catalytic SDG action.
As the largest donor to the UNDS, the EU and its member states call on all UN member states to pay the obligatory financial contributions in full and on time.
Finally, on Work package 22, prevention, peace building and peace support, welcome the progress identified by PBPSO and acknowledge the office's added value in supporting UN mission transitions, institution building for sustaining peace, supporting national prevention and peace building strategies and peace finance.
We call on PBPSO to continue coordinating the mapping of secretarial capacities.
In this regard, we underline the essential role of peace and development advisors in providing cross pillar prevention and peace building support at country and regional level and stress the need for their predictable and sustainable resourcing.
Our key focus now is the implementation of the PBR.
On one critical lesson from the review is the urgent need to communicate more effectively about the positive impact of peace building.
To support implementation, we have launched a year long series of EU supported events that will produce cross regionally anchored policy recommendations on UN peace building and conflict prevention by early next year.
Coles and colleagues.
As we near the end of the GAs 80th session in the mandate of the Secretary-General, we must continue to push for progress and ensure continuity and coordination across UN 80 tracks.
On peace and security, the EU looks forward to the comprehensive review of the future of UN peace operations.
On development, the Ecosg resolution mentioned earlier on operational activities paves the way for reform that brings about a more coordinated UN that acts as one.
The humanitarian field, the first efforts to consolidate shared services have shown that resources can be optimized to enhance the UN's on the ground delivery.
In the coming months, let us not lose sight of who this reform is for and of our ultimate end goal, a more agile and accountable UN that delivers across all three pillars and makes the world safer and more prosperous for all.
Thank you very much.
I thank the distinguished representative of the European Union.
I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Zimbabwe speaking on his national capacity.
Thank you, Mr.
President.
Zimbabwe, thanks you for your commitment to bringing transparency in the implementation of the UN eight initiative.
We also wish to thank the briefers for the updates.
As the reform process continues, we underscore the need for clarity, accountability, and member state leadership across the various work plans.
On Work Package 22, we take note of efforts to strengthen coherence through the establishment of a unified peace building and peace support office, as well as a single center of excellence on women, peace and security.
With regards to the integration of peace and security advisory support to regional commissions and resident coordinator offices, we reaffirm the process the importance of deploying skills on demand and in support of regional initiatives and in line with national priorities.
On Work package 18, the UN is able to respond quicker and with agility when funding is not constrained by burdensome requirements.
Core flexible funding remains the most viable option, particularly to support development initiatives.
Noting the constrained funding environment and the existing funding mix, we welcome efforts aimed at reviewing this mix to optimize mandate delivery.
We also welcome the recommendations to strategic position pooled funding and to strengthen the joint SDG fund as the principal UN funding instrument for accelerated SDG action.
On WL Package 21, we recognize the creating a system wide management system that links the use of resources with results.
In that regard, we take note of measures to establish the management for results mechanism.
At the same time, Zimbwe underlines that results based management must reinforce accountability to member states and not create new reporting burdens.
We're also keen to understand how results based management will be linked to resource allocation in a way that is fair, transparent, and supportive of countries with structural vulnerabilities.
In conclusion, we look forward to updates on the ongoing action plans and reaffirm my delegation's commitment to constructive participation in the relevant processes.
Thank you.
I thank the distinguished representative of Zimbabwe.
I now give the floor to distinguished representative of Namibia.
Thank you, Mr.
President.
Your Excellencies, Namibia welcomes the continued briefings to member states on the UN 80 initiative aimed at making the UN more fragile, agile, and effective in line with the PACT for the future.
With regard to the work package on funding mechanisms, Namibia notes the strained environment the UN system is operating in and encourages the UN Secretariat to have more engagements with member states, in particular in regional groupings and even on one on one basis with individual member states to provide updates on core budgetary issues with a view to addressing any questions and concerns member states may have.
Such regular engagements could go a long way in ensuring ownership and greater partnership to address the organization's financial challenges.
The proposed repositioning of the SDG fund has to take into consideration any negative impact the shift may have on the actual delivery or impact on the ground, where the relevant resources are needed because of the special attention that is paid to the areas of need by the relevant departments or units.
Bring the fund under one umbrella may diminish outcome and impact on the ground.
System wide results, management can only be encouraged to ensure accountability, fairness, integrity, and transparency.
The proposed timelines to streamline the system seemed realistic with envisaged launch of the process for annual system wide results, dialog and communication planned for the last quarter of 2027.
Finally, Mr.
President, the prevention, peace building, and peace support work package is critical to provide the necessary coordination for peace support, including to support the regional mechanisms and UN country teams to strengthen technical support and capacity building to individual member states at their request.
Peace must be sustained in order to ensure sustainable development.
In conclusion, Namibia aligns itself with the statements delivered on behalf of the group to which it belongs.
I thank you, Mr.
Chair.
I thank the distinguished representative of Namibia.
I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Japan.
Thank you, Mr.
President.
At the outset, I'd like to express my appreciation for informative briefing by the distinguished briefers today.
With less than six months remaining this year, the content proved valuable in assessing the progress of UNAD and reviewing the outstanding tasks.
On prevention, peace building, and peace support, we wish to highlight the challenges facing UN mission during drawdown and transition period, including financial and security gaps.
We expect the new Peace Building and peace Support Office, which has integrated the SSR, DDR and Justice and Correction sections to effectively address these challenges by working closely with respect to respective directorates.
We also hope that this reform will enhance partnership with other UN entities and other actors such as civil society and IFIs for achieving nationally owned sustainable peace.
With regard to funding mechanism, Japan believed that a balanced funding mix should underpin the UN system's appropriate allocation of funds while maximizing the amount of contribution and acknowledge its effort to optimize the funding architecture.
From a member state perspective, donor visibility, transparency, accountability, and efficiency remain essential.
Any efforts to optimize the funding architecture should take into account differences in national budgetary systems and policy objectives.
Such consideration is important for the UN system to secure resources in the current challenging fiscal environment.
In this regard, we would appreciate further details on the measures expected to be implemented.
In the second half of 2026, including interim pooled funding guidance and initial work on embarking quality and reserves standards.
In addition, Japan encourages the UN system to provide practical, comparable and accessible information that enables member states to better assess results and understand the value of balanced funding mix.
Finally, we look forward to receiving the concrete proposal on system wide result management so as to discuss the direction forward which enables the US to act more effectively and synergistically across the entire system.
Thank you.
I thank the distinguished representative of Japan.
I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Cuba.
Thank you very much, Mr.
President.
My delegation welcomes the convening of this briefing and the presentations that have been provided.
We align ourselves with the statement provided by the G 77 and China, and we would like to make the following comments in our national capacity.
Regarding work package 22 on prevention, peace building and peace support, Cuba believes it is essential that the reforms preserve the comprehensive focus of the organization and to avoid a securtized approach to development challenges.
Conflict prevention requires addressing their root causes, including poverty, inequalities, underdevelopment, and the unjust international order at present.
Therefore, any institutional reconfiguration should be based on effective coordination between the peace and security and development pillars without diluting mandates or the competencies of intergovernmental bodies.
Moreover, we feel that building national capacities should remain at the center of peace coordination efforts.
The United Nations should support and not replace the priorities that have been established by states themselves.
Secondly, relating to work package 18 on funding mechanisms, Cuba reaffirms that the liquidity crisis facing the organization cannot solely be addressed through cost reduction measures.
States obligations are binding under the UN charter and they must be fully and timely manner complied with.
Financial restrictions cannot affect disproportionately development related activities, faced with mergers or eliminations or other affecting functions, the full implementation of mandates should be preserved, particularly in developing countries.
Lastly, on work package 21 on system wide results management, Cuba believes it is important to move towards greater coherence and coordination throughout the United Nations.
However, results based management should not become a quantitative exercise, nor should it be used to automatically justify the cuts to programs or structures.
Results should take into account the realities and needs of developing countries and be based on intergovernmentally agreed indicators.
Moreover, it is important to avoid the duplication of evaluation and reporting mechanisms that would increase the bureaucratic burden on states and entities of the United Nations.
Efficiency should be in the service of the purposes of the charter and not become an end in itself.
Cuba will continue to constructively participate in this process in pursuit of consensus based decisions.
Thank you.
I thank the distinguished representative of Cuba.
I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Angola.
Thank you Chair.
We thank the BIFS for their update on UN Aid initiative.
Angola supports reforms aimed at making the United Nations more coherent, agile, accountable, and capable of delivering measurable results.
At the same time, reform must strengthen mandate implementation and field delivery, rather than focus primarily institutional downsizing and short term cost reduction.
Regarding all package 18, Angola supports efforts to improve predictability, flexibility, and effectiveness of United Nations funding.
Core and pooled funding should enable entities to plan strategically, respond rapidly, and support national defined priorities.
Any rationalization of funding mechanism should reduce fragmentation, harmonize administrative requirements, and strengthen transparency while preserving member state oversight.
Voluntary contribution should complement, not replace assessed contribution.
The revised funding compact should therefore establish measurable commitments for both United Nations entities and contributors, including increased multi year funding, reduced earmarking, and clear reporting on results.
