Financing the UN Development System: Keeping the Promise

Good afternoon, colleagues. We're going to go ahead and get started. Excellencies, distinguished guests and esteemed colleagues, all protocols observed. My name is Aisha Sabur, and I'm the deputy director of the United Nations Multi-Partner Trust Fund Office and your moderator today. Together with our longstanding partner, the Dag Hammarskjold Foundation, it is my pleasure to welcome you to today's launch of the latest edition of the Financing the UN Development System report entitled Keeping the Promise. Thank you for joining us for this conversation on the future of financing multilateralism and sustainable development. Before we begin, on behalf of my office, the Multi-Partner Trust Fund Office and the Dag Hammarskjold Foundation, I would like to extend a sincere appreciation to our co-hosts, the Permanent Missions of Sweden and the Republic of Zambia, for their continued collaboration and commitment to advancing informed dialogue on UN financing. Thank you, Her Excellency Ambassador Kugelberg, and thank you, His Excellency, Dr. Milambo. For those not familiar with our work, very briefly, The UN Multi-Partner Trust Fund Office has served as the UN center of expertise and pooled funding for over two decades. We currently administer 118 pooled funds. That's 82 trust funds and 36 joint programs across the UN system. In 2025, we transferred just over 1 billion to 115 countries through 121 participating organizations. One of our growing areas of focus is enabling pooled funds to draw on innovative financing instruments from blended finance that draws in private capital to guarantees that lower the cost of borrowing. You'll hear a bit more in the presentation from my colleague later today on where pooled funding sits within the broader UN funding architecture. A few words, very briefly, about the report in front of us, which is now in its 12th edition and is proudly co-authored by the Multi-Partner Trust Fund Office and the Dag Hammarskjold Foundation. This report remains the most comprehensive overview of how the UN system is financed. Last year, member states adopted the Seville Commitment and the United Nations marked its 80th anniversary with the launch of the Secretary-General's UN80 initiative. And this year, as we say in the report, the task is to translate both into action. That is exactly the challenge of this year's, that this year's report takes on under its title, Keeping the Promise. Now that title is a compelling frame for where we find ourselves today, and we look forward to hearing from our panel what that promise means. Our executive director at the Multi-Partner Trust Fund Office and colleagues will walk you through the key highlights of part one of the report shortly. But let me offer just one data point to frame our conversation. At the high level political forum this past July, the Secretary General put it starkly. Development assistance, he said, has suffered its steepest fall on record, falling back to where it was when the 2030 agenda was born. That is the backdrop against which this year's report was written. Part two of the report, Marketplace of Ideas, takes this a step further, bringing together expert voices on everything from the real world impact on funding cuts to the effectiveness of core and earmarked funding to new approaches like restitution financing. You'll hear directly from two of the report's coauthors, John Hendra and Marianna Markocek-Andric, shortly. A quick housekeeping note. Given our very full agenda, I'd like to ask all speakers to be mindful of time so that we can leave enough room for discussion. We do have a hard stop today due to a meeting immediately following ours. With that out of the way. Between the data and ideas you'll hear today, this is a chance to do more than take stock. It's a chance to discuss collectively how we can strengthen the quality, predictability, and effectiveness of financing for sustainable development, and what keeping that promise will actually require. It is now my pleasure to invite our first speaker, Bjorn Homborg, the executive director of the Dag Hammershald Foundation. Bjorn, over to you.

Thank you very much, Aisha. Excellencies, distinguished co-hosts, ambassadors, colleagues and friends. It's a pleasure to welcome you all and to see so many of you engaged in this important conversation on how to finance a more effective United Nations. At the Dag Hammarskjold Foundation, we usually call ourselves critical friends of the UN, but also of the member states. We're an impartial platform for dialogue, policy reflection and knowledge brokering and practice, working to strengthen multilateral cooperation with a principled and effective UN at its center. We are deeply appreciative of our long-standing partnership together with the UN Multi-Partner Trust Fund Office and together in this collaboration really based on our shared commitment to stronger multilateral system. In this year's report, Keeping the Promise, we also show what happens when the promise is broken, particularly for the most vulnerable. The 23% reduction in official development assistance in 2025 is a stark figure, but in human consequences are starker still. As John Hendra, my colleague, highlights in his contribution, a recent Lancet Global Health study estimate, and that's a moderate estimate, that if current downward fund trend continues, 9.5 million additional deaths could occur by 2030, including 2.5 million children under five. Behind the funding figures are human lives. This is what is at stake. Looking at the UN system today, we will hear that between 22 and projection of 2027, UN funding is expected to decline 27%. In a world facing more violence, growing humanitarian needs and increasing food insecurity. Increasing needs, reducing, reduced resources. So what does approximately 57 billion US dollar in UN funding in 26 actually means? That's the estimate. To put the figure into perspective, it's only around 60% of the annual revenue of the Walt Disney Company. 60% of the revenue of the Walt Disney company. That is the scale of the resources we are discussing for a system expected to support peace and security, sustainable development, human rights, and humanitarian action across the globe. It reminds us why principled financing, not just financing, but principled financing, must be provided not only by having enough resources, but also quality funding that allows the UN to work effectively, efficiently and strategically, rather than fragmenting its work through short term micro project approaches. Once again, the report shows that the commitments of the UN funding compact remains far from being fulfilled, while also offering ideas on how this can be addressed. All of this connects closely to the ongoing UN aid initiative by the Secretary General and the forthcoming transition into the new leadership team. Constructive steps have been taken on country configuration, the regional reset, and a better measurement of system-wide impact, helping the UN to become more effective, a more effective partner, I should say, with the member states, with a stronger offer aligned also with national priorities in member states. Our foundation will continue to support this effort by providing knowledge and impartial space for dialogue on how we can finance the UN of the future in the service of all nations and their people. Finally, and really from my heart, I want to express my deep appreciation to the team of MPTFO and the Dag Hammarskjold Foundation for their hard work. You should just guess how much work is behind these 100 plus pages of so many numbers and thank also the contributors to the second part, Marketplace of Ideas. I would also like to extend a sincere thanks to the permanent representative of Sweden and Zambia for co-hosting this event and for your continued commitment to this dialogue. But to finalize, I would like to say that Dag Hammarskjold, being a pragmatic idealist, understood that the United Nations ultimately depends on the willingness of its member states to give it both trust and the means to fulfill its responsibilities. That remains true even today. Keeping the promise, the title of this year's report, is therefore not only about financing an institution. It is about giving the United Nations the means to fulfill the promise of the charter to nations and ultimately its people. I look forward to the discussion ahead and to your continued engagement in this crucial dialogue. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much, Bjorn, and thank you for those words on that reminder of the importance of the trust and the means to fulfill the promise of the Charter. It is now my distinct pleasure to introduce the Executive Director of the Multi-Partner Trust Fund Office and my boss, Alain Noudouhou.

