(3rd meeting) Executive Board of UNDP, UNFPA and UNOPS (Second regular session 2026)

Good morning, dear colleagues, ladies and gentlemen. I declare open this third meeting of the second regular session 2026 of the Executive Board UNDP UNFPA. We continue with agenda item nine and we'll take a moment for you to find your seats. Thank you. So agenda item nine, engagement with the UNAT initiative. And as per usual practice, we'll be engaging with the heads of the executive, the executive heads of our entities UNDP. We have the UNDP administrator with us. We have the UNFPA executive director and UNOPS executive director. I think as you know, in between the June session and today, there have been significant interactions between member states among themselves in different groups, in different formats, but also with the entities themselves. And I myself have been in contact with the heads of our entities all throughout together with the Bureau, been comparing notes and exchanging views to facilitate a process that has been started by Member States and will have to be decided at the end of the day by Member States. I think all throughout, I want to acknowledge the important open approach of the entities in engaging with the Member States, addressing the significant number of comments and questions and clarifications that member states for a good reason and for a legitimate reason they do have. It's still work in progress, everything that we come across. Documentation has been made available to member states. Some of it within the three weeks timeline, some of it not exactly within the timeline. I myself as president have made it very clear that member states will decide on the end of the day how to factor in that particular information in our deliberations. I think today we should aim at indeed taking stock, listening very carefully to one another, and of course engaging with the heads of our organizations to identify exactly the way ahead and what exactly we need more as member states to take this process forward. My encouragement is indeed to have an interactive dialogue as much as possible. I know there are many prepared statements. I will try to facilitate this engagement by probably taking a group of statements from member states, comments, questions as we normally do, and then to try to address them. And without further ado, I think we can start with our agenda item deliberations and we'll first hear presentations from the heads of the entities, and then we'll open the floor for comments. And I want to start with the Administrator of UNDP, Mr. Alexander De Croo. Alexander, please, you have the floor.

Yes, thank you, Mr. President, dear members of the board, dear spectators. Development can only be judged by one thing, and that is the impact that we have on the lives of the people we support and the futures that we create for populations. Now, the way we evaluate development should be exactly the same way we evaluate reform. Evaluating reform is not about the structures that we create. It's not about the reports that we make. It should be guided by one question: Does it help us to deliver better? Does that reform make a difference on the ground? Does it bring the right expertise at the right place at the right moment? Does it help us to better partner with local governments, better partner with civil society, better partner with other organizations? So in the end, does it help us to act faster, to work smarter, and to reach further on the ambition that we have? And in a world that is changing so fast, and I don't need to enumerate for you all the change that happens in geopolitics, in the environment, in technology, it is absolutely clear for us that reform is not an option. It's not a choice. It's a necessity. And from the outset, UNDP has embraced the reform process in which we have engaged, which has been called UNATI. And the goal of UNATI is to renew, is to strengthen our ability to deliver. Now, of course, reform is much easier when you start from a blank page. None of our organizations start from a blank page. All of the organizations that you will hear today are operational organizations. And so we don't have the luxury to start from a blank page. In our case, we are active in 170 countries. We have 4.9 billion of US dollar that we delivered last year. More than 500 million people are dependent on us on a path towards prosperity. So every day, people are dependent on us. the people whom we work with, our partners, and the people whom we work for. That trust is something that we have to be extremely careful with in doing reform. That trust also makes the demand for reform more demanding. We need to aim high, and we need to be certain that we deliver to the ambitions that are being put on us. So, Being prudent because we are operational organization, it does not mean business as usual. This is not saying us everything is fine. No, reform is necessary for the many reasons that I've put forward. Reform is needed, it is urgent, and it needs to be real, it needs to be tangible. Now let me first turn to the discussion on a possible merger between UNOPS and UNDP. Where do we stand at this moment? It's not the first time we talk about this. You have asked us to be ambitious, and at the same time, you have asked us to be prudent. You've said, don't start with the conclusion, but begin with the evidence. And at your request in June, UNOPS and UNDP, we have submitted a single terms of reference for an independent assessment of a possible merger. This was at the request of the board. We have received your comments and we have incorporated those comments. This is an important step, we think, because it gives the executive board the evidence that it needs to use to consider and it allows to look at the different options on the same basis. And we heard that criticism in the previous meetings. We need to have the same basis to be able to make the right decision. With those terms of references that we have now finalized, we are in a position to be able to answer to that response, to that request. In the end, whatever option you choose, and a merger of this scale is not a small decision, you need to get the allocated time to be able to make that analysis. You need to be able to do a thorough analysis. and there is need for a clear oversight of the executive board. In the end, it is up to you, member states, to make that decision, but it is our responsibility to provide you with all the evidence that you've asked for and to provide you that evidence in a basis that you could use to make the right analysis and the right