Particularly attention should be given to the equitable allocation of resources to Africa, least developed countries, conflict affected states, and countries facing structural vulnerabilities.
On Work package 22, Angola supports the objective of strengthening prevention, peace building, and peace support.
Structural changes should be assessed by their ability to improve early warning, mediation, political engagement, and feel level delivery.
Any consolidation within the peace and security pillar must preserve dedicated expertise, institutional accountability, and the distinctive mandates established by member states.
Changes affecting regional political offices should be preceded by meaningful consultation with concerned states and regional organizations.
With regard to Central African Great Lake Region, it's essential to maintain sustained senior level political engagement, regional expertise, and strong cooperation with the United Nations, with the African Union, International Conference on Great Lake Region, and Sec.
Angola also supports strengthening peace and development advisors and rapidly deployable capacities for mediation, rule of law, security sector reform, and disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration.
Finally, work package 18 and 22 must be mutually reinforcing.
Prevention cannot be prioritized institutionally while remaining underfunded operationally.
Efficiency gain should therefore be transparently identified and rather active towards field based prevention mediation and.
I thank the distinguished representative of Angola.
I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Germany.
Thank you, Mr.
President.
Germany aligns itself with the EU statement.
At the outset, we appreciate the progress that had been made in all packages, and we will continue to support the UN to deliver stronger and better on the mandates.
A few points on Workstream 22.
First, peace building architecture review and UN Ay must go hand in hand and effective coordination along the humanitarian development piece nexus remains key for us.
Second, peace building and prevention need to be integrated throughout the entire mission life cycle.
This requires strong collaboration between peace operations, RC offices, UN agencies, and funds and programs.
It also calls for flexible pass through funding arrangements, particularly during mission transitions.
And and development advisors must play a critical role in this regard, and we do hope that they will increase in number.
Third, closer integration between DPPA and DPO is needed.
This includes pool capacities, more coherent administrative structures, and better aligned voluntary funding mechanisms.
As the largest donor to the PBF, Germany remains committed to strengthen both Peace finance and Peace impact.
UN AD offers a unique opportunity not only to improve efficiency, but also to foster innovation and strengthen partnerships for sustaining peace.
Mr.
President, finally, a few remarks on Workstream 18.
In the end, we believe it is on us, the member states to ensure that the United Nations is adequately funded.
But we can collectively increase the attractiveness of the UN system, for instance, through more robust accountability and improved contributor visibility, and we must work collectively on our funding compact commitments.
Three points in this regard.
First, we need improved coordinated coordination, joint planning, and resourcing at country level.
A more effective UNDS requires better system by streamlining and programming and planning with the cooperation framework at its very core.
Second, concise and transparent results reporting.
Transparency is key, we believe, for both core and pool funding mechanism.
This requires high quality data driven analytics, and third and finally, shared strategic engagement.
Clear steering mechanisms are critical to increase the attractiveness of pooled funds.
Strategic donor engagement requires the UN donors and host countries to work together and to keep stakeholders engaged throughout the life cycle of programming.
Thank you.
I thank the distinguished representative of Germany.
I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of El Salvador.
Thank you, Mr.
President.
My delegation aligns with the statement delivered by Uruguay on behalf of the G 77 and China.
And we would like to thank the representatives of the Secretariat present here this morning for the information they have provided.
We would like to briefly make the following comments and ask the following questions.
On work packages 18 and 21, we feel that efforts to create platforms that link mandates, resources, activities, and results among the various different entities should not require the creation of new instruments, but they should require the use and consolidation of results of financing and management frameworks that already exist.
In that regard and given the various different recommendations made for work package 18, we would like to ask How do the different recommendations interact with the various different business models that are being implemented by some funds and programs such as, for example, the UNDP or UNICEF, particularly, when it comes to the impact on financing and funding.
Finally, on work package 22, we feel that prevention and peace building is one of the most relevant areas of the UNAT initiative, particularly in light of the results of the review of the peace building architecture and the cross cutting impact of this agenda throughout the system.
El Salvador supports a greater focus on prevention and would be grateful to learn about how you intend to strengthen efforts on the ground in particularly at the national level, and how will this work with the regional adjustment? We would also welcome more information about the results expected in the capacity mapping exercise of DPPA ODA, and UN OCT.
Mr.
President.
We are now in the final straight of the 80th session of the General Assembly and my delegation urges the Secretariat to provide clarity not only when it comes to the time frame for the publication of inputs and reports that have already been finalized with the membership and the next steps of report published in April, but also on the timeline to be followed for those work packages that require intergovernmental consultations and a potential decision by the membership, particularly when it comes to mergers, the dissolution of entities, and so on.
As you know, the months of August and September each year are unusual for many delegations because you have the summer break and also the beginning of the preparations for high level week.
These are factors that can hamper the necessary participation and decision making.
Thank you very much.
I thank the distinguished representative of El Salvador.
I now give the floor to the Distinguished representative of Croatia.
Thank you, Mr.
President.
Thank you for organizing this monthly briefing and also thank you to all the briefers.
Croatia aligns itself with the statement delivered by the European Union, and I would like to underline a few points in my national capacity, focusing on the work package 22 on prevention, peace building, and peace support.
Croatia's own experience in peace building and sustaining peace has shaped its support for the Peace Building Commission and for supporting mainstreaming and advocating for prevention across the UN system.
We therefore welcome efforts to strengthen support across the peace continuum and to consolidate strategic and technical expertise on prevention, peace building, and peace support within a reinforced PBP PSO.
This integrated approach helps ensure that security gains are matched by institution building and development.
We also encourage deeper cooperation across the UN system and with the international and regional partners as experience shows that securitization of peace does not work.
Prevention and peace building cannot be pursued in isolation.
They require a whole of government and whole of society engagement, supported where needed by global actors such as the PBC and by resident coordinators and UN country teams at national level.
Better managing transitions from peacekeeping and strengthening the humanitarian development peace nexus will significantly accelerate peace building and sustaining peace efforts.
National prevention strategies that are being defined by many countries require integrated support and holistic approach and the international and regional peace building and sustaining peace architecture needs to be ready to support the national endeavors.
We look forward to updates on how this work package will complement the broader UNAD reform, including the regional reset and Work package eight on expertise on demand.
Thank you.
I thank distinguished representative of Croatia.
I now give the floor to the Distinguished representative of Armenia.
Mr.
President, we thank you for convening this important meeting.
We also express our appreciation to the briefers for their comprehensive updates on the implementation of the UN 80 initiative.
We take note of the progress made in advancing the United Nations prevention, peace building, and peace support capacities in line with the vision set out in Secretary-General Shifting paradigms report.
We welcome the progress achieved in operationalizing the Peace Building and Peace Support Office as a central platform for prevention, peace building, and peace support.
By bringing together expertise on peace building, the rule of law, disarmament, justice, and mission transitions, the office has the potential to enhance the coherence, coordination, and delivery of strategic, technical, and operational support to member states.
At the same time, we recognize that the integration of previously separate functions across the United Nations system presents significant institutional challenges.
We therefore look forward to the continued implementation of this reform and hope that it will strengthen the organization's ability to support countries in sustaining peace while ensuring complementarity with and full respect for the mandates of the principal organs entrusted with the maintenance of international peace and security.
We also take note of the findings of the review of funding mechanisms and the recommendations aimed at better aligning financial incentives and funding arrangements with the collective objectives established by member states.
In this regard, we see value in strengthening country level funding compact dialogues, building on existing cooperation frameworks and humanitarian coordination mechanisms, while ensuring that the reforms remain responsive to national priorities and are guided by the principles of national ownership and leadership.
We further recognize the importance of strengthening the linkages between mandates, resources, and results across the United Nations system.
In this context, we welcome the proposal to establish structured, adaptable, and leadership level dialogue between the United Nations system principles and member states.
Such dialogue should enhance collective understanding of priorities, results, challenges, and institutional constraints, strengthen accountability, and support more informed intergovernmental decision making.
I thank you.
I thank the distinguished representative of Armenia.
I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Russian Federation.
Thank you, Mr.
President.
We thank the representatives of the Secretariat for organizing the briefing regarding work package 22.
We would like to note the ambitious tasks of the Reformed Peace Building and Peace Support Office, the PPPSO inherited from the Office of Rule of Law and Security Institutions Orsi.
We hope that this will not impact the quality and volume of the work done in such important areas as security sector reform and programs for disarmament, demobilization and reintegration.
We I hope to see the office continue to provide uninterrupted support to the Peace Building Commission, which you continue to focus on providing assistance to countries that have experienced conflict on Work package 18 funding mechanisms.
Regarding recommendation three, we note that the proposal to transform the joint SDG fund into a Secretary-General fund for development does not address its main shortcoming, that is to say, a lack of accountability to the member states at large.
We believe it is unacceptable that program priorities and the allocation of resources is currently determined by the funds internal organs, including the strategic advisory group that is selected by the Secretariat itself.
