EventsFeaturesImage galleriesMediaMFAT speeches20042005200620072008Media contact informationMinisters releasesPublications
Mr Chairman
I have the honour to deliver this statement on behalf of Canada, New Zealand, and my own country, Australia.
First, let me thank both the Secretariat, and the Chair and Bureau of the Second Committee, for their work in preparing our discussions under the Operational Activities item. The various reports, and especially the panel discussions and other briefings, have armed us with useful background to discuss these issues.
UNIFEM
Let me first turn to the report of the United Nations Fund for Women (UNIFEM). We want to thank Noeleen Heyzer, the Executive Director of UNIFEM, for her presentation and in particular the elements that relate to the UN reform agenda for operational activities.
UNIFEM, based on its own mandate and knowledge as a learning organization, has an important role in bringing a gender perspective to coordination mechanisms, whether at the global, regional or country level. In our view, other funds and programmes share the responsibility for ensuring the inclusion of gender equality perspectives in all aspects of their work. This summer’s ECOSOC resolution on gender mainstreaming underlines that this is very much a shared responsibility.
Triennial Comprehensive Policy Review of Operational Activities for Development
Mr Chairman,
Let me now turn to the Triennial Comprehensive Policy Review of Operational Activities for Development. Canada, New Zealand and Australia would like to thank the Secretary-General for his conclusions and recommendations contained in document 59/387. These are indeed thought provoking and I will largely address my comments to them.
Before I do so Mr Chairman I want to outline how our delegations see the ‘big picture’ for the UN system for development cooperation. First, as member states, we recognise that we each need to develop internally coherent national approaches to the governing boards of UN institutions so that we are transmitting consistent messages on our support for the direction of reform activities across the UN system. We see clear and mutually reinforcing linkages between continued efforts for UN reform; the demonstrated comparative advantage of the UN in development cooperation; concrete results in assisting developing countries to reduce poverty and achieve sustainable development; and the overall resourcing of the UN funds and programs. How the TCPR addresses these core issues is fundamental to the future of the UN development operations.
Section II Effectiveness of UN System for Development Cooperation
Mr Chairman,
Since the last TCPR, under the guidance of Task Forces convened by the UN Development group, there have been major changes in the process for the preparation and structure of the UNDAF document. We very much support the simplification of the process and the focus on a results matrix. This kind of public commitment between the agencies represented on a UN country team and a programme country to support national strategies for poverty reduction lends both coherence and transparency to programme implementation.
At the same time much can be done to continue to improve effectiveness in the UN development system. For example, we should use this TCPR to place a stronger emphasis on evaluation within the UN development system. The virtuous circle of “plan-do-learn-revise” needs our support. Within the TCPR, we will be looking for practical, time-bound deliverables in this area. For example, as part of simplification and harmonization, it should be possible to ensure that country level evaluations by UN funds and programmes are coordinated and perhaps even done jointly. We should be looking for opportunities to take forward options for joint administrative, reporting and evaluation functions, in addition to joint programming. Perhaps we could explore measuring the effectiveness of the UNDAF matrix, asking ourselves if it will tell all the stakeholders what they want to know about the contribution of the UN system to the achievement of the partner country’s national development strategy?
These issues have been recognised in the Secretary-General's Report and are beginning to be met through the adoption of a results-based approach and the common services initiative. This is positive, but we want to see more and strengthened efforts towards harmonization and simplification.
Section III Funding for the UN System’s development cooperation
Mr Chairman,
Our delegations are strong supporters of the United Nations operational activities, and provide significant amounts of core- and non-core funding to the UN Funds, Programmes and Specialised Agencies. We believe that the UN system has an important role to play in development, particularly in relation to the achievement, in all countries, of the Millennium Development Goals. Canada, New Zealand and Australia strongly support the reform efforts ongoing within UN Funds and Programmes.
Mark Malloch Brown and other Fund and Programme chief executives have repeatedly emphasised that the UN system needs to focus on its comparative advantages, including in capacity building and governance to enable countries to do all they can to meet the MDGs. Our delegations fully support this demand-driven approach The UN needs to continue to demonstrate relevance to developing countries, as well as show value for money to donors. Our delegations strongly support the recommendations on capacity building contained in the Secretary-General’s Report.