decision. But we need to be careful to not stand still. The world is changing rapidly, and as I said, it demands us to evolve. And so together with George, our teams, so the UNOPS teams and the UNDP teams have been identifying opportunities where we could work more closely together. This does not prejudge a future decision. We think that it is simply the right thing to do. if we can increase our cooperation, if this delivers more value, I don't think we should wait in doing that. And so we have looked in what we call practical pathways to combine the strengths and to deliver better at the value that we have. And we have done a first preliminary analysis of what could be the domains in which we could bring both organizations closer one to another. First domain that we want to explore is developing joint offers that would build on UNOPS and UNDP's complementary strengths. Second element is an operational alignment where we can deliver greater efficiencies in working together. Third element is a coordination and an enabling mechanism at the senior level for both organizations. Both our teams will work out more details in the weeks to come and in the months to come. From our perspective, these are what you could call no-regrets steps. These are things that you can do that brings organizations closer one to another, but that do not have an impact on mandates and do not have an impact on the independent assessments that you have asked for and that we can start immediately. I think that it will also help us to test how benefits can be delivered and how fast they can be realized. And it should also be something that helps you in better evaluating the different options that you will be asking to the independent evaluation. Now, UNAT, of course, is more than just a discussion about mergers. it is more about structures and mergers. It needs to focus on where it needs to start. And where it needs to start is how do we work in the countries? How do we work together with our partners? How do we work together with the populations that we work with? What are their needs? What would help us to deliver better to their expectations? How can we make the UN system more accessible and more effective for everyone. There, too, I think it's crucial at these moments to move as fast as possible from discussion to action. That is why we have been piloting in many domains with partner countries on seeing how these things can be put into practice. One example is expertise on demand, which is a workstream that we are doing together with ITU. The idea of expertise on demand is a very simple one. Preserving country presence is something which is at the top of our agenda. Now, preserving country presence does not mean that you need to have all expertise available in all countries on the ground. That would not be practical and honestly would also not be affordable. But What you want to make sure is that every country has access to the best that the UN has to offer. By now, together with ITU, we have made a catalogue of more than 2,000 different services that can be provided. These come from 31 entities. They have been put in an online catalogue, and the next step for us is for you to give you access to that and to get your first feedback on how that can work. The system of expertise on demand really put it forward because we believe it is the workstream that will help us to better connect with country reconfiguration and with the regional reset. The country reconfiguration looks at how can you better organize our support to the governments with whom we work with. The regional reset looks at how can the regional capacity help our country teams. Expertise on demand really puts all those two together and makes sure that in the work on regional reset and on country reconfiguration, we also have access to the best that the UN system has to deliver. As said, reform ultimately needs to deliver. The UN system needs to work as one. There needs to be easier access to the entirety of the UN system. It needs to be stronger And it needs to be clear that we need to bring the highest available quality to the partners with whom we work. Now, UN reform is about many things, but one of the elements that we want to put forward is how it is about partnerships, how it is about making sure that the UN system is better working together one with another and better working together with partners outside of the UN. The value of the UN is not only the thousands of different projects that we deliver. The value is how are we successful of multiplying the impact of those different projects? How can we make sure, and we as UNDP have an important role to play in that, that we are a global knowledge organization, but we connect it with a broad reach. And I think there we have quite a unique position, but that also puts a unique responsibility on us, on UNDP, to be successful on that and to help the whole system to deliver on that. As an organization, we connect and we connect knowledge with policy. We connect policy with investments, and then we connect investment with implementation. To do that, that means working together with others and working with many of you who are present here in this room. I think we have shown that those types of partnerships can be extremely successful. Partnerships in the domain of development, but also partnerships in the other pillars of the UN system. And let me go through the different ones. First of all, yes, partnerships within the development pillar. We have over the past years increased our support to the regional coordinators, increased our support to the country teams. And at the country level, UNDP is there to provide integrated policy responses and to really translate the coordination work of the RC into actionable implementation. To give you one example, and really one that is in the moment of now where we do that, is we have a partnership with DCO, where we are leading for the UN system the analysis of what is the impact of the crisis in the Gulf region. What is the impact on development? and what type of expertise do we have to bring in exchange to that. Today, in 46 countries, we have invested seed investment in making sure that that analysis can happen and that analysis can be translated into policy responses in which we can interact with the governments which we work. With one goal. One goal is to mitigate the impact of the crisis in the Gulf region on the development gains that we have had. Those gains today are under pressure. The last thing that we want is that those hard fought development gains would be lost. And so doing that analysis