We believe it is necessary to guarantee equal access for all program countries to the funds resources to come up with transparent criteria for resource allocation and to ensure the due oversight of their use.
Regarding quality funding and cost recovery rates in recommendations one to two and four to six, we should not assume that pooled funding, a priori is more effective and less costly to administer.
Joint programs create a significant burden related to their development, interagency coordination, governance, monitoring and reporting.
Any differentiated cost recovery methodology should take this into account in full.
We believe it is important that the development of the Management results mechanism in Work package 21 should strictly adhere to the intergovernmental nature of the World Organization's governance and should respect mandates that are determined exclusively by member states.
Firstly, we would like to clarify why the decision was made to create a new format and not to improve the existing internal coordination mechanisms.
In our view, the main problem isn't the lack of additional results based management mechanisms, but rather the shortcomings in internal coordination that hinder effective mandate implementation.
Second, we're interested in how the structured space mentioned in the document could I thank the distinguished representative of Russian Federation, and I'll give the floor to the distinguished representative of Romania.
Thank you, USG Ryder, for the updates and for the outlook on the UN AT initiative.
As usual, we appreciate the connection between the three workstreams of the initiative.
Also, thank the briefers for their valuable presentations.
Allow me to reflect on the three packages.
On work package 22, conflict prevention, mediation, and peace building are a core component of the UN work.
And impact across the world.
Pooling expertise and allowing easier access to it is key for efficient results oriented peace building activity.
We look forward to receiving the broader proposal for ensuring that we connect the dots in the peace building architecture to ensure adequate degree of support at national, regional and global level by the UN system.
On work package 21, we welcome the Management for results mechanism as a concrete measure developed by the SG to address the longstanding gaps between the three important stages of mandate life cycle.
Mandate creation and adoption, their implementation, and the review.
It's an important step forward for a renewed management performance paradigm in the UN system.
We also welcome the clear roadmap set out for enabling the deployment of the MFR and the regular stock taking of member states throughout the process.
On work package 18, the funding mix that leads to a recalibrated funding architecture is intrinsically linked to improved mechanisms for oversight and accountability.
In order to foster cash flow back into the system, stakeholders, be it member states or the private sectors need to regain confidence that their investment provide dividends.
A management performance system that includes key performance indicators, clear benchmarks, and sound accountability mechanism is central to these efforts.
As mentioned by other colleagues, we also see the clear connection between the packages and between this package and other Workstream three packages, respectively the system wide results management discussed earlier.
Finally, I would like to echo the EU call for a stock taking exercise of the UNA initiative in preparation for the upcoming high level week.
We have important results that have been achieved so far with several others on the way, and we need to record that and redouble our efforts in the upcoming few weeks to provide our leaders with the confidence that meaningful reform is possible and that we can achieve it together.
I thank you.
I thank the distinguished representative of Romania.
I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Maldives.
Thank you, President.
We thank the briefers for their presentations.
Our comments today on work packages 21 and 18.
On work package 21, the proposed management for results mechanism, light touch approach and commitment to avoid new administrative layers are welcome.
We would appreciate clarification on three points.
First, how will the proposed core set of system wide results be determined and what stage and through which forum will member states be consulted or invited to consider them.
Second, how will the framework preserve the distinct mandates and governance arrangements of funds, programs, and specialized agencies while avoiding duplication with existing reporting? Third, what measures will ensure that the results framework reflects both quantitative and qualitative impact, particularly in SIDs where scale alone may not adequately demonstrate results.
On Work package 18, we welcome the recognition that core pooled and earmark funding serve distinct functions and that stronger accountability should come through better integration rather than additional reporting.
Nevertheless, we have three questions.
Would the proposed repositioning of the joint SDG fund including any changes to its mandate, governance, and oversight arrangements be undertaken within the Secretary-General existing authority, or would any elements require consideration and approval by member states? How would differentiated cost recovery and stricter discipline in accepting earmark contributions ensure that smaller contributions and programs in CIDs are not penalized simply for their limited scale? And how would country level funding compact dialogues preserve national ownership and direct engagement with entities rather than creating an additional gatekeeping layer.
Finally, what sequencing is envisaged between work packages 18 and 2021? System wide results standards may influence funding decisions.
A consolidated implementation map showcasing the sequencing of the interconnected actions and recommendations across the work packages would be useful.
I thank you.
I thank the distinguished representative of Maldives.
I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Malaysia.
Thank you, Mr.
President Malasia.
Thanks you for convening this briefing and appreciates the overview provided by USG Rr and the Secretariat updates on W packages 18, 21, and 2022.
Malisia aligns itself with the statement delivered by Uruguay on behalf of the Group 2077 in China and wishes to provide the following comments in our national capacity.
On Work package 18, Malaysia recognizes the difficult financial environment confronting the United Nations and appreciates efforts to improve the coherence and sustainability of the organization's funding architecture.
We support efforts to optimize the use of existing resources and strengthen the effectiveness of funding mechanisms in support of mandate delivery.
As implementation progresses, Malaysia looks forward to continued engagement between member states and the Secretariat to better understand how these proposals will be operationalized and how they will contribute to a more efficient and responsive United Nations.
On Work Package 21, Malaysia supports the efforts to strengthen the linkage between mandates, resources, and results.
This can contribute to more informed decision making and improve the effectiveness of mandate implementation across the United Nations system.
We are encouraged to see that the Secretariat has built the Management for results mechanism on clear guiding principles, namely building on existing frameworks, avoiding duplication and additional reporting burdens, and respecting the governance arrangements of individual entities.
Maliia asks that these principles stay central as the mechanism develops.
We would also welcome greater clarity on the respective roles of the Secretariat and member states in developing this mechanism.
To ensure that it remains firmly grounded in the guidance and oversight of member states.
On Work Package 22, Malaysia supports efforts to improve coherence in prevention, peace building, and peace support across the United Nations system.
We appreciate the Secretariat's focus on strengthening system wide coordination and making expertise more readily available to support prevention and nationally led peace building efforts while improving the coherence across the UN system.
As these proposals are taken forward, Malaysia looks forward to further discussions on how the new arrangements will complement existing mechanisms and support more effective mandate implementation.
We also underscore the importance of maintaining a strong and responsive UN presence at the country level, particularly in developing countries.
Finally, as implementation progresses across these work packages, Malaysia would welcome greater clarity on the overall sequencing of implementation, the respective roles of the Secretariat and member states, and which elements will ultimately require intergovernmental consideration and approval.
Malaysia reaffirms its commitment to continue engaging constructively as these work packages evolve, and thanks to the Secretariat for keeping member states closely informed throughout this process.
I thank you.
I thank the distinguished representative of Malaysia.
I now give the floor to the Distinguished representative of Rwanda.
Thank you very much, Mr.
President.
I think I'm going to align with the speakers who spoke before.
Maybe two questions on Workstream 22.
Thanks very much, ASG on what you said in terms of core creation.
I think that's very important.
The aims you presented aim to achieve the objective, which is extremely, very important.
But in the document we have, you indicated that peace finance is a priority.
Do you mean here assess contribution? If you can clarify on that.
And on W package 18, thanks very much for the explanation.
I think the idea here is to modernize the way we fund the organization.
But in a situation today where the UN is under stress in terms of finance, how will we be in a position to be selective when it comes to the earmarked, you know, financing as explained.
For us as developing countries that have country programs, would that affect on how these programs are implemented on the ground.
Then lastly, if I may, Mr.
President, I hope my Chinese colleague is in the room, who usually gives analogies using flowers and fruits in terms of all these packages and lots of information we're getting to probably better simplify understanding of this lot of information that we are getting.
We appreciate that you're keeping us in the loop.
We appreciate you giving us this information.
We appreciate and we're keeping our eyes on the target, on the objective of how we can deliver better.
On this Biagiide, we liked what you put the link between the mandate, the resources, and the impact.
This is extremely very important and the way it's linked to all the three packages.
We really appreciate on that and you can count on our board going forward.
Thank you.
Thank you Distinguished Representative of Rwanda.
I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Senegal.
Mr.
Chairman, Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, Senecal aligns itself with the statement by Uruguay on behalf of the G 77 of China and we'd like to add the following comments in our national capacity on Work package 18, the increasing preponderance of voluntary and earmarked funding, together with the pressure on core funding is a source of major concern.
My delegation welcomes the recommendations to build a more balanced funding mix.
We should better coordinate voluntary and earmarked funding so that they strengthen the system's common priorities rather than fueling fragmentation.
We need further predictability, consistency, and impact.
In this regard, pooled financing should play a more central role.
The proposals relating to the positioning of the SDG joint fund as the main instrument of the Secretary-General for catalytic action for the SDGs calls for our full attention.
At the same time, it's essential to combat the undesirable effects of voluntary and earmarked financing, particularly negative conditioning.
This involves the adoption of clear principles governing the acceptance of funding and strengthening guarantees to prevent distortions imposed by donors, which sideline priorities and the perceptions of recipient countries.
In this approach that addresses the needs of beneficiary countries, Senegal attaches great importance to ensuring that the annual AI Leg dialogue on the financing compact and the enhanced country level dialogues should further lean on existing mechanisms, particularly the cooperation frameworks rather than establishing new administrative strata.
At the same time, more balanced, predictable financing that is more in line with national priorities is not a luxury.
It is a very precondition for the credibility of our collective work.
On Work Package 21, Senegal fully supports the results based mechanism in line with resolution A res 8251 of the General Assembly, which aims to establish a clearer link between mandates resources and system wide results.
A consolidated vision of contributions and collective results would strengthen the strategic steering capacity of the Secretary-General and Secretariat chiefs while providing member states with a more unified view of how mandates are being implemented.
My delegation welcomes the guidelines that announced which are light adaptable, the lack of a new reporting level.
These principles are essential to avoid adding to the administrative charges already weighing on system entities while preserving equality dialogue between the UN and member states.
Finally, micropnes being cut off.
I thank the distinguished representative of Senegal.
I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Indonesia.
Thank you, Mr.
President.
We thank all briefers for the presentation and updates of the work packages.
We take note of the progress and we wish to use this opportunity to seek clarification on some points.
On work packages 18, we thank the Secretariat for the recommendations provided.
We would appreciate further information on first more details of recommendations of its current implementation status.
Challenges that its recommendation seeks to address, as well as the expected outcomes once the recommendations are fully implemented.
Also, how the proposed funding reforms will ensure that resources remain aligned with priorities and needs of program countries, particularly those reflected in national development plans and the UN sustainable development cooperation frameworks.
We wish to emphasize the importance of optimum program expense ratio to ensure that funds generate outcomes rather than being consumed by administrative overhead.
On work packages 21, we welcome the update on the management for results mechanism.
Further, we request additional clarification on key points.
First, how will parameters of standards to be used to assess system we results account for different mandates, operating contexts and time horizons of unit entities while ensuring that the assessment remains focused on outcomes and impacts.
We also wish to request elaboration on how management for results approach connects with other proposals such as regional reset and expertise on demand, as well as the UNCT reconfiguration.
In this regard, Indonesia emphasizes that the mechanism should remain grounded in country level realities and should draw on nationally determined indicators, national statistical systems, and cooperation framework outcomes.
On work packages 22, we welcome that the new Peace Building and Peace Support Office aim at ensuring that support to member states is more integrated across the peace continuum from prevention through transition and peace building.
Further, we wish to seek clarification, first on elaboration on how the search capacity of the PBPSO will be structured in practice to complement rather than duplicate existing regional frameworks.
And second, how will the mapping of search capacities be made accessible to member state, specifically the process for identifying the appropriate expertise and facilitating timely deployment when a country requested.
Thank you.
I thank the distinguished representative of Indonesia.
I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Ethiopia.
Thank you, Mr.
President, Ethiopia aligns itself with the statement delivered by Ragai on behalf of the Group of 77 and China.
We thank Under Secretary-General Gay Ryder, the Assistant Secretary-General, and the special adviser for their respective briefings.
Our intervention focuses on work package 18, which seeks to establish a more coherent, sustainable, and effective funding architecture to strengthen mandate delivery in an increasingly constrained financial environment.
My delegation reiterates its support for a United Nations that is adequately, predictably and sustainably financed to effectively implement the mandates entrusted to it by member states.
In this regard, we see merit in all proposals presented under Work package 18.
Mr.
President, a significant portion of the United Nations activities continue to rely on highly earmarked voluntary resources.
While these contributions remain important, they are often supply driven and may not always align with the priorities and mandates collectively agreed upon by member states.
Demand driven voluntary resources that directly support mandates approved by the relevant intergovernmental bodies are more effective and reflect the collective decision of member states.
In this context, we strongly support recommendation five, which calls for greater discipline in the acceptance of earmarket funding.
Such measures are the right steps toward enhancing strategic allocation of resources and clearly linking resources with mandates and results at system level.
In conclusion, my delegation reiterates its support for the ongoing reform efforts, and we remain committed for constructive engagement.
I thank you.
I thank the distinguished representative of Ethiopia.
I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom.
Thank you, President, and thank you to the briefers for their updates.
As you know, the United Kingdom remains firmly supportive of the UN AT initiative, and we welcome the continued collective efforts to meaningful reform and strengthening impact on the ground.
Through the various changes over the coming months, it will be important that we continue that momentum and also this transparency.
In that context, it's been very helpful to hear the updates today and would like to share a few observations.
Firstly, on prevention, peace building, and peace support.
Thank you for the update and we welcome the ambition to reduce fragmentation.
The proposals align closely with our PBA priorities on system wide integration and country level impact.
Ultimately, of course, success will depend on whether the resident coordinators and UN country teams feel this is a clearer practical support offer and not simply a headquarters mapping exercise.
In that spirit, it would be very helpful to have more clarity on how the Peace Building and Peace Support Office will translate the mapping of surge capacities into an accessible offer on the ground and what role the resident coordinators will play in requesting sequencing and coordinating support.
Secondly, on system wide results management, we welcome the focus on improving how the UN measures, manages, and reports collective results.
We support prioritizing outcomes and impact, not just activities and believe a clear understanding of system wide performance, achievements, and challenges are key to this approach.
We would welcome further clarity on how the proposed Management for results mechanism will influence senior leadership decisions and on the purpose of the planned member state dialogues.
Will they provide feedback, shape priorities, or drive change? Would also welcome more detail on implementation costs and on any further plans to harmonize reporting frameworks and results measurement across the system.
Finally, on funding mechanisms, welcome the strong progress and we support efforts to optimize the funding mix, ensuring each modality plays its most effective role.
We particularly agree with recommendation five and the need for stronger discipline from agencies in accepting earmarked funding, focusing on accepting funds where they are best placed to deliver.
Donors also have a role to play, and we should assess approaches to earmarking as work on funding modalities continues.
We welcome efforts to better demonstrate the value of core funding and particularly commend UNICEF's work in this area.
We also support strengthened country level funding dialogues led by the resident coordinator.
Finally, President, we are committed to working together to achieve a more efficient, effective, and impactful UN.
Thank you very much.
I thank the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom.
I now give the floor to the Distinguished representative of Pakistan.
Thank you, President.
Pakistan appreciates the briefings and the updates.
To go straight to the points on Workstream three, broadly, we believe greater transparency and clarity is needed on next steps.
In our view, proposals under this workstream sit at vastly different levels of maturity, and that requires a calibrated approach.
As member states deliberate, we expect timely, transparent, and detailed information sharing from the Secretariat so that delegations can judge which proposals have matured sufficiently for action and which have not.
It is for member states to decide on the appropriate time to act on any of these proposals and any such decision should reflect consensus through a process that remains inclusive of all perspectives, and we welcome the clarifications provided by USG Rider in this regard.
On Work package 22 Pakistan aligns with the observations made by the G 77 and China on actions 49, 55, and 58.
On Work package 18, we would like to ask how the proposed annual high level funding compact review would differ from and avoid duplicating the dialogues already held through Eso Operational Activities segment.
We have reservations regarding the proposed common portfolio framework spanning humanitarian development and peace building funds and would appreciate additional information on this proposal and its practical implications.
Also seek clarity on what substantive change is being proposed for the joint SDG fund beyond its re designation.
We do support recommendations four, five, six and seven in this work package on earmarked contributions and better demonstrating what core funding delivers.
On system wide results management, we are open to mechanism that gives member states a clearer unified picture of results across the system provided it remains light.
Avoids new reporting burdens and does not duplicate existing entity level accountability.
I thank you.
I thank the distinguished representative of Pakistan.
I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of France.
President.
Mr.
President, France aligns itself with the statement made by the European Union.
We'd like to add the following in our national capacity.
We'd like to thank you firstly, Mr.
Under Secretary-General and all of the briefers today for giving us a clear overview of UN 80.
President, with regard to program 18 and 21, France believes that these are closely interlinked and that a better harmonized measure of this could allow us to better guide our funding tomorrow.
Therefore, we support an implementation of a harmonized framework to strengthen the strategic guidance of our organization.
We also support having a performance dialogue between the UN Secretariat and member states that could be organized on this basis, for instance, when program budgets are presented for the following year.
Finally, effective communication on the impacts of our organization work on our populations is essential.
For France, the management framework proposed would more clearly show the benefits of the UN's work in an integrated way across all of its pillars.
And this new results framework could be applied either to a country or a region, could produce a summary of the work in that area or that geographic area.
President, on voluntary funding mechanisms, we fully share the view of the Secretariat.
We believe that the work done under UNA is an opportunity to establish an understanding of a different earmarked, non earmarked, pooled funding, et cetera, so as to encourage the use of the most flexible funding possible.
Resident coordinators can play a role here.
We welcome here the implementation of the Horizon Palestine Fund that we will be contributing $5 million to.
This is a promising pilot project.
Finally, on peace building, we welcome the reform of the PBPSO which aims to strengthen technical expertise, the impact and the operational nature of the UN's activities to support the UN bodies, particularly in peace building and by administering the peace building fund.
France reaffirms its full support for the reforms undertaken by the Secretary-General, Mr.
President under Secretary-General, looking at structural savings on salaries, purchasing costs, review of peace building and peacekeeping, the review and a more flexible development system are all important milestones that we will fully support.
Thank you very much.
I thank the distinguished representative of France.
I now give the floor to distinguished representative of Slovenia, followed by Suriname and then Brazil.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Thank you, Mr.
President and the EU spoke on our behalf earlier, but I wanted to say to put a few specific questions on Package 22.
I thank the briefers.
I appreciate the briefing an update on the UNA as well as on implementation of PC for the future and the PBR resolutions because in both of them, prevention of conflicts featured quite prominently and we appreciate the the progress that was done so far.
Um, A Specher mentioned, and we agree with her that the conflict prevention, sustaining peace and peace building is the core of what the UN is doing or should be doing.
If nothing else, the chapter starts to save future generations from the scourge of war.
And we are not doing very well, are we with a number of conflicts and collapsing world order.
To no surprise, I think in the past year, discussions among the member states have been about returning to the origin, back to the basics, which is peace and security.
Including development and human rights as integral part of peace.
And that's why also all six candidates for the Secretary-General that we had the chance to meet and question, put this topic as the prime topic.
They were all talking about peace and security.
They were all talking about bringing the UN back into the room behind the table, boots on the ground or whatever language they used, but just to demonstrate that they are committed and this will be their focus.
Of course, they are different candidates, but I think they speak the same language on this one on prevention of conflicts, of peace building, of maintaining peace, on resilience for peace.
And whoever will be appointed in the end by the General Assembly, this will be the focus of the UN.
So yeah, to the question, and I know from facilitation of PBR that PBSO was very ambitious, So the question is whether the reconfiguration that was done in the merger is fit for the purpose of the needs of the UN in this field.
And can this structure support the ambitious Secretary-General in prevention of conflict in mediation, in building peace? And also here, what is the relationship between PBPSO and mediation support unit.
Thank you.
I thank the distinguished representative of Slovenia.
I now give the floor to Distinguished representative of Suruname followed by Brazil and Switzerland.
Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Suna aligns itself with a statement delivered by Uruguay on behalf of the Group of 77 and China.
Suna thanks Secretary-General, the Assistant Secretary-General, and the S advisor for the informative presentations on work packages 18 21 and 22.
Sunaam supports the objectives of the United Nations 80 Initiative and recognizes the importance of strengthening the United Nations so that it remains effective, responsive, and fit for purpose.
We appreciate the continued engagement of member states throughout this process.
With respect to work package 18 on funding mechanisms, UNAMA supports efforts to make core and pool funding more predictable, coherent, and effective.
For developing countries, particularly small states, predictable and flexible funding is essential to enable the United Nations development system to respond to national priorities rather than fragmented funding streams.
Reform should therefore strengthen multilateral financing while preserving equitable access to all program countries.
Regarding World Package 21 on system wide resource management, we welcome efforts to improve coherence and harmonize reporting across the United Nations system.
At the same time, any new framework should reduce, not increase the reporting burden on program countries and UN country teams.
Better management of results should ultimately translate into better delivery at the country level and greater accountability to member states.
On World Package 22 concerning prevention, peace building, and peace support, CRMA strongly supports the emphasis on prevention.
Investing in prevention, institution building and nationally owned solution is both more effective and more cost efficient than responding after crisis have escalated.
We also stress that peace building efforts should remain closely linked with sustainable development, climate resilience, and the implementation of the 2030 agenda, particularly the vulnerable and small developing states.
Finally, as discussion continues, Iran underscores that reforms should preserve the universal character of the Unit Nations be guided by the priorities of member states and ensure that efficiency gains do not come at the expense of mandates or support to developing countries.
We look forward to continuing our constructive engagement on the United Nations 80 Initiative.
I thank you.
I thank the Distinguished Representative of Suriname.
I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Brazil, followed by Switzerland and Mexico.
Thank you, Mr.
President.
My delegation associate itself with the statement by the 277 and I join others in thanking the briefers and especially Mr.
Ryder for continuously updating the General Assembly on the developments of the reform.
A lot has been said, I share much of what has been said, so I'll be brief.
I One common characteristic of packages 18 and 2021 is that we are hopefully making progress in doing as much as we can with the existing resources.
Hopefully, they will increase, but it's key to do better with what we have.
Even if we didn't have the situation we have now, we would have to do as well as we can with the existing resources.
A brief comment on work package 18.
As others, we do believe that recommendations eight and especially ten are especially important because they will help us not only use the resources, ensure that it is monitored, its use is monitored coherently and translate that into actual impact on the ground.
One question and one comment.
Yes writer mentioned working that is underway, and we know it is in the Secretariat regarding the mandate registry and gathering more information that will allow member states to actually enact the review.
What is the time frame for member states to get the information minimally needed to proceed with the review? As others, we will be also very interested in the upcoming report on Workstream three.
Thank you.
I thank the special representative of Brazil, the distinguished representative of Brazil.
I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Switzerland, followed by Mexico and Timor-Leste.
Monsieur President.
Mr.
President, we would like to thank the various briefers for telling us about the most recent developments in the UNHCAT initiative.
Allow me to address the following points.
Firstly, on prevention, peace building, and peace support work package 22.
Switzerland supports this more coherent, integrated approach focused on national needs for prevention and peace building.
The new structure should provide true added value, avoid duplication, and ensure effective support on the ground, while also helping to strengthen collaborative approaches with humanitarian workers and development and to preserve the central role of the resident coordinator.
Excuse me.
On work package 18 funding mechanism, Switzerland welcomes the efforts to optimize the implementation of mandates in the current funding structure while continuing to underscore the importance of increasing quality funding.
In this regard, we support measures aimed at making core funding and pooled funding more attractive through better results reporting and communication about the basic compacts such as recommendation seven and eight regarding the joint financing, we support recommendations one and two, which aim to support joint funds and their governance.
To ensure the coherent architecture of pooled funds.
We propose that lessons learned from the humanitarian wing be fully integrated.
We support recommendation nine, strengthening oversight and accountability in funding.
Thanks to an annual high level review of the funding compact.
We also believe that strengthening the role of governing executive boards will help contribute to these objectives.
We support measures that are aimed at ensuring that funding is strictly ER funding be correctly aligned in accordance with recommendations five and six.
Differentiated cost recovery based on the quality of funding is a key element in this regard.
Lastly, we take note of the proposal to reposition the joint SDG fund as an SG fund, which is recommendation three.
As a contributor, Switzerland welcomes efforts to provide additional impetus to the fund.
We would be grateful, however, to have clarifications about the expected impact of this repositioning, particularly when it comes to funding and future options.
Lastly, when it comes to system wide results management, work package 21, Switzerland welcomes the efforts made in the context of this work package to strengthen results based management at the system wide level.
We believe that improving the link between mandates Resources and results is essential to continue promoting an approach that is more results focused within the United Nations system.
Switzerland encourages efforts that are based on existing mechanisms and frameworks and avoids useless duplication.
The added value of this mechanism should lie in strengthening coherence, transparency, and a better understanding of system wide results.
Switzerland reaffirms its commitment to participating constructively in the UN AT reform process.
Thank you.
I thank the distinguished representative of Switzerland.
I'll give the floor to the distinguished representative of Mexico, followed by Tim Oles and Republic of Korea.
Thank you very much, Mr.
President.
We thank the briefers for their presentations.
My country attaches vital importance to this exercise.
With the growing budgetary pressures and as one of the top 20 contributors to the United Nations, it is essential for us that we correct the asymmetries that are affecting the organization and give it back the role that it needs to play in prevention, peace building and peacekeeping.
Therefore, it's necessary to make progress on various different fronts to achieve a more efficient financing architecture, more robust and harmonized accountability mechanisms, and greater consistency between mandates and structures on the ground.
The work packages 18 21 and 2022 analyze these dimensions in a complementary way in order to achieve institutional strengthening.
Faced with the increase in interstate armed conflicts, the legitimacy of the UN in the face of international public opinion will depend on its ability to prevent crises, to mediate with credibility, and to re establish the minimum conditions for peace.
Mexico takes note of the tangible progress made in Work Package 22, and we thank miss Seja for the information that she has provided regarding the new PBPSO begins in January.
We hope that this will continue to lead to political support and a greater impact and transparency effort for the membership and we would welcome regular updates about the progress of that reconfiguration.
We in particular value the identification of financial fragmentation, the differentiated donor requirements, and inconsistencies in cost recovery.
In that regard, it is important to make progress towards a balance that strengthens financial flexibility without undermining the ability of member states to focus their contributions in line with their priorities.
Would like to focus efforts also on three specific points.
Firstly, providing political support to the Secretary-General so that he can appoint special representatives and envoys with experience in mediation, political sensitivity, and the capacity to engage in dialogue.
Second, to ensure predictable financing for the regular budget for good offices, prevention and mediation and integrated planning.
From the Executive Office of the SG, DPPA and DPO and the country teams and the for us is to link early warning with early response.