The Secretary-General’s Report suggests a need for a better system-wide understanding of development funding resource flows to the UN system. We would add that resource flows need to be looked at in terms of the needs in developing countries, the capabilities within the UN system to address those needs and how this fits within the broader context of aid and development.
Canada, New Zealand and Australia suggest that analysis and planning around issues of system-wide resource flows and funding could take place in the context of the existing system of Multi-Year Funding Frameworks and future Joint Boards meetings. The Secretary-General’s report suggests that an “intergovernmental working group” on funding for the UN development system be convened. We do not believe such a group or new mechanism is needed, given the existing mechanisms that could be used to address these issues.
Sections IV and V Field level-coordination/integration and Country-level capacity of the UN system
Mr Chairman,
The most fundamental test of the UN development system is the results it achieves on the ground. The UN’s program at a country level must reflect both national development objectives and the comparative advantage and value added that the UN agencies bring, collectively and individually.
To this end, strengthening the Resident Coordinator system and the coherence and unity of purpose and action of the UN team at the country level is critical. We support and congratulate agencies on the efforts already undertaken to strengthen the RC system; to simplify and harmonise the operations of agencies; and to coordinate with other development actors.
We welcome the report of progress and the recommendations included in the Secretary General’s Report on these issues but believe that more needs to be done in all these areas. For example, given the central role of the Resident Coordinator to delivering an effective, coordinated and coherent UN presence in the field, the competency of Resident Coordinators is critical. More attention is needed to how they are selected and ensuring they are properly trained and equipped.
The Resident Coordinator must also take on their role armed with the knowledge, resources and authority to lead the UN team and have oversight of the UNDAF and its implementation. This includes being able to effectively and efficiently access all the expertise that the system has to offer, including from non-resident and specialised agencies. We welcome the recent pilot project that has separated the Resident Coordinator role from that of UNDP country director, to protect the integrity of both functions. We look forward to the evaluation of this approach.
Section VI Regional dimensions
Mr Chairman
We welcome the Secretary-General’s report’s attention to the regional dimensions of development. In this context, we are mindful that often UN “regions” do not correspond well to geopolitical groupings on the ground “sub-regions” in UN jargon, such as the Pacific, or South-East Asia. It is important that both United Nations Regional Commissions, and the Funds and Programmes, retain their flexibility to work with partners at this “sub-regional” level and that this is reflected in this year’s TCPR decision.
Section VIII Gender Mainstreaming in Operational Activities
Mr. Chairman
Next year marks the 10th anniversary of the Beijing Plan of Action yet it is not fully reflected in operational activities. It is time to make progress on gender mainstreaming in the 2004 TCPR resolution. As has been discussed in the executive boards, some funds and programmes need to strengthen their internal capacity to plan and programme for gender sensitive results.
So we will be looking for ways to ensure that the CCA and UNDAF are based on a quality gender analysis and that the results matrix will include gender sensitive results and be measured by sex disaggregated indicators. Using this approach, in our view, the UN country team will be better able to assist programme countries to meet the objectives of their poverty reduction strategies (or similar documents). The annual RC reports should include progress in this respect.
Section IX Operational Activities for Development of the UN System in Countries in Transition from Crisis to Development
Mr Chairman,
Canada, New Zealand and Australia all have, as bilateral priorities, assistance to developing countries that are struggling with instability or conflict, or undertaking peace-building and recovery in post-conflict environments. We welcome the attention that the UN system is also giving to addressing these needs and the inclusion of a section on transition in the Secretary General’s Report. The practical steps taken by the UNDG/ ECHA Working Group on Transition, to begin to develop a coherent and integrated UN response to transition issues are positive and need to be continued and expanded.
Effective responses to transition situations necessitate a whole of system approach. We call on the humanitarian, development, peace and security, and political arms of the UN system to work together to strengthen the inter-departmental and inter-agency coordination and to further develop practical approaches to responding to countries in transition from peace to development. Coordination with other humanitarian actors, including the ICRC and NGOs, also remains crucial.
Thank you Mr Chairman