Thank you, Aisha. Excellencies, ambassadors, dear colleague from the United Nations, ladies and gentlemen, I want to thank you very much for joining us today in New York for the launch and the presentations of the 2025 Financing the UN Development System reports. The title is right there, it's Keeping the Promise. I am also very pleased to see so many of you in the room. And I want to start by acknowledging the presence of our co-hosts here, Her Excellency, Ms. Charlotte Guggenborg, the PR of Sweden, His Excellency, Mr. Chola Milambo, the PR of Zambia. We thank you very much for your participation and look forward to hearing more from you. I also want to recognize my friends, who is also my partner in this work, Bjorn Homburg, who is the head of the Die Hammerschlag Foundation. Today, we will take you through the key findings of the report on both the revenue side and also how this translates into support to member states in their pursuit of their own development aspirations in their countries. I will touch on two main points. First, what is in the coming report that will be explained by our colleague Diana? And second, what does all this number mean for all of us? Well, let me start by saying word or two on pool funding. Since we are talking about financing the UN development system, and we at MPTF4, in addition to this report, Our work is also concentrated on administrating pool fund. And pool fund has been seen as being key part of the funding mix to support the UN. I would like to say a word or two about that to complement what my colleague Aisha have said. We are working in a changing global context with fewer resources, more crisis, where more accountability is required and also with high expectations from funding partners. We all need everybody at the table and all the approaches to resources have to be brought on board to make a difference going forward. Many different impressive results and accomplishments have been made by individual UN agencies, but some challenges, however, require an action that is much more collective, where the need for pulling resources, pulling energy to figure out how best to do the work in the most efficient way, and also how best to get the political, I would say, commitment to get it move forward are required. And to be able to do that, the instrument that has been used a lot to try to really advance this is the instrument, the pool funding, and that's what the MPTF has been doing for more than 20 years and doing it highly successfully. In fact, we're just coming from a dialogue on the UNA. The Secretary General of the United Nations, in setting up this dialogue, has clearly outlined core funding and pooled funding as one of his preferred way to actually increase the quality of funding that come to the UN. And the work that has completed after this aspiration was outlined was that for the UN to work, we need a healthy mix of funding, which include call and et cetera, et cetera, with, of course, pool funding being mentioned as part of that. And don't take my word for it, just look at what others have said about that. And in my personal experience, I can tell you in my role, or being resident coordinator four times in countries such as South Sudan, Mali, Zimbabwe, and China, I have used and have seen the importance of actually pool funding at work, both on the humanitarian side, but also on the developing side. So we want to really insist that pool funding is not for everything that comes aboard, but these certain things that are required more people coming together, multiple actors playing, that the instrument that work by far the best is still an instrument that is called the pool funding. Having said that, what about the report now? On the report, given the general ODA trend in the past couple of years, its finding may not be a surprise to any one of us, but there are still many insight that we can learn from the report, and this will be presented soon by Diana. On the volume, the UN real term revenue fell for the second consecutive year in 2024, down to 68 billion. This is the first time that resources have recorded consecutive drops year on year, and this dating back to 2010. On the trend itself, the downward trend intimated in last year report is now clearly obvious. Real term resources to the system declined 14% between 2022 and 2024. And the UNCEB projection indicate that ongoing decreases over the next several years will be as much as 20% through to 2027, which means that by 2027, we might be expecting about 53 billion to the UN system. 53 billion to the UN system is the same number or same level of resources the UN system received in 2015. So we have gone up and back down all the way to level up at the same level we were in 2015, which is basically the year where we tried to really adopt the SDGs. One of the things that will come up is that the system funding continued to be in majority directed a life-saving work with humanitarian assistance making up more than 40% of the overall resources that we receive. But as with all the areas of work, however, for the first time, the assistance we saw going to humanitarian start to also contract. with 10% contractions down now to 30 billion only in 2023 for the resources that we receive on the humanitarian side. Now, what does this mean for all of us? We see global challenges proliferating from the impact on climate change to crises and conflicts in Gaza, Iran, Ukraine, Sudan, and the Sahel, migration challenges. On other issues of global importance, such as the AI and the governance of it, we see industry leaders themselves calling for a collective approach to harnessing the best of this new technology to keeping us safe. Each of these issues that I just mentioned, we must effectively confront it on a multilateral basis. They require a common platform for the international community to come together to coordinate and to achieve collective solutions for those shared challenges. This is the promise that we must keep collectively. A promise to recenter our work on a multilateral ethos and convictions. A promise to be embraced by each of us individually and also in our institutions. For us at the UN system, It is a promise to ensure the highest standard of efficiency, clear emphasis on our delivery, to keep and build a trust in our institutions, and instill greater confidence in our collective actions. For our UN member state, a promise to double down on the promise of a strong UN. With the required political and financial support, to address global challenges and the solidarity of actions to support each other in a very true spirit of the United Nations. For emerging non-state actors, they may not be here, with global influence, a promise to contribute responsibly and to ensure their work puts people's welfare, the planet's safety, and prosperity for all at the center of all their considerations. In conclusion, I want to here again reiterate our deep gratitude for the cooperation that we have enjoyed with all of you in your different roles. We very much hope to continue that cooperation with you. Let us work together to move the message forward that keeping the promise is not just from one side or the other side, it's from all of us. We have a promise to keep in where we are. For us at the MPTFO, in addition to our critical work of administrating pool funding for the UN system and for all the partners here, we'll continue with our research and analysis and to provide evidence to support and inform this dialogue, the dialogue that will move us towards a stronger multilateral system. I want to take the opportunity to express my gratitude to my colleague at MBTFU and also to the team at the Dac Hammerschlag Foundations for the hard work and for the preparations that they have done to bring the report to fruition and what they have also done together to prepare for this event today. I thank you again for your attention and very much look forward to our deliberations. Over back to you, Chair.

Thank you so much, Alan, for those very powerful remarks and for really unpacking what that promise means. And as you heard from Alan, that there's a promise for so many different actors when we talk about keeping the promise. very powerful. And just to connect some of your statistics back to what Bjorn said, the contracting of the resources on the humanitarian side, to put a fine point on that, which I know Deanna will also get into, connects to the figure you cited, Bjorn, the 9.5 million additional deaths projected by 2030 by the Lancet report. So that's, there's a lot to discuss here and look forward to continuing the discussion. Now we move to remarks by our gracious co-hosts. Over to you first, Her Ambassador Kugelberg.

Thank you very much, Chair. Excellencies, colleagues, and friends, it's a pleasure to welcome you today on behalf of Sweden, together with our co-host, Zambia. Sweden is very proud to support this report and the broader efforts also on the UN system to strengthen the quality of development financing. Sweden remains committed to the multilateral cooperation and is one of few member states that continue to meet the UN targets of allocating 0.7% of gross national income to official development assistance. Today's report comes at a really important moment. As development and humanitarian needs continue to grow, resources are becoming increasingly constrained. And in this context, of course, discussion about financing cannot be separated from discussions also about effectiveness and results. The question before us is not only how to mobilize resources for the UN development system, it is also how to ensure that available resources deliver the greatest possible impact for the people and the communities that the UN serve. So for Sweden, the quality of funding matters as much as the quantity. Flexible and predictable funding enables the UN system to respond to changing needs, support national priorities and also deliver results where they are needed the most. It also allows the UN to act collectively rather than through fragmented efforts. At the same time, sustaining political support for flexible funding requires a strong partnership between member states and the UN system. So member states really need to see clearly the value of the flexible funding that that also creates. We need to be able to demonstrate results, communicate impact also to government and parliaments, and remain engaged with the work that the UN system does, including, of course, at the country level. This is ultimately a question of trust, accountability and impact. And Sweden really looks forward to today's discussion and the working with partners across the UN system to advance quality, flexibility and predictable financing for a stronger and more effective United Nations. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Ambassador. And I think we're hearing these common themes of trust, accountability, and impact, as you said, and that simple but important reminder that this whole discussion is about delivering the greatest impact for the people and the communities that we intend to serve. Thank you. Over to you, His Excellency, Dr. Milambo.

Thank you very much, Chair. Excellencies, distinguished colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, really, it's a pleasure. also for Zambia to co-host this side event, this launch together with our colleagues from Sweden, the launch of this very important report on keeping the promise. I'd like to thank the UN Multi-Partner Trust Fund Office and the Dag Hammarskjold Foundation for their continued leadership in producing what has become really an important contribution to understanding how the UN development system is financed. And we sincerely congratulate you and the team for this very insightful report and very timely report, we must say. I read last year's report, and it was very, very insightful as to the trajectory. We are witnessing significant changes in the international development financing system. I think that has been highlighted already. ODA is coming under growing pressure, while the multilateral system is increasingly being called upon to respond to greater needs with fewer resources. At the same time, the UN is undergoing important reforms to the UN80 initiative, aimed at making the organization more effective, efficient, and responsive. These developments cannot be considered separately. How we reform the UN development system must also take into account how the system is financed. The findings before us are quite sobering. UN system revenues continue to be in decline in real terms. At the same time, we see that the challenge is not only about how much financing the UN receives, it's also about the quality and the composition of that financing. As core resources come under increasing pressure, greater reliance on tightly earmarked contributions can reduce flexibility, constrain long-term planning, and risk drawing institutions away from their core mandates and comparative advantages. This raises an important question as we consider UN80. If we want a more coherent, efficient, and responsive United Nations, are we financing it in a way that enables it to operate as such? For Zambia, this is not simply an institutional question, it's a developmental question. At the service of its member states, the United Nations works across the globe every day, reaching those furthest behind, providing relief, and driving development solutions. In Zambia, we've seen this directly, the importance of pooled financing that was referred to, including in addressing gender-based violence and strengthening weather forecasts, early warning systems, and climate services. More broadly, we see that 60% of the financing that was raised and talked about in the portfolio in 2025 went to LDCs, demonstrating the importance of pooled funding to development and reaching those who are furthest left behind. At the same time, with these constrained resources, we need greater coordination, and pooling becomes much more important. The current financing pressure should certainly encourage greater efficiency, but efficiency cannot substitute for adequate and quality financing. Nor should reforms become simply an exercise in managing scarcity. This report gives us an important evidence base to consider the UN development system that we want, the functions we expect it to perform, and the financing model required to sustain it. Let us use these findings for this report to renew our commitment to predictable, flexible, and quality financing that enables the United Nations to deliver its mandate and on the aspirations of the 2030 Agenda. I thank you very much and look forward to a very productive discussion. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Ambassador Milambo. And as you said, the report's findings are indeed sobering. And the key question, you hit the nail on the head, is are we financing the UN system in a way that enables core mandates and comparative advantages? And look forward to hearing perspectives in the room on that. Esteemed colleagues, we'll move now to the report. I'm very pleased to introduce my colleague, Diana Fajardo, to present part one of the report, which covers UN resource flows, looking at funding sources, allocation patterns, and emerging trends. It covers the most recent data from 2024 with some projections for 2025 and beyond. Over to you, Diana.

Thank you, Aisha. Your Excellencies, distinguished guests, and dear colleagues, It is an honor to share with you some of the key insights presented in the 12th edition of Financing the UN Development System report. Before we begin, I would like to express my gratitude to Henriette Kaspers for her valuable feedback, to colleagues from the CEB Secretariat, UN DESA, and the OECD for producing and sharing their data, and to colleagues from the Multi-Partner Trust Fund Office and the Dag Hammarskjold Foundation, whose work made this report possible. Let's proceed. What is shown here comes as no surprise. We are all aware of the contraction of resources available to the UN system. This figure presents the evolution of UN system funding since the adoption of the 2030 Agenda. In 2024, UN system revenues stood at 68.3 billion US dollars. a slight nominal increase from 2023. But in real terms, revenue declined 1%, bringing the cumulative decrease since that 2022 peak to 14%. Looking ahead, CB projections point to a continued decline, with nominal revenue in 2027 expected to return to approximately levels seen a decade earlier. Annual UN system revenue in this figure is disaggregated by resources channeled through the four main financial instruments, assessed, voluntary core, and earmarked contributions, as well as revenue from other activities, such as the procurement of services. We will see these financial instruments in more detail in the next slide. The left-hand panel shows the evolution in the volume of resources by financial instrument. We see here that the changes in overall funding have been driven primarily by fluctuations in earmarked contributions, while core funding has remained relatively stagnant. The right-hand panel depicts the share of each financing instrument within the total UN system revenue. Core funding share has decreased from 39% in 2015 to 28% in 2024. Earmarked funding has grown to become the dominant share, peaking in 2022 at 67%. Now, let's concentrate on 2024 UN system funding. Here, the inner donut shows the distribution of 2024 UN system revenue across the four main financing instruments. The outer donut further disaggregates earmarked contributions by type, ranging from the flexible modality of UN interagency pool funds in yellow, and to program project specific contributions that are for the most part tightly earmarked. The figure highlights a double concentration. First, among the financing mechanisms in the inner circle, earmark contributions constitute more than 60%. Second, across the different types of earmark resources, funding is overwhelmingly directed towards specified projects or programs. Now let's look at the funding sources. Government resources are the primary source of funding for the UN system. In 2024, 75% of the funding originated directly from governments and from the European Union, with an additional 12% from other multilateral funding, which is predominantly supported by governments. DAC countries remain the largest funders of the UN system. They accounted for 57% of all UN system revenues, while other governments contributed 13%. The next slide illustrates another dimension of the UN system revenue as distributed by entity. Here we see the annual nominal revenue of 10 UN entities from 2015 to 2025. Collectively, in 2025, the revenue of these entities account for 80% of the UN system funding projection shown in that first slide. Preliminary 2025 data indicate that shifts in funding patterns since 2022 are continuing among some of the UN system's largest entities, with several humanitarian-focused entities experiencing substantial declines from the recent peaks. Next, let's turn to the development system. Here we see core and earmarked contributions to the UN development system. As in the UN system, earmarked contributions have been the fastest growing source of funding. OECD 2025 projections suggest core contributions to the UN development system may have an annual decline of 27%. If these estimates hold, core contributions would fall in nominal terms to around $6 billion. a level below any other recorded during the period. Now, let's see funding to interagency pool funds. Contributions to UN interagency pool funds doubled over the past decade, from $1.5 billion in 2015 to $3 billion in 2024, of which humanitarian pool funds received $1.8 billion and development related pool funds, 1.2 billion. Funding of UN interagency pool funds remains highly concentrated. The top 15 contributors accounted for 88% of total contributions in 2024, highlighting the exposure of pool funds to broader official development assistance trends, which we will examine next. After five consecutive years of growth, net official development assistance fell more than 8% in 2024. Preliminary 2025 data point to a decline of more than 23%, followed by a projected 6% drop in 2026, which should be considered as an optimistic scenario because it doesn't take into account effects of the war in Iran. This would mark three consecutive years of contraction in ODA, a pattern not seen since the end of the Cold War. Next, we will be focusing on UN expenses. In 2024, UN system expenses totaled 66 billion. The donut shows the distribution of these expenses across different functions: development, humanitarian, peace operations, and global agenda and specialized assistance, while the bar chart shows how the annual shares of these functions have evolved since 2018. The central role played by the UN in responding to growing humanitarian need is reflected by the large share of humanitarian assistance, which in 2024 was 41%. Development assistance accounted for 32%. In the next slide, we will see the evolution of UN expenses in these two functions for the UN development system. Here, humanitarian expenses have outpaced development. After rising sharply to more than $31 billion in 2022, humanitarian expenses declined and stood at $27 billion in 2024. Any reduction in humanitarian assistance due to a decline in crisis and humanitarian needs is to be welcomed. Unfortunately, that was not the case in 2024. Instead, UNHCR's global humanitarian overview highlighted a deepening of needs caused by intense armed conflict and the escalating global climate emergency. This figure shows UN expenses linked to SDGs based on self-reported data from UN entities. In 2024, the largest levels of UN expenses were directed towards promoting peace, justice, and strong institutions, SDG 16, followed by zero hunger, SDG 2, and good health and promoting well-being for all, SDG 3. The report also explores other dimensions of UN expenses, including by UN entity, crisis-affected country, and country income level. We are not presenting them here to leave more time for discussion. However, I would like to encourage you to visit the interactive site, Financing the UN Report. There, you can download all the figures in the report, explore the data, and the articles of this and past editions. That concludes my presentation. Thank you so much for your attention, and I will now give the floor back to the chair.

Thank you so much, Deanna, for that very comprehensive and clear presentation of what is very complex data. And just to put a fine point on what you said about revenue being projected to go close to a decade earlier, while the crises and the complexity of those crises are really going in the opposite direction. And with that sobering reality, how do we keep that promise, right, and deliver on that promise? And that's the question we're discussing here today. And that's the perfect segue to the next section of our discussion. Part 2 of the report. Let's turn to two of our authors. We're so lucky to have two of our authors here in person. with us. Part two is the marketplace of ideas. And I'm pleased to introduce John Hendra, author of the article, Cut to the Quick, the Impact of Funding Cuts on the UN's Development Work. John, over to you with thanks.

Thank you very much, Aisha. Excellencies, distinguished co-hosts, colleagues. As we've heard, this year's launch of the financing report comes at a time of massive financial challenges. I think the last quote there with the UN development system particularly hit hard with core contributions declining by 27% last year. What's more, the latest OECD estimates are that ODA will fall at least a further 7% this year, which is probably an underestimate. These sobering figures tally with what many UN agencies projected over 2025-26 and have already implemented in terms of major staff reductions. While many governments around the world are also having to reduce staff at this time, it's important to also look at the significant impact these cuts are having. As I flag in my piece, I think the impact can be examined from three perspectives. First, on the people the UN serves, especially in the poorest countries. Second, on the UN development system's capacity to perform its various mandates. And third, on morale and the next generation of UN leaders. In addition to the Lancet study that's already been cited, data from UN agencies themselves show that humanitarian and health sectors are disproportionately affected by the cuts, with global humanitarian funding collapsing by 53% from 2022 to 2025. Beyond the lives lost and livelihoods shattered, such cuts are also very much impacting the core capacities and reach of the UN's development, humanitarian, and human rights work. MOPAN's mapping of measures taken by UN organizations in response to these cuts shows that over three quarters of UN agencies announced significant budget shortfalls, ranging from 11 to 30% for 2025 to 2027, and in a couple of cases now exceeding 50%. This stark reality has led to staffing and programmatic downsizing, as well as fundamental structural change, often moving faster than reform processes like UNAD can keep pace. In effect, this reform by attrition, as MOPED has labeled it, means austerity rather than strategy is often driving change, with critical UN capacities and normative support, effective oversight, and local partnerships being hollowed out just when they are most needed. Overall, such abrupt, uncoordinated cost-cutting across agencies is skewing priorities towards short-term outputs, inhibiting horizontal collaboration, and undermining oversight and accountability thereby ultimately putting governance and trust at risk. Just as funding cuts and staffing reductions and livelihood stress has affected the broader global development and humanitarian ecosystem, they are deeply affecting UN staff with waves of job cuts, hiring freezes, and relocation to cheaper duty stations. In many cases, the abolishment of so many staff positions will result in precarious non-staff positions and consultancies trying to fill the gap, ultimately undermining the impartiality of the international civil servant. service. And with just 4% of the UN staff today 30 years or younger, it is a great concern with the future senior leadership of the UN will look like 15 years from now. So given this dire situation, I don't need to say anything more dire than we've heard about the financial situation, then what should be done? For the UN development system to emerge from this real funding crisis as an effective partner, It's important that UN reform that enhances the system's impact and builds both much more informed public understanding and greater political support succeeds. In that context, there are a number of avenues that member states need to pursue. First, it's critical that the renewed focus on the convening potential of middle powers is stepped up to protect key elements of the UN system's work, especially its unique normative function and lifesaving humanitarian work. In that context, it was heartening to see leaders of Brazil, Canada, Kenya, India, Australia, Barbados, and European Council come together last month to form a new part, Partners for Multilateralism Initiative, focused on reforming and renewing the multilateral system, including the United Nations, to make it more representative, effective, and trusted. Preserving the UN system's capacity will also need member states to both protect underlying financial foundations and manage these or oversee these funding cuts much more intentionally. As this year's OECD Multilateral Development Finance Report highlights, enhancing overall effectiveness will also require that multilateral organizations themselves pursue reforms that sharpen their development additionality and strengthen system-wide coherence. Second, member states should continue to push to make proposed reforms as evidence-based as possible by using recommendations of UN system-wide independent evaluations and analytical work and institutional assessments by MOPEN. But then it then better hold entities in the system to account to seriously follow up with such evidence based recommendations. Third, countries ultimately get the UN development system they fund. And after years of increasingly earmarked projectization of UN support, it should be no surprise that it is as fragmented as it is. As we all know well, short term earmarked funding encourages agencies to compete for projects and pursue visibility. It also makes collaboration harder, even when everyone agrees it's necessary. Member states and funding partners created much of this incentive structure. They will also have to help to change it. This is about behavior change as much as money. If funding rewards fragment and fragmentation, the system will fragment. If it rewards coherence, the system has a chance to act coherently. Clear communication of purpose and impact by UN agencies will be critical as as will it be for member states to support a more political capital centered approach in the funding compact in addition to very important country level dialogues. Fourth, more broadly, there's a pressing need for much more effective domestic discourse, both on how much citizens value development cooperation, but also how much their governments actually spend on it. A recent survey by the Rockefeller Foundation found that Majorities in all 34 countries surveyed favored reversing recent aid cuts or increasing aid. Another survey commissioned by France's G7 presidency earlier in the year showed that citizens in G7 countries believe that nearly 20% of their national budgets is spent on ODA, when the figure is less than 0.5%, probably something like 0.32%. It's critical then that governments provide both the governments both provide the public a clear, clear understanding of not only the actual volume of assistance, but also especially its impact, including the negative health and livelihood impacts of such dramatic cuts. Fifth, even before the extraordinary cuts of the past two years, many have called for a new ethos and narrative reframing global development, cooperation and humanitarian response. This focus has been on rethinking the system with calls for renewed focus on localization and shifting the greater global public investment. While timely, there is a critical need to bring these initiatives together in a coherent, dynamic framework as soon as possible and with a compelling narrative. When reimagining the future, it will also be important to be clear what are truly the unique elements of UN engagement and ensure that these are preserved and financed to the greatest extent possible. Finally, it's important to broaden this reframing in an astute manner. especially given that money is there, but is now being spent very differently. Last year, the world saw 65 state-based armed conflicts across 35 countries, with global military spending reaching $2.9 trillion, the highest level ever. If one compares the 2025 ODA figure of $174 billion, this works out to almost $17 spent on military expenditure for every $1 spent on development assistance. In today's ruptured international order, many countries have real security concerns, and this is unassailable. But it's 17 to 1, the right spending ratio to greater security, especially as effective development often addresses the root causes of instability. This is a decisive moment for the UN development system. Going forward, it will be key to ensure that efficiency gains are matched by more predictable funding. that the cumulative systemic impacts of UN agency level cuts are better monitored and understood, and that the UN system is incentivized politically and financially to move to comparative advantage and greater interagency collaboration. While some key UNAD reforms are under implementation, at this critical time, perhaps the greatest risk the member states face is a risk of inaction, a more transformative UN development system reform. As I shift to the next Secretary General, there's a pressing need for an ambitious vision for that. The current set of legislated UN development system reforms were the results of a series of member state asks of the then incoming Secretary General in 2017 through the 2016 QCPR resolution, which eventually resulted in the landmark General Assembly Resolution 72279. Hence, If there is to be a much more transformative UNDS reform, it is incumbent on member states to make it clear and direct ask of the next Secretary-General to prepare ambitious, substantive proposals for member state consideration on the core purpose, the key functions, and enhanced funding for a UN development system truly fit for the future. Thank you very much for including me today.

Thank you so much, John. You said a lot for everyone to reflect on. I think we should all sit with that 17 to one figure in particular, but thank you also for drawing our attention to the question of what should be done. And you gave a lot of ideas. I do encourage you to read the article in full, but John talked about informed public domestic understanding and discourse. really the role of a wider range of partners and reforms that strengthen system-wide collaboration. And I think all of our speakers have talked about that quality of funding. So that's another common theme emerging. With that, I'm very pleased to hand the floor over to my colleague, Marianna Markocic-Andric, co-author of the UN Funding Compact, Why Progress Has Lagged and What Must Come Next. Thank you, Marianna.

Thank you, John. Your article shows the consequences of funding cuts. Our article asks a complementary question. Why, even when member states and the UN agree on the need for better quality funding, has progress under the funding compact remained so limited? Our conclusion is that the principles of the funding compact remain sound, but global commitments have not yet been translated into the instructions, incentives, and accountability needed at the country level. These figures show the size of the implementation gap. In 2024, voluntary core funding represented 11.6% of total voluntary funding against a 2027 target of 30%. Only 4.4% went through single agency thematic funds against a target of 15%. Interagency pool funds received 12.6% compared with a target of 30%. There are substantial gaps, and they have not been narrowed consistently over the years. We see a similar pattern in contributions to the Peacebuilding Fund, Multi-Partner Trust Funds, and the Joint SDG Fund. Across all three mechanisms, contributions remain far below the ambitions set for 2027. Taken together, these figures suggest that 2027 targets are unlikely to be met through global commitments alone. Progress will depend on whether member states and the UN development system address the political and institutional incentives that continue to favor earmarked and agency-specific funding. To understand why, the Foundation conducted a qualitative study from March to June this year in consultation with the UN Development Coordination Office and with the support of the University of Glasgow. We carried out interviews across eight country contexts and examined three global pooled funding mechanisms. This is not a statistically representative survey. Its purpose was to identify recurring incentives and operational barriers that help explain the gap between global agreement and country-level practice. Three main findings stand out in our study. First, transmission from headquarters to the country level remains weak. The compact is understood at the headquarters level and in the capitals, but its commitments are not consistently translated into practical instructions for embassies, donor desks, and for UN country teams. Second, progress by member states has been most limited on funding quality. Donors face legitimate political pressure to show parliaments and taxpayers exactly where the resources went and what they achieved. Project specific funding makes this attribution easier, but it also contributes to fragmentation. Third, respondents saw more progress on the UN side, especially when it concerns the coordination, transparency and joint programing. Yet agencies remain accountable to separate governing bodies, and leaders are often rewarded for raising resources for their own organizations. Again, again, contributing to fragmentation. We therefore ask the system to work coherently while many of its own incentives still reward competition. Pool funding illustrates both the promise and the challenge. It works best when its purpose is clear, governance is manageable, coordination is trusted, donors retain adequate visibility, and the scale and duration justify the coordination costs. The answer is therefore not simply to create more pool funds, but to use them selectively and to design them well. Resident coordinators are also central, but often underpowered. They're expected to bring agencies together and engage governments and donors, yet they may lack sufficient staff, formal authority, and early access to funding decisions. Resident coordinators' offices should therefore be resourced according to the complexity of each country context, while agency incentives should reward genuine cooperation. Our study proposes five practical shifts. First, to translate the global commitments into clear country level instructions. Second, to strengthen the political accountability and regular follow up. Third, to protect flexible funding while giving donors stronger visibility of collective results. Fourth, to resource resident coordinator offices appropriately. And fifth, to align agency performance systems with collective rather than agency-specific outcomes. To summarize, the funding compact is not short of diagnosis. We broadly know what good quality UN funding should look like. What remains missing are the political and institutional conditions that make this normal practice. Thank you for listening, and we look forward to your questions.

Thank you so much, Mariana, for that very succinct presentation and focusing us on concretely what can be done to achieve the funding compact targets. And as you said, this is something we all sat around and already agreed to, right? We know what quality funding looks like. So what is that? What are those operational barriers and how can we address those? It is my pleasure now to open up the floor. We really want to hear from colleagues in the room. Quick reflections on what you've heard, more ideas as we talk about where do we go from here with the context that we have in front of us. And just so we can try to hear from as many of you as possible, please keep it brief, under one minute. At the suggestion of my colleague, I'll use this charter book to lift up to just let colleagues know we're getting short on time. I'll take three at a time, and if it's a question, I'll hand it back over to one of our panelists to take the question. And you can just use the microphone button at your desk to indicate that you'd like the floor. Please go ahead.

Thank you very much and happy to break the ice. Thank you very much to the co-host, of course, for organizing this event and thank you to the authors for the presentation, but also for the report. I'm from the European Union delegation to the United Nations, and we always very carefully study, of course, the report every year. It's very timely, of course, as we engage on the work package on UNAT on funding, and it was particularly interesting the last article on the funding compact and what has not worked and how we can probably achieve that better. We take note particularly this year of the specific article on the future of the funding of the European Union. And if you allow me, I will focus on three points in reaction to the article, which we did not discuss right now, but I think it's important from our perspective to also comment on that important article and which, again, we greatly welcome. First, we appreciate the report's recognition and the article's recognition of the EU's increasingly pivotal role as a funder of the UN system, both in its own right and alongside the significant contributions of our member states. The institutions alone are a major funder, now 5% of total UN funding, as we have seen from the report, despite the EU not being a member. Our focus is on implementation of UN priorities, but we're also fully committed to the functioning of the UN development system. And it's true that we cannot do core funding for legal reasons, but we do try to see how we can still support the functioning of the system, for example, through pooled funding, such as the SDG Joint Fund, or also the support of the Resident Coordinator System. And just two weeks ago, during High-Level Week, we announced an additional voluntary contribution of 14 million euros to the UNRC system. Second, as mentioned, the EU is moving towards supporting larger scale investments. agendas in sustainable development through Global Gateway, which are mutually beneficial partnerships with host government ownership, bringing larger volumes of finance from additional sources, because we do know and it's clear that public funding will not be enough to achieve the SDGs. Global Gateway, which is fueled by ODA, is fully aligned with the SDGs, contributing to boosting sustainable investments in digital, energy, and transport sectors, and to strengthen health, education, and research systems across the world. There is no position between EU priorities and the SDGs. On the contrary, as the EU remains fully committed to Agenda 2030, globally, the UN member states represent close to half of total ODA today. And of course, the UN has a determining role in this, in the implementation of Global Gateway, and we will continue to have this role. Finally, going forward, and this is well mentioned in the article, an ambitious proposal has been made for the new Global Europe Instrument as part of the multi-annual financial framework, this is the budget of the European Union for the next seven years. And it's ambitious, given the many challenges we have to deal with. Right now, it will be negotiated with member states, the Commission and Parliament. We look forward to the outcome of the negotiations on the instrument, and we stand ready to engage further on how we can strengthen together our collective impact ahead of 2030. Thank you very much again.

Thank you so much for those perspectives from the EU, and we'll come back to the panel after two more interventions. And please do briefly introduce yourselves. My colleague from the mission of the Netherlands and then over to the UN Development Coordination Office. Frans, over to you.

Yes, thank you very much. Frans van der Straate from the mission of the Netherlands. First of all, thanks a lot for these presentations. I have to apologize for my ambassador who had to leave to another commitment, but while listening to your presentations, he asked me what happened before 2015. So we asked AI and and corrected for inflation, plotted it in a graph. I don't know how reliable this data is, but it shows to us that 2015 in itself was a peak, if you look from 2000. So maybe some reflection on the longer-term trends would be useful. But that being said, we know all, of course, that the SDGs are far off track at this moment. that the needs have increased and that even in absolute terms, we're sort of at 2015 level again, which is not in line with the trend. So we really need to beef up. And as we've heard from you, there's sort of two things we can do is increase the pie and alter the composition of the pie as we see it. And in increasing the pie, yeah, the report also shows that we rely on a very small number of donors. So it's only 10 or 11 that contribute. I think the top 10 was going to be 260% roughly. So we are very interested in seeing how we can make this reliability on just a handful of donors or two handfuls of donors a bit less risky. And we also see ODA more and more as a catalyst for other financing. And we've been saying even since the MDGs, private sector needs to step up. We really believe that we should not make this a moral appeal, but a dialogue and ask, what do you need to step up efforts? Same goes for pension funds, et cetera. We have to stop just stating the obvious, but making it happen. And then on the composition of the pie, yes, Mr. Hendra was also alluding to this. Yes, we need to really increase an in-work funding. We've all signed the funding compact. We don't comply with it ourselves. We're close, but we're under the current government are stepping up our efforts to reach the 30% and well, an appeal to all, of course, to do that. And also the pooled funding is really a tool that we believe in. So the joint SDG fund, for example, we see as a very powerful tool to increase the results on the ground. And we've been a steadfast partner of this. Thanks.

Thank you so much. And I think your comment on ODA as a catalyst is a perfect segue to our colleague from DCO. That was one of the articles in the report on restitution financing in particular. Chris, I know you wanted to say a word on that. Over.

Thanks very much, Aisha. And thank you so much to the MPTF office and the Dag Hammarskjold Foundation for another excellent report. I'm Chris Stokes from the Development Coordination Office. and just want to emphasize how important we see the messages in this report, the various data that's been shared and findings, including the study on the funding compact and the need for us to really look at the blockages and to try to use that instrument in the way that it was designed. I'll just touch on five quick points. This is very much as well linked, I think, with the conversation around UN80 and looking at how funding is a fundamental part of how the UN operates in a reformed way, in a more cohesive, more effective and more efficient way. The first is just that we do need to treat funding quality, I think, as a portfolio issue, not simply as a core versus earmarks debate. So the reality is, of course, that earmarked funding will remain dominant and core and pooled funding will remain under pressure and comparatively small. But the priority, therefore, has to be that we have to tailor our funding to make the funding mix work better. So we need to make sure that we protect core for the institutional and normative functions that only flexible resources can sustain. We need to use pooled funding where collective action adds value, and we need to improve the quality of earmarked funding that will continue to finance the majority of our operations. And that means earmarking, you know, within that earmarked typology of funding, putting less restrictions on it, making it less projectized, which then in turn leads to fragmentation. Second is we need to create much stronger incentives for high quality earmarking, and The distinction that matters is increasingly between funding that's multi-year, sufficiently large, aligned with national priorities and existing program portfolios, and uses standardized reporting arrangements. But on the other hand, we have small, short-term, highly customized projects that generate fragmentation and high transaction costs. So we need more common standards for assessing funding quality, stronger discipline by UN entities in accepting poor quality funding, and differentiated cost recovery so that the price of funding reflects the real costs that it creates. Thirdly, we need to strengthen the line of sight from resources to results. Better quality funding will be politically sustainable only if the UN can demonstrate more clearly what it achieves with it. And this is especially important for core and flexible resources where the problem is often less a lack of results than an inability to communicate contribution rather than attribution to specific governments. We need simpler and more comparable reporting that connects mandates to resources and then to results, including collective results at country level, rather than adding further layers of donor-specific reporting. Fourthly, we need to make funding dialogue operational at country level. The funding compact discussions that are underway, led by the resident coordinators and the country teams, need to be really anchored in cooperation framework processes and focus on the actual financing of agreed country results. where the gaps are, where the existing funding is aligned and predictable, where pooled or joint approaches could add value, and how UN funding can catalyze wider public and private finance. And that also creates a space where governments, donors, and the UN can jointly address funding quality rather than treating it as a headquarters level and donor agency conversation. So the next phase of reform really needs to focus less on persuading donors to choose one modality over another and more on changing the incentives so that every modality supports strategic, nationally owned and demonstrable results. DCO is looking particularly in the RCT system, is looking particularly at country level pooled funds in this regard and what value added they can provide in certain country contexts in support of cooperation framework results. And Asia mentioned the Insoj Fund, which is in Uzbekistan. There's an excellent article that I'd refer you to here that's co-authored by delegates or senior officials from the Swiss government and from the Uzbek government who are the sort of co-leads on this fund. This is an example that shows that restituted assets can become a meaningful source of development finance. In this case, assets that were recovered through corruption proceedings are being returned to the people of Uzbekistan through a UN multi-partner trust fund, a country-level fund, rather than treated as conventional aid. The legitimacy of this fund relies on strong national ownership, transparency, and trust. And the fund's governance deliberately brings together the Uzbek, Swiss governments, the UNRC, and the civil society and country with unusually high standards of scrutiny because these are restituted public assets. The model is already delivering tangible results, and the article points to many of these in areas like maternal and newborn health, training for thousands of health workers, upgraded perinatal facilities, and major investments in education, digital learning, and school infrastructure. But the fund is also a stress test for the UN development system. It exposes persistent problems around fragmentation, competition among agencies, joint programming, indirect costs, and financial reporting. And the broader lesson is that UN systems and incentives do need to adapt to different forms of financing rather than just simply applying standard ODA arrangements. The wider opportunity is to turn this pilot into institutional learning. And the authors in the report argue for strategic country level pooled funds, incentives that reward collaboration, and more flexible frameworks capable of handling financing beyond ODA. Done well, we think that restitution can expand resources for sustainable development and strengthen trust in multilateralism. And we're hopeful that this experience in Uzbekistan can lead to more restitution arrangements being channeled through country level pooled funding to support the work of UNCTs in delivering for the people to whom the funds truly belong. Thanks very much.

Thank you so much, Chris. We let the time slide there because you guys have a lot under your purview in DCO. So thank you for that perspective. And I do encourage you all to read the article that Chris mentioned. And I think one thing you talked about that everyone's talking about is also incentive. So that's another common theme emerging. We're gonna do a lightning round of not exactly questions, lots of important reflections and ideas. So I'm gonna turn it back to our panel to just take one thing you'd like to react to in 30 seconds, and then do a final round of any thoughts from the floor under 30 seconds, please. And then closing remarks from our colleagues at the foundation. I'm gonna put my own boss on the spot and ask you to reflect first and then Bjorn and our co-host. Any just one thing you want to react to.

Just one thing. And I thank the speakers for their comments, the EU and this year, and also colleague from the Netherlands. And one point that I would like to expand upon is on the ODA being a catalyst. And I think that we all have seen during the General Assembly debate that everybody is in broad lining, say that we need private sector, domestic resource mobilizations, no, the combination of that to try to really impact development on the ground. And that's all very well and said. What we have to keep in mind is that to really keep ourself together as a international community, We need something, a platform through which we have to continue to really dialogue and work. And that platform at the moment is the UN. And there can only be that much reductions into what we can do there. I think John says it clearly in his paper. So this is not about ODA, about thing. We agree that development should be concentrated in the countries where they should be. But if you want to have that platform, there is a minimum threshold that we need to really keep an eye on. And this is not about the volume, the mobilization, it's actually believing in heart that we need to have that. If you have that behavior and believe in that, then we'll find a way to always find it to make sure that the UN is sustained going forward.

Thank you so much, Ilan. Very powerful. Bjorn, over to you, and then Dr. Milambo, and then over to you, Ambassador.

Thank you, Aisha. So many wise words have been said, and thanks a lot for the presentation. I do believe that you mentioned, John, and several others have made that same issue about the importance of parliamentarians and the constituencies. We meet so many from the Dag Hammarskjold Foundation in country, in the UN, being experts, really aligning with the idea of quality funding. But the level of knowledge in parliaments, and we've seen that working with the International Parliamentary Union and in parliament, is not always, they don't really understand all these mechanisms. I think that is the key group. I also believe we mentioned a couple of times that the in-country work is so important. Peter and Mariana and others in my team have been to so many UN country teams and RCs and host government where the knowledge of the funding compact is so low. So I think we need to increase that knowledge, but also what was said by several also, we need to delegate much more to decision from the donor countries to the embassies in countries. I myself were 20 years ago country director of SIDA in Guatemala with full delegation, meaning I could align much better with other donors, with the UN system, and of course with the host government. So I think we need to revert back a bit to the Paris Declaration in 2005 because the transaction costs are so high now. So we are micromanaging things from New York instead of, you know, trusting our colleagues on the ground. So I think parliamentarians and working in country are two of two of the mechanisms to go ahead on. Thanks.

Yeah, thank you very much. Very important insights that have come through, very enlightening. I think my contribution really relates to, we're talking about dealing with fragmentation, right, in many spaces. But I think even ourselves who are advocates for a stronger UN, more impactful UN, must collaborate with the various pieces that are talking about the future of development financing. And the many, currently I think there are about four or five tracks that are looking at what's the future of ODA, the OECD itself, DAC is going through a reform. I think we need to get to a point where all these pieces actually come together, you know, because we're hearing similar arguments from different quarters, including how to include the stakeholders, parliamentarians. And I think we need a platform that really brings all these pieces together. Zambia would be happy to host an event like that. But the point is that we need to compare notes at a certain point, then act on them. And I think when it comes to the issue of stakeholders, We should also have stakeholders that decide on the size of the purse and their location. So parliamentarians, funders, donor fund partners, yourselves, the different partners should come together and discuss this matter once and for all and see how we can move forward because the situation we have is there and we're heading towards 2030.

Okay, very important to now move to action, I think is also something that's been common in the room here and to look at good examples like was mentioned here with Afghanistan and incentives also on the country level and really look at that together and the quality factors that was mentioned here as well, what can be done and act together and also look at the private sector to broaden the base as the Dutch colleague said. Very interesting.

Thank you so much, Ambassadors. We want to do one final round from the floor, so please just hit the button if you'd like to speak. We're actually almost at the conclusion. We'll hear from our foundation colleagues for some final reflections, but please go ahead. We want to hear from member state colleagues, UN colleagues, non-UN, and if no one takes the floor, I'll put my own colleagues and MPTFO on the spot. Lisa, Joint SDG Fund, please go ahead.

Always a pleasure to hear so much expertise shared and our precious member states speaking out as well. I'd love to hear from the room about the risk tolerance that is open to this conversation. We are up against the headwinds inside this building and trying to unlock private sector money, trying to engage pension funds, trying to work with private equity, and asset managers means we need a nimble and a responsive system that is bolstered by member states. So are the member states open for us to be that nimble? What is the risk appetite? Because if you really want us to unlock the trillions, we have to be in different rooms and we have to be far away from Midtown. And until we get to Wall Street, until we get to the London Stock Exchange, until we get to Singapore, and beyond, um, I'm afraid we're going to keep counting our shrinking piggy bank, or the pennies in the piggy bank. Thank you.

Thank you, Lisa, for that important question on, on risk tolerance. It is an important one. I don't see any further lights. Do any of my colleagues from MPTFO want to take the floor? Yes, of course, please.

Just to really thank Lisa for raising that point. And the point is that there are trillions that are needed to achieve the SDG by the member states. Our role as United Nations, as a international community, is not to do development for the people, is to accompany them. So our role is limited But it's important when there are gap, we can actually do that. So how does we use our positioning to help them to access those financing? And your point is spot on. Are we going to be talking about 68 billion total in the ODA line of 250 billion in the need of trillions? We look small. But the point is that if we are to be able to really use our position to really affect that change, we have to have systems that allow to do that. And then I can already say that my colleague here, we working almost here internally to see how best to then position those so that in addition to do what traditionally we do in terms of accompanying member state doing project. we can then now be able to help member states sort out the problem they have directly. Where it is hurting this member state, what do they need? Our role could be that of actually accompany them to be able to expand their own fiscal space, accompany them to try to get the financial mechanism that they might be able to get from the private sector. But that requires us to be reform in terms of what we offer and the type of the profile that you have. And that's a discussion that needs to happen, continue to be happening in the UN. I'm glad that you raised that. And you use that a lot in your own funding. And we want to thank you for raising that today. So thank you again for that contribution.

Thank you, Alon. And I think that word you repeated, "accompany," is a really important one when we talk about the role of the UN. I also take note of the Ambassador Milam's gracious offer to host the next discussion. With that, I want to give the floor to my colleague, Peter Lanier, Program Director at the Dag Hammarskjold Foundation for some closing reflections. Thank you, Peter.

Thank you so much, Aisha, and thank you all. We are a bit over time, so I will be super brief. I will not try to summarize the entire event, but to emphasize some highlights. As expressed by both our co-hosts, Ambassadors Kugelbay and Milambo, the question is not only about ensuring quantity funding, but to ensure it is of high quality. And for that to happen, to encourage clear reporting on those for increased trust, if we want a more efficient UN to reach those most vulnerable, we need to ensure more quality funding. On the drastic reduction and projected reduction of the quantity, though, that has already led to devastating consequences for humanity, as we heard from John, and also the drastic effects on UN staff, especially younger talents, happening at a speed that does not allow the UN to do strategic cuts, but more panic cuts. The importance of more equal donor burden sharing, not the least to ensure a more sustainable donor base, as the Netherlands representative noted. And thank you also to the EU representative for commenting on the article in the report called The Future of the EU Funding to the UN System, written by Nils Kaiser and Ronny Patts. I encourage you all to read it and also to take the opportunity to inform you that there is in total seven articles in this year's report. with more in-depth analysis. Two of them were presented here today, and another one was mentioned on the Uzbekistan Constitution Fund. Also to underline that those are the views of the authors to encourage a free and open dialogue, and not necessarily those of MPTF or nor of DHF. Also to conclude then with three sets of key messages. First to the member states who are also hosting UN in your home countries. The more quality funding, the more accountability, the more oversight, the more national ownership, and the more effectiveness. Your voice in this matters. I urge you, therefore, to use that voice in your home countries towards the UN and the member state representatives. And then to the donor representatives, all those important principles that we discussed of UN funding that were mentioned, which are also confirmed in the UN funding compact, or as we heard from Mariana, unfortunately not followed through at the country level. Therefore, it is absolutely vital that you ensure consistency in that those global messages are also followed through in your embassies at country level. And finally, to the UN representatives, this is also your responsibility. to promote core funding, to ensure better results reporting for soft earmarking, and not the least, to invest your own fund, staff, time, engagement into pools, funding, and joint programs for a more collective delivery and UN response at the country level. At the Dag Hammarskjold Foundation, we're happy to continue to advise and support all of you in that endeavor. Thank you to our partner, MPTFO. the co-hosts of Sweden and Zambia, and all of you who invested your valuable time to be with us today here in the room and also online through the UN Web TV. Thank you.

Thank you.