We would also like to prioritize light and rapid deployment mechanisms to support cease fires and ensure humanitarian access when a traditional mission is not in place.
Mexico will always support a reform that allows for a continued effect on the ground and to win back the trust of populations in this organization and its member states.
Thank you very much.
Thank you the distinguished representative of Mexico.
I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Timor-Leste followed by Republic of Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Thank you, Mr.
President.
Excellencies, Tim, thanks, briefers for the valuable insights.
We align ourselves with the statement delivered by Uruguay on behalf of g77 and China.
Mr.
President, we welcome the proposal and funding mechanisms which liquidity constraints continue to affect the organization's ability to implement and mandates effectively for Tim OLs, sustainable and mandate based financing SSER.
We therefore support efforts to strengthen the clearence and predictability of the funding as a sector while ensuring responsiveness to the vase national context.
Tim OLs welcome directions outlined on systems wide result management.
A more integrated and transparent result framework can strengthen accountability, improve evidence based decision making, and demonstrate more clearly on how resources contribute to the implementations of mandate and the achievement of result.
This is particularly important for countries with limited administrative capacity.
Mr.
President, as a country that benefited from sustainable and peaceful support timber less, understand the prevention is not only more effective but also more cost effective than responding the crisis after they emerge.
We therefore support efforts to strengthen policy coherence and enhance the United Nations capacity to respond to nationally identify priorities through more Korean engagement across the peace, development, human rights, and humanitarian pillars as appropriate.
Mr.
President, taken together, these three work packages demonstrate that a stronger mandate delivery depends on coherent financing, effective result management, and sustained investment and prevention.
As these reforms advance, they should remain responsible to the needs and priorities of member states, particularly developing countries, including seeds and LLCs.
The remain committed to engaging constructively in the UN exit process and look forward to continuing this dialogue.
I thank you, Mr.
President.
I thank the distinguished representative Timor-Leste.
I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Republic of Korea, followed by the Islamic Republic of Iran and China.
Thank you, President, for convening this meeting.
I also thank all the Secretariat briefers for the information shared.
Allow me to add few more comments and questions on Work Package 21 and Work Package 18.
On Management for results MFR mechanism, we encourage efforts to strengthen and harmonize performance management frameworks across the UN system.
We understand that the work is underway to develop a function within the mandate registry that would allow member states to view the linkages between mandates, resources, activities, and results.
We would appreciate clarification as to whether this forms part of the broader effort to establish a system wide MFR mechanism.
It also has been indicated that the MFR mechanism would make use of existing reporting mechanisms and not create additional administrative burdens.
On that basis, how will the dialogue between the leadership of the UN system and member states be structured? Finally, under the current plan, the MFR framework is to be developed progressively by the end of 2027.
We request that the basic concept and implementation plan be developed at an early stage and submitted for consideration by member states so that the initiative can be implemented without delay.
With regard to funding mechanisms, we would like to better understanding the specific implications that the ten proposed recommendations may have for donor countries and request detailed clarification on the following questions.
First, could the Secretary clarify what systematically considering pulled funding means and what a common portfolio framework across humanitarian development and peace building fund is.
Second, if the role of the joint SDG fund is strengthened, how might this affect the range of choices available to donor countries, including providing earmarked contributions directly to entities? Third, how is the assessment of the quality of earmarked contributions expected to affect the modalities through which member states provide funding? Fourth, would the annual review of the funding compact and country level dialogues create any new consultation obligations for donor countries? Last but not least, given that the discussions are at an early stage, my delegation requests that sufficient consultations be held with member states on this work package.
In this regard, we would like to know how the Secretariat plans to consult with member states in progressing the suggested recommendations.
Republic of Korea reiterates its appreciation on the role of the Secretariat for supporting member states by providing expertise, evidence, and information, and also guiding necessary discussions.
We encourage you to continue to do so and we will remain committed to engaging constructively in strengthening this organization's capacity.
I thank you.
I thank the distinguished representative of the Republic of Korea.
I'll give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran, followed by China and Egypt.
Thank you, Mr.
President Bes Rahman Rahim.
Islamic Republic of Iran aligns itself with a statement delivered by Uruguay on behalf of Group of 77 in China.
My delegation thanks, USC G right there, AG Elizabeth Spar and special Advisor Jans Wandel for their briefings and for the information provided on work packages 18, 21, and 2022.
We appreciate continued efforts to engage member states throughout the UNAT process.
Take note of the UN AT initiatives objective to enhance the effectiveness and impact of the United Nations.
In this regard, reform efforts should build on existing intergovernmental processes and governance structures while ensuring meaningful, transparent and inclusive engagement with member states at every stage.
The Secretariat should continue to maintain an integral role throughout this process.
We also stress the importance of avoiding parallel mechanisms, additional administrative layers, and duplicative reporting requirements.
Reform should simplify processes, improve efficiency, and make better use of existing institutional capacities.
On Work package 18, my delegation emphasizes that the current financial challenges should be addressed by tackling the root causes.
Nothing can substitute for the fundamental obligation of member states to pay their assessed contributions in full on time and without conditions while refraining from actions that impede other member states from meeting their financial obligations.
Although the current funding mix is likely to persist, earmarked voluntary contributions should remain aligned with the UN mandates rather than drive programmatic priorities.
Otherwise, they risk distorting organizational priorities, weakening strategic planning and compromising the impartial implementation of mandates.
Regarding Work Package 21, any new arrangement should remain results oriented, built on existing reporting frameworks and fully respect the mandates and governance structures of the individual entities.
A stronger focus on measurable outcomes and impact on the ground should remain the guiding principle of reform.
Finally, we look forward to greater clarity on the sequencing, timelines, and intergovernmental consideration of proposals requiring member states decisions on Workstream three.
Thank you so much.
I thank the distinguished representative of Iran.
I now give the floor to distinguished representative of China, followed by Egypt.
President, thank you for convening today's meeting.
I thank the briefs for their updates.
China supports the statement made by Uruguay on behalf of G 77 and China.
The UNA initiative is now in a critical phase that requires solid implementation with more granularity.
We encourage the Secretariat to continue advancing the reforms in an inclusive and transparent manner, address the concerns of all parties, especially developing countries and enhance the overall effectiveness of this organization.
On prevention and peace building, Chin expects the new PBPSO to help reduce fragmentation, strengthen coordination, and efficient use of resources.
And boost support capacity on the ground at the country level.
The office should genuinely respect, mobilize, and leverage country leadership, support them in exploring peace building modalities suited to their national realities, and provide constructive advice and assistance aligned with their actual needs and priorities.
Development should be prioritized to help the countries eradicate poverty, tap development potential, and reinforce the economic and social foundation for lasting peace on the pulled funding mechanism, the relevant reform must aim to deliver tangible results, foster a culture of efficiency, optimize resource allocation, and promote the overall improvement of quality and efficiency as well as synergy with the UN system.
The innovation and expansion of financing channels should stay in line with UN financial regulations and budgetary discipline and regulatory measures should be refined to ensure transparency, accountability, and equity in the use of funds.
The new proposal for reforming the funding mechanisms should be fully studied, its feasibility verified and actions taken prudently.
Efforts should be made to avoid duplication among the joint SDG fund, the Central Emergency Response Fund fund, the peace Building fund to prevent wasting resources and unnecessarily adding to the financial burdens on member states, traditional donors should continue to bear the primary responsibility for funding regarding the system wide management for results.
The ultimate purpose of the mandate implementation review is to enhance quality and efficiency.
China encourages Secretariat to strengthen internal coordination, strengthen relevant mechanisms, maintain a results oriented approach, and ensure member states can track progress and assess outcomes in a timely manner.
China remains committed to working with all parties to advance reforms in a direction that benefits the long term development of the UN and serve the common interests of its member states.
Thank you, President.
I thank the distinguished representative of China.
I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Egypt.
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair for giving Egypt the floor.
Allow me first to say that we align ourselves with the statement delivered by the Chair of the g77.
Mr.
Chair, we thank all the briefers for their sober presentations.
A lot has been said in the previous interventions, so we'll focus ours on work package 22.
Egypt appreciates the efforts undertaken under the UN 80 initiative and its overall direction of strengthening prevention peace building and peace support through a more integrated and field oriented approach.
The emphasis on nationally led priorities, mission transitions, institution building a more coherent support across the peace continuum is fully consistent with the guidance recently provided by member states through the 2025 Peace Building Architecture Review.
We also appreciate all the efforts performed in this regard by the PBPSO under the able leadership of AGS Bahar and we believe that the recent structuring and expansion of the office mandate is a step in the right direction.
In addition, also welcome the objective of further reducing the fragmentation by bringing together expertise on peace building, DDR, SSR, and justice, and corrections, while improving search support to the field, which is, if implemented well, will enhance the UN's ability to provide more timely and coherent support to countries emerging from conflict.
Having said that, allowing Mr.
Chair to ask a couple of questions that we appreciate further clarification on.