and then seeing as UN system, how can we help to mitigate? This is one example, I think, to show the type of partnerships that we can deliver. Another example is what we do in the critical energy transition minerals. What is happening in energy transition and the minerals that are needed there is going to change the path of development for many countries in the world. We work together on that together with UMTAD and with UNAP. The principle that we have in both of those examples is we can deliver more value if we work together from the outset. And that more value is because we know that there is not one single agency that has all the knowledge. And there is not one single agency that has all the capacity to implement on that. Combining all the knowledge and all the implementation capacity throughout the development pillar, I think is more needed than ever in those extremely testing times. That was the first one was on development. The second one is on early recovery. We have unfortunately more crises than ever in this world, and an integrated approach is definitely needed in that domain as well. We have seen that the funding for humanitarian response is at the lowest in decades, and there is a risk that you would have millions of people that are left in the middle between humanitarian relief and recovery. There also, we believe that we have an important role to play. We work together with humanitarian development partners to really see how we can make that bridge between crisis intervention and recovery. I've seen this firsthand over the past month. I have been visiting Syria together with the humanitarian chief, with Tom Fletcher. I've been in Afghanistan with the High Commissioner for Refugees, to really see how our organizations, which are often seen as organizations which are in a different part of the spectrum of development, how can we work together? When we help people in Syria, does it make a difference if it comes from a humanitarian organisation or if it comes from a development organisation. Honestly, in the difficult circumstances they are, it does not make a difference. But what we need to make sure on is that, yes, we save lives, but we also create futures. Bringing closer together is saving lives and creating futures is a crucial thing that we need to do. We are taking upon us one of the tasks in the humanitarian reset was the transition support mechanism. The idea of the transition support mechanism is that you have lined out milestones, ways of working between different organizations, and how do you make the transition? between humanitarian organizations and development organizations. This is not just about managing the gap that I just talked about. This really is about closing the gap. We as UNDP, in many of the places we talk about, we are there before the crisis happens, we are there during the crisis, and we are there after the crisis. Our goal is to strengthen resilience, and in the end, to prevent that a crisis would happen again and to bring countries and communities back on the path of development. That is what we call our move beyond crisis approach. It is moving from recovery to stability and then from stability to prosperity. Third example I want to give, and it's the last one to show that UNAT process is broader than just the work streams that are often talked about is related to peacekeeping. The same principles that I just explained on moving beyond crisis also applies when peacekeeping draws down. When peacekeeping operations leaves a country, very often it's a new start. A new start does not mean that there is no difficulties to overcome. Very often institutions are still weak. Very often the trust is still not there. And the Secretary-General has really been clear and really set the direction in this. He said, as peacekeeping operations draw down, we expect the UN country teams to play a stronger role. That is why we at UNDP are involved in peacekeeping from the start. This is why we work closely with DPPA and DPO. This is why we work very closely with UNFPA, with UN Women, very often also with UNOPS. It's to make sure that all the support is there during that crucial transition. A crucial transition. which needs to focus on rebuilding public administration, on strengthening civilian institutions, on strengthening the rule of law. And all of us together have a lot of expertise that we can bring to the table and that we need to be more proactive to immediately bring it in those locations where we know that that transition often is a difficult one and that the new start that I talked about is being seen as a promising one. and not as one that creates problems. Dear Mr. President, members of the board, let me conclude. On all of the things that I discussed, we will be in interaction with you, and we will definitely have another board meeting in January, but we have so many occasions to interact with you. Almost all of you, we have talked with you over the past weeks and over the past months. And in all of the things that you are working on, let us not only interact when there is board meetings. Let's use those other moments as well to get your feedback, to understand what your concerns are, for you also to push us forward. But let me finish with a broader consideration. I think that the UN Charter is more relevant than ever. Now, the relevance of that charter does not guarantee the relevance of the institutions. The relevance of the institutions is something that is earned. It is earned by our capacity to adapt to a new reality and adapt in a way that helps us to be stronger at delivery, to be closer to the countries, faster to act, better at delivery, better at working as one. That really is the assignment that you gave us and on one which are 100% committed to deliver. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Administrator. For a moment when you made reference to the meeting in January, I started thinking about the winter holidays. It is true that this is the last formal meeting, scheduled meeting of the board, but of course, depending on the type of interaction between member states and it's also something for reflection, we should not exclude additional meetings. of the board whenever there is a need, but that's a matter for further conversation among member states and the organizations as well. We continue with the executive director of UNFPA, Mrs. Diane Kitah. Diane, please you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, excellencies, distinguished member of the executive board, esteemed colleagues, reform is credible only when people experience the difference. That is the standard by which UNFPA approaches the UN aid initiative. UNFPA fully support the Secretary General's leadership and his ambition for United Nations that is more coherent, more efficient and better equipped to deliver. We are contributing technical, operational and normative expertise across 12 of the 31 work packages. The objective is clear. The question before us is which arrangement will best achieve it. Institutional structures are instrument, not ends in themselves. Our mandates and the people we serve are the purpose. Every option should therefore be judged against the same tests. Does it safeguard and strengthen the mandate entrusted by Member States? Does it preserve the field presence, expertise, commodities, humanitarian reach, data system and political space required to deliver? Does it improve accountability, financing and impact? Mandate without capability is a promise without the means to keep it. Today, I will focus primarily on work package number four, the potential merger on UNFPA and UN Women and the alternative options under consideration. Let me first briefly situate this within UNFPA's broader engagement in the UN 18. On human rights, we are helping to shape a system-wide response that keeps international agreed rights, including sexual and reproductive health and rights and gender equality central to reform. On country configuration and regional reset, We support government-led context-specific approaches under an empowered resident coordinator system. Strong resident coordinator system and strong agencies are mutually reinforcing. Country programs document may be simplified, but they must remain instrument of country ownership and executive board accountability. Coordination does not replace governance. We need both. On the humanitarian compact and common supply chains, we support efficiencies while safeguarding sexual and reproductive health and gender-based violence services as life-saving interventions. Common systems must recognize the specialized procurement and technical expertise required for sexual and reproductive health commodities. On the UNAIDS transition, we support a strong coordination and advocacy platform that preserves its multi-sectoral, rights-based approach and civil society leadership. On operational transformation, UNFPA is co-leading with UNOPS, the Business Innovation Group on global shared services, common back offices and common premises. We are also contributing to demographic intelligence to the UN Data Commons. Excellencies, let me now turn to work package number four. Following the guidance of our executive boards, UNFPA and UN Women jointly submitted a complementary analytical package. prepared under the guidance of the Executive Office of the Secretary General, with analytical support from Ernst & Young. It examines the operational, financial, legal, and programmatic implication of the two pathways already under consideration. It introduces no new reform scenario. The analysis broadly confirms the finding of the strategic merger assessment, It also underscores the significance of transition costs and the need to protect mandates and maintain program continuity. For UNFPA, continuity is not an abstract institutional concern. It means uninterrupted reproductive health commodities, maternal and newborn health care, emergency obstetric neonatal care, humanitarian and gender-based violence response, population data, census and national planning support, and country program delivery. Disruption would carry real consequences, particularly in humanitarian and fragile settings. At the same time, let me be equally clear, whatever institutional model member state ultimately chooses, there is a substantial scope for deeper collaboration between UNFPA and UN Women, and I am committed to pursuing it. The financial analysis must be read with care. It is not a cost reduction plan, and its projections are not guarantees. Under the assumptions tested, the alternative options could generate annual savings of up to US$15 million from 2030 against transition costs up to $39 million over three years. They could be implemented progressively within existing legal and governance frameworks over an estimated one to four year period. A structural merger is projected to require nearly twice the transition investment and more than four years to implement. It would also require institutional restructuring and a general assembly decision with careful phasing to protect program continuity. The merger pathway shows higher potential net savings. At the same time, within scope and assumption tested, the analysis did not identify distinct additional programmatic or operational benefits beyond those potentially achievable through the alternatives. Both pathways would draw on the same possible funding sources. and none has yet been identified that would avoid adjustments to current planning. These are projection excellencies, not conclusions. They should inform, not predetermine your judgments. Excellencies, as the Secretary General has underscored, the overall direction and skill of the UNAT now lie in the hands of member states. Any decision affecting mandates or governance must proceed through the appropriate intergovernmental processes informed by credible evidence and a clear understanding of benefits, costs, and risks. You entrusted us with this mandate. You approve. our strategic direction. You hold us accountable for result. Your perspective, question, and scrutiny are not peripheral to the reform. They are essential to getting it right. As I said yesterday, this board can expect three things from me. I will engage with an open mind. I will present the evidence with candor, and I will listen. I will not ask whether a proposal protects UNFP as we know it. I will ask whether it safeguards and strengthens what Member States created UNFPA to do and whether it enables us to deliver better for women, girls, young people and societies navigating demographic change. Once Member States decide through the appropriate intergovernmental process, I will implement that decision with discipline and loyalty. Until then, my responsibility is to present the evidence without embellishment and the risk without understatement. That is how we make reform credible. That is how we make multilateral intangible in people's lives. I thank you for your kind attention. And just in case, I would like, this is the third board of this year. I would like to thank the president. Thank you very much. I recognize your effort to make this formidable year, that is 2026, a professional and efficient one.

Thank you very much, Diane. Thank you, the Executive Director of UNFPA. We continue with the Executive Director of UNOPS, Mr. Jorge Moreira da Silva. Please, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President, Excellencies, colleagues. I would like to first of all to thank the Mr. President, for your leadership and commitment. Indeed, as you mentioned, we have had multiple interactions in the last few weeks, and this has been extremely helpful to move this agenda forward. And I would also like to thank member states for your guidance and support on UNAT process. UNAT started in in the CEB in Copenhagen when UNOPS was hosting the Chief Executive Board meeting 15 months ago. And I remember very well the spirit of that effort. Yes, it is crucial to improve efficiency at the UN, especially in the context of declining resources. But as the Secretary-General has been very clear from the very first day, the UNAT process can't be seen merely as an efficiency effort. There is much more at stake in this defining moment for multilateralism. Inequalities persist and the world is lagging behind on SDGs, on climate and on financing for development. Therefore, the real issue at UN80 is how to make the UN fit for the purpose of scaling up the impact to those who need it most. Rather than competition, fragmentation, or overlapping, it is time for a dramatic boost on collaboration and coordination. The key word is alignment. We must align policy, finance and delivery. We must align the global, the regional and the country level. And we must align peace, humanitarian and development efforts. UNOPS is fully committed to the UN 8 initiative to ensure that our collective impact matches the scale and urgency of today's global challenges. Our contribution to this ambitious process led by the Sec General is based on our experience working across sustainable development, humanitarian and peace and security efforts. Two thirds of our work takes place in complex and fragile settings. And our contribution is also based on our distinct mandate and business model. UNOPS operates on a demand-driven fee-for-service model. It receives no core funding, no assessed or core contributions, and each project covers its costs separately. Everything we do, we do it in partnership. If our partners don't like our work, they simply won't come back, and that is how it should be. I sincerely believe that while we each have our mandates, each organization has its mandates, we need to boost collaboration and embrace the notion that each brings something unique to offer in a marketplace that serves the people. So neither the rise of competition nor the creation of artificial monopolies serves the UNAT spirit. Increasing our joint efficiency, agility and effectiveness makes our offering stronger, the UN offer stronger. Allow me to speak briefly, as my colleagues, about some aspects of our contribution to the various UNAT work packages. Of course, I will mention the merger, but let me start with other points. Starting with UN Country Team reconfiguration. As you know, I've had the privilege to, during the last year, of coordinating the work package five on UN Country Team reconfiguration under the leadership of the Deputy Secretary General. Our objective was clear from the outset, to adapt UN Country Team's configurations to be more coherent, impactful, and efficient in support of national needs and priorities. We were guided by a core principle, form follows function, which follows strategy. To ensure an integrated response to national priorities and needs, primacy must be given to one shared country strategy from which decisions on functions, expertise and organizational arrangements are informed. The cooperation framework must serve as the strategic anchor for UN development system wide support, informed by one common country analysis under the leadership of the resident coordinator. Through the expertise on demand mechanism and search capacity from the regional level, we are breaking the correlation, the existing correlation between residents, visibility, financial viability and impact. We need to break this correlation. What matters is readiness to deliver at scale. So a permanent physical in-country presence can be adjusted and delivered flexibly. Facilitated by the resident coordinator, specialized regional and global expertise can be deployed rapidly and easily accessible to UN country team and member states on demand. I've given several examples over the last year of how UNOPS embodies this way of working already. For more flexible UN country teams configurations to work effectively in practice, we must also abandon the one fits all models. Setups should be carefully tailored to each country's unique circumstances. On the basis of national priorities and needs, as reflected in the cooperation framework, UN country teams should define their setup as modular, hub-like configurations, drawing on in-country presence, non-resident entity contributions, and multi-country office arrangements. Modular components can then be scaled and adapted over time as country contexts evolve. Again, this is very much how UNOPS works and delivers. Let me now move into another contribution on the UNAT, the Unified Services Roadmap. Since 2024, as Diane already mentioned, UNOPS with UNFPA, we co-chair with our colleagues Sonja and Andrew, the UNSEG Business Innovation Group, the so-called BIG. Building on this, UNOPS also co-leads the UNAT Work Package 14 on Unified Services Roadmap. This is a key effort to maximize operational efficiencies across the UN system. By eliminating duplication, we ensure that more resources go directly to where they have the greatest impact. To do this, we need to transition away from support services fragmented on an entity basis, on an entity by entity basis. UNAT provides a historical window to achieve this. Establishment of the common back offices requires sustained behavioral change driven by the highest levels of leadership so that organizations move away from an opt-out mindset towards a systemic buy-in. Let me now move into the integration of supply chains, which is another work package. UNOPS is fully committed to supporting joint delivery and stands ready to integrate our agile procurement models and digital platforms such as the UN Web Buy into early stage logistics planning in complex and priority contexts. To achieve the UNAT vision of faster, more cost efficient delivery. Each entity should contribute where it adds the most value. And again, transparency is key. Strategic decisions should be rooted in transparent data and rigorous cost benefit analysis. And finally, I would like to mention the merger. The assessment of a potential merger between UNDP and UNOPS already mentioned by my colleague Alex. As you know, following the Secretary-General's clear guidance, UNOPS engaged in a process to assess the pros and cons of the merger of UNDP and UNOPS into a new agency. Rather than just dealing with potential duplications, the ambition was clear: create a new engine for sustainable development able to deliver at scale, at country level integrating policy, finance and implementation. Despite the challenges and difficulties that such merger would create, namely the fact that the two organisations have different business models, in our case it's demand driven fee for service model, we genuinely thought and we documented it that such merger would generate significant opportunities for scaling up delivery, filling the policy and implementation gap, contributing to redefine the financing model of the UN, fee for services for projects, core funding for policy, pooled funding for missions and transitions, and fostering efficiencies. In our assessment, we detailed the transitions and how the new agency would look like. Then, following Member States' request, both organizations brought in a joint report five options. And in the last executive board session, member states decided to ask for a third party assessment, taking consideration that both organizations have presented, even if it was a joint report, different cost benefit analysis. We remain in member states ends. Together UNDP and UNOPS have delivered a single terms of reference for an independent assessment as requested. But now I'm going to make an important point as Alexander already made. Without prejudice to Member States' deliberations on the terms of reference, we both stand ready to work together on advancing areas for collaboration. We are already in discussions on how we can work together to identify areas we can leverage our respective comparative advantages to deliver better and faster for Member States. Broadly, this could sit in the areas of joint offers in sustainable development, where we can bring policy and implementation strength to deliver at greater scale, operational alignment where we can deliver greater efficiencies working together, and finally, coordination and enabling mechanisms for the leadership of the organizations, which can increase the level of coordination and alignment. Obviously, we will continue collaborating with other UN agencies, as this is part of UNOPS DNA. Everything we do, we do it in partnership. In conclusion, Mr. President, Excellencies, UNAT is a unique opportunity to move from institutional thinking to system-wide solutions that can deliver tangible results for the people and countries we serve. It's an opportunity to focus on impact for people. The success of this process will ultimately depend on all of us to be ready to break down silos, be transparent and put collective impact ahead of institutional competition. And we are fully committed to this effort. I thank you.

I thank the executive director of UNOPS. Thank you, George. Well, we open the floor for comments, but before we do that, I would invite you to reflect a bit on the context of where we are on this conversation. I mean, we've been always using the term merger in a generic way. And in this particular case, we are talking about three entities that are governed by this board with different pace of the conversation on the mergers. We've been encouraging maximum level of transparency from the entities towards member states. As I said, there is still work in progress, but we have also to acknowledge that from the moment the process started, this reflection on UNAT, we came a long way. The process in itself, I think, from my point of view, is very valuable because member states got to understand much better where the redundancies, where efficiencies could be achieved. And this engagement, I think, from my point of view, at least, proved to be very useful. is work in progress because, for example, we heard from the administrator of UNDP and the executive director of UNOPS, important avenues explored by the two organizations that became possible just in the last, let's say, week or so, through a sustained interaction and engagement by the two executive heads among themselves and the staff of the organizations. The fact that the two organizations are willing and They see room in moving forward in looking at the three areas that both Alexander and Georges have mentioned. I think it's a good indicator for this process may land and of course the capability of the member states and the entities and the agencies to make use of these opportunities. The role of the board is crucial and I have to tell you that it's not an insignificant aspect. When we started the conversation, Not all of the member states considered the role of the board as being instrumental in that. And it took a long while, we are almost at the end of August now, and the role of the board is acknowledged as a prerequisite for any action in the General Assembly. And that has been part of our own conversations, part of conversations of member states with the Secretary General, the Deputy Secretary General, the Under Secretary General for policy reform. And I think we are now at a point where the conversation cannot move forward without the board itself. And that's an important aspect for the board. And that's why the process that we have facilitated, myself as the president together with the vice presidents, was to listen to every member states, board member or observer as well. And the input from everyone is very much important. Now, as this is indeed the last formal meeting of this year, we I don't expect that we'll be dragging our feet for the remainder of the year and contemplate the winter holidays. There is a lot of work ahead and I think we have a number of avenues that Member States could continue exploring in between now and the end of this year leading into next year's. I know that we have a number of dots to connect. We have the UN decision conversation. We have the terms of reference that both George and Alexander referred to. And the conversation we have to be able to create a logical sequence of member states reaction, not only logical, but also credible because it's very much important for the process. And I think we all know when member states are on this generic debate on the mergers, whether it's a scenario of a full merger between the agencies or it's another type of interaction and work between the agencies. But I think following and continuing this conversation with an open approach will allow us to collect on the benefits of this reflection and conversation. We now open the floor for comments. We start first as per usual practice with groups and then board members. We start with the Bureau members, by the way, sorry, Bureau members and then groups. So I give the floor first to Zambia, who is speaking on behalf of the African group. You have the floor, please.

Thank you, Mr. President. I have the honor to deliver this statement on behalf of the African members of the Executive Board. We thank the agencies for the additional information and analysis provided. The group reiterates its position that the UNAT process should be guided by greater coherence, efficiency, effectiveness and accountability while preserving the mandates and capacities entrusted to the UN by Member States. We welcome the efforts to identify practical opportunities for reducing duplication, improving coordination and making better use of available resources. At the same time, UNAT should not be viewed as an exercise in reducing structures or costs. The fundamental question is whether the reforms pursued will ultimately lead to better results at country level. On the proposed merger between UNDP and UNOPS, the group welcomes the preparation of the terms of reference and supports proceeding with an independent assessment. Given the significance of the decision before Member States, the independence and credibility of this assessment are essential. The assessment should not presume that merger is a preferred outcome, it should objectively examine different merger configurations as well as, um, credible alternatives and clearly demonstrate their respective costs, benefits, risks and implications. For programme countries, particular attention must be given to the implications for country-level delivery, including whether the proposed arrangements would strengthen implementation capacity, preserve mandate-specific expertise, and improve responsiveness to national priorities. We therefore support meaningful engagement of programme countries throughout the assessment. The analysis should also comprehensively examine financial, operational, legal, and reputational risks, including scenarios where projected savings, revenues or efficiencies do not materialize. The board should have adequate visibility over the methodology and costs and progress of the assessment while safeguarding its independence. Mr. President, the discussion on UNFPA and UN Women provides an opportunity to consider whether greater efficiency and coherence can be achieved through common governance and closer institutional alignment without immediately undertaking a full structural merger. The analysis provided identifies genuine complementarities between the two agencies while also recognizing the costs, transition requirements, and risks associated with the merger. Importantly, it identifies alternative pathways for achieving greater coherence and efficiency, which could be pursued progressively while preserving their distinct mandates. The group sees merit in exploring ways to strengthen coordination between the executive boards of UNFPA and UN Women with a view to enhancing coherence, complementarity and efficiency while respecting their respective mandates and governance arrangements. Such an arrangement could strengthen strategic oversight, reduce duplication in governance and reporting and provide a more systematic platform for identifying efficiencies and joint results while allowing both organizations retain their distinct mandates, technical expertise and operational responsibilities. It could provide a practical middle ground, greater institutional coherence without immediately incurring the full transition costs and operational risks associated with a merger. However, this should not simply create another layer of bureaucracy. And any arrangement should have clear responsibilities, measurable objectives, and a mechanism for reviewing whether it is producing the intended efficiencies and improvements in delivery and impact. Mr. President, the group believes that the UNAT process should be sequenced, evidence-based, and results-oriented. We should move ahead where there is already a clear business case for greater collaboration. measure the results and savings, address implementation risks, and use evidence to inform decisions on deeper structural reforms. More importantly, efficiency gains should not come at the expense of mandate protection, specialized expertise, or continuity of country-level delivery. We reiterate that the objective and outcome should be a United Nations that is less fragmented, more coherent, financially sustainable, and accountable while remaining fully capable of delivering the mandates entrusted to it by Member States. That, in our view, should be the measure of success of UNAT. I thank you.

I thank Zambia for the statement delivered on behalf of the African Group. I have on the list Nepal on behalf of the Group of LDCs, Germany on behalf of Group of States, Uruguay on behalf of G77 and China. I give the floor to Nepal on behalf of the LDC Group.

Thank you, Mr. President. I have the honor to deliver this statement on behalf of the Group of Least Developed Countries. The group appreciates the updates on the UNAD initiative and commends the efforts of the Secretary-General to ensure that the United Nations remains more efficient, accountable, and fit for purpose at a critical time of intensifying global challenges and acute financial pressures. The LDC Group supports the ongoing efforts to improve coordination, reduce fragmentation, strengthen accountability, and maximize the impact of every dollar invested in sustainable development. Mr. President, the Group would like to highlight three priorities. First, we reiterate that any UN reform process, including under the UNAD initiative, must remain firmly member-state led, transparent, inclusive, and evidence-based, fully respecting diversity of mandates, their context, and governance arrangements. We stress the importance of safeguarding mandates of particular relevance to LDCs, including those related to development financing, climate resilience, capacity building, sustainable graduation, and smooth transition. These commitments are fundamental to ensuring sustainable development pathways for our countries and should emerge stronger from the reform process. Second, the LDCs, home to nearly 1.2 billion people, continue to face persistent structural vulnerabilities, including climate shocks, financing constraints, food insecurity, infrastructure and capacity gaps, and growing debt burdens. They are struggling quite hard to stay on track in achieving the SDGs. We therefore call for reforms that reinforce rather than weaken the development pillar of the United Nations. For LDCs, the success of the UNAD reform initiative will be measured not by number of organizational changes undertaken, but by whether it extends support to program countries and accelerates tangible progress towards the sustainable development goals. We underscore that country level delivery must remain the central consideration throughout the reform process. Transition efforts should not divert resources, management attention or operational capacity away from support from for program countries. Ongoing country programs, cooperation frameworks, and nationally won development priorities must remain protected. Third, regarding discussions on potential structural reforms, including the proposed merger between UNDP and UNOPS, UNFPA and UN Women, we welcome the analytical work undertaken thus far. We note the preliminary assessments finding that these UN entities are distinct at complementary organizations with different mandates, funding models, and comparative advantages. We also recognize that the key challenge is not simply reducing duplication, but preserving the strengths of these institutions while improving coherence and effectiveness. From the perspective of the LDCs, the findings of the assessment reinforce a basic principle. Any reform must first and foremost stand on delivery for countries on the ground. We are encouraged that the assessment recognized the importance of preserving country presence long-standing partnership, trusted government relationships, and continuity of operations, which are among the most valued assets of the United Nations development system. Hence, the LDC Group strongly believes that any future decision on structural changes should be guided by clear evidence demonstrating that reforms will strengthen support to program countries, preserve national ownership and country-driven programming, protect development expertise and enhance implementation capacity, Deliver measurable results for those furthest behind and maintain continuity of delivery during any transition period. In closing, Mr. President, the LDC group remains committed to engaging constructively in the UNAT discussions to revitalize the LDCs. revitalize the United Nations that can deliver on the promises of its charter and respond to complex challenges of the 21st century. I thank you.

I thank Nepal for the statement on behalf of the LDC group. I give the floor to Germany, who will be speaking on behalf of group of states, please.

Mr. President, distinguished members of the executive board, excellencies, I have the honor to deliver the statement on behalf of a group of countries Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Georgia, Iceland, Ireland, Japan, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, New Zealand, Norway, Republic of Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, the European Union as a donor, and my own country, Germany. We reiterate our full support for the UN AT initiative. In accordance with the GCPR, we support greater coherence, complementarity and impact across the UN development system in line with countries priorities, while emphasizing that reforms must remain anchored in mandates and normative roles agreed by member states and translate into tangible improvements at country level. As stressed by the Secretary General, Member States are vital in crafting key outcomes of UNAT. To fulfill this role effectively, we need timely, robust and evidence-based information as well as inclusive and transparent opportunities for engagement across boards. With regard to UNFPA and UN Women, we welcome ongoing efforts to explore options for closer cooperation, greater alignment, institutional coherence, and organizational and operational improvements. The preservation, visibility, and full implementation of both organizations' unique and distinct mandates must remain a guiding principle for reform and are prerequisites for effective delivery. Any reform thus should be assessed not only in terms of efficiency, but also in terms of its impact on effective delivery for women, girls, young people, and communities in vulnerable situations. This is particularly important in the current global context marked by a growing pushback against gender equality, women's empowerment, SRHR, population dynamics and the principle of leaving no one behind. We therefore encourage UNFPA and UN Women to continue to strive for greater alignment, coordination and efficiency in a transparent manner. We remain open to considering options where evidence demonstrates clear added value, feasibility, cost effectiveness and a positive impact on delivery, as long as mandates and critical normative roles are protected. This safeguard is of paramount importance to us and must not be compromised at any stage of the process. With regard to UNDP and UNOPS, we appreciate the collaboration between the two entities on the joint development of a draft terms of reference. for the independent validation of the merger assessment. This process should provide a sound basis for Member States to consider a way forward in line with Decision 2026/16, including possible structural options such as a full merger of both organisations, while also identifying opportunities and alternatives for closer cooperation, greater efficiency and strengthened country-level Delivery. More broadly, these discussions should not be viewed in isolation. Other UNAD work packages, including, and we have heard it, UN country team reconfiguration, the regional reset, expertise on demand, and financing arrangements will also be essential to strengthen the impact, effectiveness, coherence, transparency, and accountability of the UN development system. We therefore call on all organizations concerned to engage fully and constructively in taking these reforms forward. We remain committed to engaging constructively across regions and across boards to shape a coherent evidence-based and member state-led way forward on UNAT, one that advances meaningful reform while preserving distinct mandates. normative work and strengths of each entity, leading to improved results for the people and communities they serve. I thank you.

I thank Germany for the statement delivered on behalf of a group of countries before giving the floor to Uruguay on behalf of a group of G77 and China. The next speakers will be board members, