Statement debate UN General Assembly on report High-level Panel on System-wide Coherence “Delivering as One”
Madam President, distinguished delegates,
This summer, we should be halfway to achieving the Millennium Development Goals. But unfortunately, we are lagging behind. Lagging behind means more poverty, fewer girls to school and more mothers dying when giving birth. To achieve our goals by 2015, we will all have to step up our efforts. By 'we' I mean governments, civil society and the private sector in both developing and partner countries, as well as the United Nations and all other relevant actors, including the World Bank and the global programmes.
The UN organisations possess unique and invaluable expertise in many different areas. However, the UN is now too fragmented to translate this wealth of expertise into a coherent contribution to national development plans. In its report on UN System-wide Coherence, the High Level Panel has presented us with proposals which can make the UN more efficient and effective. In particular, I strongly support the idea that the United Nations should work as One: One leader, One programme, One budget, and – where possible – One office. Of course this is not an entirely new idea; on several earlier occasions, most importantly the TCPR (Triennial Comprehensive Policy Review) of 2004, we decided that the UN organisations should cooperate much more closely. But this time, we have no choice but to reform the UN, if we want to make sure that the UN is at the cutting edge of tackling global problems.
As the German Presidency of the European Union stated, we all seem to agree that reform of the UN is vital to ensure its continued prominence in the field of development. Now we have to do it. I am aware that in the past decades, the issue of UN reform has produced many reports and good intentions but few concrete results. This has led to dangerous frustration and scepticism about the United Nations as a whole. I sincerely hope that this time we can show the world that we – member states and UN organisations – are willing and able to adapt to the changing times. As the Secretary-General so aptly said, the UN can and should be more than the sum of its parts.
We are definitely off to a good start. I am impressed by the commitment so many of you have shown in devising ways to increase the UN’s effectiveness at country level. I admire the leadership demonstrated by the eight One UN pilot countries. And I am pleased to see that an increasing number of other countries, like Papoua New Guinea, Malawi and Bangladesh, have also asked the UN to start working in unison. In this context, The Netherlands would like to give its full support to the statement delivered by Rwanda, on behalf of a number of pilot and donor countries.
The Netherlands enjoyed the open discussions it had with many of you at the recent conferences in Indonesia and Benin. We look forward to continuing these discussions with the countries of Latin America, at a conference Nicaragua and the Netherlands are planning for June.
Several important points were raised during these conferences, and in the letter from the G77.
First, a major advantage of One UN is increased ownership by recipient countries. In my view, the priorities of each One UN country programme should be formulated in close consultation with the government, parliament, civil society and the private sector.
Second, I agree that the reform process should not be used to introduce new conditionalities for development assistance. For crucial issues such as gender and the human rights-based approach, I think we should continue current, well-established practices within the United Nations. After all, a development programme cannot be successful unless such principles are fully integrated.
Third, the reform process should definitely not be a cost-cutting exercise. If there are efficiency gains because of improved cooperation, these must benefit the country programme.
Fourth, there is indeed no one size to fit all.
Last, I agree that it is crucial to increase both the quantity and quality of development assistance. I must admit that I find the progress made by donor countries disappointingly slow.
I am proud that for decades now, the Netherlands has spent 0.8% of its national income on development cooperation. However, the Netherlands still falls short in providing stable, multi-year, non-earmarked funding, in spite of progress made in the past few years. So I promise that I will increase the amount of multi-year core funding for UN organisations that perform well and – in the near future – for One UN country programmes. I call on all donor countries to do the same.
Not only UN member states, but also the UN family itself will have to demonstrate willingness to cooperate and to invest time, energy and resources in the reform process. The Netherlands counts on all UN organisations, including the specialized agencies, to actively participate in the reform process. I am glad to see that the World Bank is also interested in participating in the One UN pilots, in particular in Albania and Cape Verde.
I would urge UNDP to establish an effective firewall as soon as possible. It is imperative that the functions of Resident Coordinator and UNDP country director are separate. I have decided to give UNDP additional funds for this purpose.
As the Secretary-General has stated, the High Level Panel Report should be seen in the context of ongoing reform initiatives. To prevent any unnecessary delays, I would be in favour of a multi-track approach, basically along the lines proposed by the Secretary-General.
One of these tracks would be the creation of a new gender entity. I have the impression that there is broad support for the creation of a consolidated and strengthened UN gender entity, led by an Under-Secretary-General. I agree entirely with the Secretary-General that we should do this as soon as possible, because it is precisely in achieving MDGs 3 and 5, women’s empowerment and maternal health, that we lag far behind the goals we set ourselves.
Naturally, overall coordination and oversight of the reform process should remain with the General Assembly.
Thank you.