First, through the presentations, PSO was referred to as a Center of Excellence bridge and the hinge across the system, but it remains unclear regarding the decision making and the coordination the coordination dynamics in this regard with the relevant entities in the HQ and on the ground.
We believe that the office should be empowered when it comes to peace building and prevention related activities, and that's why clear governance arrangements and success indicators will be essential to avoid any kind of duplication in this regard.
Secondly, in relation to partnerships, we want to ask how will the comparative advantages of regional organizations such as the African Union will be reflected operationally under the current plan to ensure the full utilization of subsidiarity when it comes to peace building and conflict prevention efforts.
I Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Thank the distinguished representative of Egypt.
We have heard the last statement of our speakers today.
I now give the floor to Madame Elizabeth Speher, Assistant Secretary-General for Peace Building and Peace Support to give her comments or answer some of the questions raised.
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman, thank you so much to all here for a very rich set of comments and questions as well.
Very grateful for that.
I've been taking furious notes to make sure that I could respond to as many of the comments and in particular, the questions as possible.
I hope I will be able to in the time allotted to go through all or most of them.
Um, First of all, in terms of, there were a number of mentions of the peace and development advisors and in the interest of a number of speakers in regional peace and development advisors, which the Secretary-General has mentioned, I can say that I think it is universally understood that the PDAs are peace and development advisors who are managed jointly by the Department of Political and Peace Building Affairs and UNDP, um, they are seen as extremely important tools on the ground, and there, of course, is a hope that there can be regional PDAs at some point.
I do not directly manage that particular file, but my understanding is that the main impediment at the moment is financial, that there are not enough resources coming in at the moment.
Also for regional PDAs and in terms of the analysis of the system, it was seen that the national level PDAs were the ones who seem to add the best value at this point.
But of course, this would be the aspiration, I believe, to be able to have also regional PDAs.
As you may know, there is a mix of both international peace and development advisors as well as national peace and development advisors in a number of places and I think that's also very important in terms of what a number of you have mentioned with respect to institution building capacity building to also have national capacity in this area that can remain in the country through these national colleagues.
I wanted to mention that in terms of, in my understanding where we are with PDAs at the moment, is that by the second half of this year, the joint program between DPPA and UNDP that manages the PDAs, um, will have a field capacity of 27 international PDAs, 24 national peace and development officers, two UN Vs and nine second Ds.
This is the level of capacity that we are able to deploy at the moment and hopefully more could be done with additional financing.
I I can also mention that from where I sit in PBPSO, we have been working on some creative arrangements where we can perhaps save some resources by having a head of a PDF Secretariat also play the role of PDA or actually the reverse that a PDA could also provide that function and in that way, we are saving money by having one individual instead of two.
We're looking at the feasibility of this in a number of contexts because we aware of the need for greater efficiencies and greater economies.
Um.
On the point on prevention going beyond the peace and security pillar that was mentioned by Australia on behalf of Cans, if I remember correctly.
Yes, absolutely.
I think so many of you have underscored that point that when we're talking about prevention and building and sustaining peace over time, that this needs to also include addressing root causes, and therefore we need an integrated approach across the pillars.
A number of you mentioned explicitly the humanitarian development and peace nexus.
This is certainly the way that our office based on member state mandates is operating to be able to support a more coherent approach of the UN in terms of prevention and peace building across the HDP nexus.
No question about that.
There was a question about support to national prevention strategies.
Um, in terms of capacity as I understood it in the new office, we feel that we have a number of tools and capacities that can contribute based on member state demand towards both the preparation and implementation of national prevention strategies.
But it's not something that our small office or any other part of the system frankly could do alone or support alone.
So we're very much hopeful that under the leadership of institutions like the peace building Commission, we will have increasingly an integrated approach for those countries who are interested to supporting national prevention and peace building strategies, availing themselves as appropriate and as they may be interested by the tools that are now in PBPSO but also across the system in so many other parts of the UN.
I think we have an excellent example in Papua New Guinea, where the role of the peace and development advisor was critical in supporting the country in the preparation of its national prevention strategy.
The peace building fund supported through funding.
Various agencies that funds it programs were involved in support.
We were able also to work alongside the government with the World Bank.
Who based on the work done on this national prevention strategy, have approved the first ever prevention and resilience funding allocation to Papua New Guinea, the first ever outside of the African continent.
You see how not even just within the UN system, but also reaching out to IFIs and others, we can actually provide a much more coordinated and comprehensive support to member states in their prevention and peace building efforts.
That, I believe, is really the way forward.
Not any one part of the system or not even the UN alone can provide the always the adequate support.
There was a question about peace and peace finance and what we meant by that.
I would simply say that that's a reference to innovative financing and to the acknowledgment, and again, referring back to the peace building architecture review and the resolutions that men explicitly the importance of innovative financing for peace building.
There's an acknowledgment that, um, uh, the current mechanisms are insufficient.
The peace building fund remains available and continues to be a very important instrument.
But we also need to look towards the role of the international financial institutions and how they can support peace building in fragile and conflict affected contexts, the role of the private sector, peace positive, as we like to call it, peace positive investment in countries, which could be domestic private sector or international private sector.
We are working to try to help build what we call a, um, a broader peace finance ecosystem to support member states with their prevention and peace building efforts.
Again, we are one of the cogs in the wheel.
We have some colleagues that have been concentrating quite a bit on this, but it's not us doing this alone in a silo, we are working across the system.
On this issue in terms of support to mission transitions, which was also mentioned and which I mentioned in my presentation.
Again, we have been analyzing as a very new office what we can offer to be even more coherent and efficient in our support to the field because that is, of course, the main aim is to support member states in their countries.
And we realize that we do have a number of tools that we can bring together more cohesively, the financing through the peace Building fund, which has as one of its priorities, support to UN mission transitions, the link with the IFIs, the SSR, DDR Justice and Corrections tools, and so forth.
But again, the point is that this would be done and I hope increasingly coherently through our office.
But in connection with the rest of the UN system, we are not the only tools.
We are not the only office.
The idea is that one of our value adds can be in the area of UN mission transitions, but clearly that has to be done with our appropriate colleagues across the peace and security pillar, as well as across the system.
More broadly, the agency's funds and programs have a critical role as well to play in UN mission transitions in terms of the follow up and so forth.
Um, So we are continuing to see how we can provide value add from where we sit, but we are by far not the only mechanism that needs to kick in for mission transition support.
There was a mention also of the PBarp implementation of the Peacefuling architecture review and the importance of looking at impact.
As some of you may know, we've been trying very hard as an office to work more on being able to produce evidence and clear information on results, data driven and so forth.
In terms of the peace Building fund, we are working increasingly to do impact assessments, thematic reviews, and other things that can help to show results and impact for the the resources expended.
Similarly, we have the Peace Building Impact Hub, which is looking at peace building impact not just from our office or from PBF, but really across the system and beyond, and we're starting, I think, a very important exercise with civil society organizations that work in peace building to see whether we can have some common agreement on tools on a toolkit actually for measuring peace building impact.
Hopefully, that will be helpful.
Um there were questions around the regional reset expertise on demand and how that squares with action 55 of work package 22 on this coordinated mapping of capacities across the peace and security area.
I think this is something perhaps Jens or Guy may fill in even better than I certainly can.
I would simply say that clearly, we need to have more, um, Transparency and clarity on what is on offer through the UN system in terms of capacities to support member states in strengthening various areas, including in relation to peace and security.
We will be working on this and that will result in, if you will, a menu of options, a very clear idea, as I said in my presentation about what are the specialized capacities within the peace and security pillar that are on offer.
Where are they located? How are they financed? How can they be accessed, et cetera, which will be made available to member states, but also the information will be key in my view to the resident coordinators and the UN country teams and obviously our peace operation mission leadership.
This also links up to this question about, well, how is this going to work in terms of the field? Our the new office, PVPSO does not work in a vacuum.
In fact, I consider ourselves a facilitator um, within the system.
So whatever it is that we can provide is really provided through either peace operations or through UN country teams with the leadership of the resident coordinators and their steer absolutely central and critical.
In terms of member states that might wish to avail themselves of various types of expertise, um, it would seem to me that the discussion with resident coordinators who are in SIT or in your countries would be very important.
Interlocutors, we rely a great deal on them in terms of being able to, um, um, um, to have member states avail themselves of our support.
I must leave time also for, so I'm going to try to really finish as quickly as possible.
There was a question from the distinguished representative of Slovenia on how PPPSO if I understood it, can respond to what will most likely be quite an ambitious prevention agenda or more broadly peace and security agenda of a SG and what is our linkage to mediation support.
I would just very quickly on that say that once again, that PBPSO was described by the Secretary-General as the center of excellence for prevention, peace building and Peace support.
But again, we are hardly the only actors, and it would not make sense to fold everything into our office.
We do, as I said, now link up a number of useful tools, but it will only be as useful as its linkages to the rest of the system, both at the level of HQ and at the level of the field.
In terms of HQ, I've always said that I think it's extremely important and it's not an accident that PPPSO is part of the peace and security pillar and very specifically part of now both DPPA and DPO, that strengthens us in terms of our support to UN peace operations.
But it also allows us to be a clear support tool to the work that is done in upstream prevention in terms of preventive diplomacy, good offices, and so forth.
This is where this bridge and hinge discourse comes in, which I often mention that we are in the peace and security pillar, we support the peace and security pillar because we are part of it.
But we also are a very regular and quite strong link to the rest of the system, the agency's funds and programs, who do a lot of what I would call the pardon me, what I would call the structural prevention work of that is necessary in terms of getting at the root causes and so on and so forth, which many of you have referenced.
So in terms of very, very concretely the work of mediation support, the work of PVPSO is highly complementary.
I can give a couple of examples.
For example, in terms of mediation, many countries are interested in having their own mediation capacity, strengthening mediation capacity, but through NGOs or other, um, civil society mechanisms.
If a member state asks for peace building fund support to strengthen their own local mediation capacity, we've done that in Liberia, we've done that in many places, the PBF can fund that work, the capacity building within the long term capacity building and institutional strengthening of the mechanisms within a particular member state for mediation and mediation support in their own country.
The mediation support that PMD, for example, provides is extremely important, but it's of a different nature.
It does not fund over the longer term, um, NGOs or other institutions in terms of strengthening their own capacity.
This is something that we can do through the PPF.
Um, Also, in terms of complementarity with UN mediation support, we have supported on a number of occasions efforts to strengthen the enabling conditions for successful peace discussions, I have to finish work towards peace agreements or other types of dialogue by funding again civil society or other actors who would contribute to that discussion.
For example, as we speak in Bugainville, Ppua New Guinea, there is mediation support that's being provided for the formal follow on to that peace process through the government and the RC, the peace building fund has been asked to fund, again, civil society actors who could work in complement to that more formal process.
Let me see.
I was only given 1 minute.
I would just finish with this issue of what Egypt mentioned about decision making in HQ in the field.
Avoiding duplication and so forth.
Absolutely.
The whole point, I think of UN 80 is to provide coherence and integration, and I see our little office being part of that.
The decision making at HQ is part of the overall peace and security pillar and the leadership there.
On the ground, we rely on the RCs and on mission leadership.
Thank you.
I think I thank Assistant Secretary-General for Peace Building and Peace Support.
I will now give the floor to Mr.
Jeans Wandel, special advisor to the Secretary-General on reforms.
Please, sir.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr.
President.
Distinguished Delegates, I must say that thank you for your detailed response.
All comments have been clearly noted and with thanks.
I think that you should note for both package 21 and package 18, this is the first time that they are presented albeit in this informal setting.
Therefore, we will analyze your support, your expectations, your questions, and also your reservations.
That also means because it's first time, it may not be possible for me to address some of the more concrete implementation questions that were raised.
But let me address a few issues given the restricted time.
On the joint SDG fund, the comment here really is that it We will take note of your views, but the fundamental idea is to strengthen the United Nations coherence on the ground.
The core argument here remains that balanced with SRF and the PPF, the development side needs an elevated funding mechanism.
So there's balance in that coherence and in that response.
And I think that if the decision is to move forward with the risk recommendation, this is the case that will be made.
Staying on the funding side, there was a specific question from Japan on the issuance of new guidance.
The issue here is that the guidance for pool financing was issued in 2015, now nearly 12 years after.
We have done so much progress and so many innovations.
The current guidelines are becoming constrained and therefore the recommendation is to issue something fairly rapidly, that it captures the good positive developments that have been made and then do something more thorough in 2027.
So that's the rationale for that.
Turning to 2021 overall, I can confirm that there is a close interaction, you can say between the concept that is laid out in resolution 8251 on mandate life cycle, if I can use the short title here, and then what we're trying to achieve and therefore, 2021 needs to be developed in very close dialogue with how the mandate registry and that whole resolution unfolds and But the idea remains that we keep the conversation at the system level.
The idea remains that as has been highlighted by, I took down here, Australia, Malaysia, Armenia, Senegal, and probably other countries, that the reading For you is your reading of the Word package 21 intent is correct.
It is not to try to do something technocratic or introduce a new layer.
It is trying to answer the fundamental question, what does the United Nations system delivers and what does it aim to deliver in a concrete context.
This has to be done as a principle level and a political dialogue with member states, to some extent, maybe inspired by what we experience today in sitting in this UN 80 setting.
Then Then I wanted to bring to the point that what do we mean about resource standards? Today, it is not possible to aggregate the executive plans of ILO, UNDP, WHO, UNICEF, and UNF C because obviously they do different things.
But we're not arguing for common taxonomy, but what we're arguing is that you can set standards for how you articulate results, and you can also set standards for how results are linked to resources.
Not unlike what we know about standards today about financial standards for transparency, for example.
And if we had such standards, we would start knowing more what does the entire UN system talk about when it talks about mandate results and resources.
This is the strategic aim and we need to work through with you in how we can operationalize that.
Then let me turn to the issue of funding.
I took down Ethiopia, Maldives, the UK and Switzerland.
I think.
The idea is, as you in a sense mentioned that low quality does not mean size.
It means the earmarking can't be associated to strategy, it can be multi year, it can fold into assisting reporting requirements, et cetera That is considered higher quality.
The point is that lower quality earmarking, which is typically sitting on the fringes of an agency, maybe not really within the main priority, maybe specialized reporting requirements.
They need to be costed differently.
And the idea is that we need more discipline in understanding when we accept the Now, if you use a broader term, not so aligned earmark.
What is the real cost to the organization and is that really strategic? And then specifically to run that, I think the point is that, of course, it has to be done in dialogue with government.
But if we could provide better standards for you to see it, maybe you could also see the internal transaction costs for you to accept this kind of funding compared to higher quality earmark that is appropriated to an existing portfolio and existing priority and within existing reporting environments.
So it's that kind of dialogue and also, I think it was Maldives that mentioned that that maybe that could create a bias against.
Small is not low quality.
That's not the point.
The point is alignment and cost of this.
Let me say two words on the way forward and then head back to Mr.
President, number one is that we are pushing forward with taking the most relevant packages of UN A, and they have been mentioned in this discussion, including package 22 that Elizabeth has explained, and then deploy it to a number of countries in consultation with their governments.
That means that there has been formalized a group at the level of ASG, which I chair on the country configuration to take the entire package and then start deploying it systematically to test, is it relevant? How do host governments react to this? Do we have something to deploy? We will take stock already in early September to find out our plannings and what deliverables do we have? Then we will project a push from September through December this year that we should be able to share with you.
On package 21, we need to analyze the support and your questions, but also your reservations today and they may impact the action plan that sits behind that idea because the concept is only generated as a concept.
Now we have to put a consultation action plan behind it to see whether it can attain support both internally in the United Nations across the system and with member states.
Mr.
President, with those words, I would like to hand back to you.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Ian, special advisor to the Secretary-General on reforms.
I now invite Mr.
Geir and Secretary-General for policy to provide his briefing.
Thank you.
Thank you very much Chair.
I think that the General Assembly has received very comprehensive responses from my colleagues Elizabeth and Jentz on the work packages that we've looked at today, so I don't need to take more of your time on that.
I could be very telegraphic in just saying a couple of things in terms of the general approach to the UNAT initiative as a tent as many of you have said, it's a decisive phase.
First thing I want to say is simply a message of thanks to you all for your continued engagement, your participation today.
I think once again, this briefing session has demonstrated how important it is to have this two way exchange of information and guidance.
This is how we make UN 80 work to the extent that it has, and we intend on our side to continue in the same manner.
In that regard, you have heard the Secretary-General say on repeated occasions that he intends to maintain his engagement, our work to deliver on UN 80 right up until the last day of his mandate.
Clearly, high level week is an important mymark' an important opportunity.
We need to leverage it to best effect, and some of you have given us some ideas of how we might do that.
We'll take those on board.
I also reiterate because we've tried to make this clear in the past that we understand our responsibilities in terms of action that will be taken on the authority of the Secretary-General.
We will be publishing on timelines, which we've already given you indicative information upon in the comprehensive guide, I briefs of the Secretary-General backed up by supplementary information as necessary.
Of course, intergovernmental decision making is required.
The Secretary-General reports will be produced accordingly.
We will stick to the past commitments that we've given you in this regard.
We think that this will provide you with the necessary transparency and information for decision making.
One specific question was addressed to me.
It related to mandate registries under Workstream two.
When will they be updated? When will the registry be updated? We understand it's an important enabling condition for the process of mandate review.
September is the answer.
We hope that the registry will be updated by September.
I would recall that the relevant resolution 8251 asked for the registry to be interoperable and that means we should be in a position to gather as much as we can information from across the system and feed that into the registry in a way that would facilitate the results based management issues which we've been examining today.
That's it.
Once again, thank you very much and thanks to you, chair, for this opportunity.
Thank you very much under Secretary-General for policy.
Mr.
Gay Rr I thank of all the briefers and all the participants.
The informal meeting of the plenary is now concluded.
Once again, I thank all the briefings and allegations for your participation in this briefing.
The meeting is adjourned.
Congratulations.