5 May 2016: UN Member States discussed partnership approaches, governance and organizational arrangements for the UN Development System (UNDS), during the sixth workshop of the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) Dialogue on the longer-term positioning of the UNDS in the context of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Participants also responded to recommendations from the Independent Team of Advisers to the ECOSOC Bureau (ITA).

The ITA was established in February 2016, with 14 members from all regions and various NGOs, to offer specific recommendations on the Dialogue process. The Team is producing background papers for the ECOSOC workshops, having released papers on on ‘Partnership Approaches,’ ‘Governance,’ and ‘Organizational Arrangements and Capacity’ on 19 April 2016. The papers were presented as a reflection of discussions among ITA members, not the Team’s final proposals or exhaustive list of options.

On Partnership Approaches, the ITA recommended: UNDS entities should facilitate and engage in partnerships based on specific needs and priorities of countries; UNDS should establish a system-wide delivery support for partnerships at the global level with delegated responsibilities to Regional Commissions for Sustainable Development and UN Resident Coordinators (RCs), which could act as a broker and undertake a “solid” vetting process; the proposed UNDS partnership delivery support should develop and implement standardized procedures for partnerships, simplifying and harmonizing applicable rules and processes; and the system-wide delivery support for partnerships should undertake a mapping exercise to identify specific interlinkages and the roles and contributions of all stakeholders in realizing the 2030 Agenda.

ITA Member Paulo Luiz Moreaux Lavigne Esteves explained that ITA does not aim to suggest that partnerships could fill the system’s gaps, but the system needs to be enabling for partnerships. He said the paper takes into account the increasingly urbanized nature of the world. Underlining that the main partners for implementing the 2030 Agenda are the countries themselves, he called for building a set of standards for partnerships with other stakeholders.

The Dominican Republic, Sweden, Switzerland, UK and US did not support the proposal for establishing a system-wide delivery support for partnerships at the global level, explaining that: it would be very expensive; it would require ample time and human resources; and it would limit partnerships because of the bureaucratic constraints involved. The US and France did not express support for a system-wide monitoring mechanism for partnership, but favored harmonizing and simplifying standards for partnerships across the UN system. The Netherlands said the system should: create a common framework, developed and owned by the system itself; and identify clear criteria on what needs to be verified before entering partnerships, including redlines. She opposed creating a new entity, and said additional detail should be left to specific partnerships.

Japan and the US expressed support for the suggestion the UN served as a broker for partnerships. Switzerland, supported by the Dominican Republic, stressed the need to take into consideration “reputational risk” when it comes to partnerships. The Netherlands underlined that “partnerships are not a choice but an obligation,” adding that Member States cannot achieve the 2030 Agenda without the private sector. Dominican Republic called for clearly defining what makes a partnership “good.” The Netherlands, supported by Australia, preferred the UN Development Group (UNDG) to be in charge of regional partnerships, because of its expertise, rather than the Regional Commissions, which are designed more for policy development.

On Governance, the ITA suggested: strengthening the role of ECOSOC through a full-time elected President and adequate full-time support staff, drawn from within the UNDS; establishing a Sustainable Development Board (SDB) as an integrated governing body for the system, with membership determined and elected by ECOSOC, to have a strategic capacity for ensuring coherence between the development, humanitarian, and peacebuilding areas; mandating a full-time Deputy Secretary General (DSG) for Sustainable Development, supported by a Strategic Executive Team (SET), to provide executive leadership and coordination to UNDS efforts for implementing the 2030 Agenda; strengthening the scope and effectiveness of the Quadrennial Comprehensive Policy Review (QCPR) of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) on operational activities of the UN system; and enhancing the quality of decision-making by existing governing bodies.

ITA member Vera El-Khoury Lacoeuilhe elaborated on the proposed SDB, which she said would not be a new structure, but a merger of boards, a re-arrangement of their work and reporting lines, using the existing staff and resources from other boards.

Japan, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and UK did not support the proposals for a DSG for Sustainable Development and an SDB. Norway said centralized power at the Secretariat level in New York would have a negative impact on the cooperation between specialized UN agencies, while the DSG would enhance the distance between the decision-making and operational aspects. The UK, supported by Australia and Japan, suggested alternative solutions: standardizing the current boards; ensuring better coordination among them; increasing efficiency, as most of the time in boards is spent in delivering national statements “which has nothing to do with governance;” better staffing the boards; clearly defining what the boards should do; and bringing expertise to the boards, including from external members, who could bear the challenging and questioning functions.

Argentina and Chile supported the SDB proposal, noting an over-representation of donor countries on the UN’s current boards and stressing the need for greater involvement of developing countries. Norway expressed support for strengthening ECOSOC’s functioning. Japan and Sweden called for strengthening the RC system, its mandate, functions, and funding. The Netherlands invited reflection on ways to engage stakeholders in UN’s governance structures. Brazil and the Netherlands supported ITA’s proposals on the QCPR.

On Organizational Arrangements and Capacity, the ITA proposed: UNDS entities streamline procedures and develop a common reporting mechanism, to scale up joint offices and integrated back offices under the auspices of one UN logo, reflecting the sustainable development vision; the RCs be appointed by a DSG for Sustainable Development, and the selection process be changed “fundamentally” to encourage recruitment from various professional backgrounds and more varied experience, including from outside the system; funding support for the RC system be strengthened; and the UN Regional Commissions be renamed as Regional Sustainable Development Commissions and be more proactive in strengthening local, regional and national linkages.

ITA Member Sara Pantuliano called for more attention to the particular skill-sets needed for RCs to operate in different countries.

Thailand, for the Group of the 77 and China (G-77/ China), raised the issue of countries’ representation in the SDB, underlining that the number of G-77/China members is far greater than the number of OECD/DAC countries. The G-77/China said the RC should be empowered to allocate the funds in collaboration with the respective governments. Germany called for strengthening the RC system and expanding its funding beyond the few voluntary countries that are currently funding it. The UK expressed support for an open recruiting process, including people outside the UN system. Norway requested proposals for potential funding sources for the RC, and clear explanations for why the UNSD cannot fully fund it.

Germany, Netherlands and UK supported the proposal that UNDS entities should streamline procedures and develop a common reporting mechanism, and scale up joint offices and integrated back offices. A UNDG representative noted that pool funding mechanisms at the country level could help ensure country coherence, adding that they should only complement agency-specific funding.

The next ECOSOC Workshop will take place on 13 June 2016, in New York, US, to discuss the interlinkages between the areas addressed so far, as well as concrete recommendations emerging from the Dialogue. [Website of the ECOSOC Dialogue] [Partnerships for the UN Development System] [The Governance of the UN Development System: The Imperatives of Effectiveness and Integration] [Organizational arrangements and Capacities in UNDS: Supporting the Realization of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development] [IISD RS Story on ECOSOC Workshop 5, ‘Funding and Functions’]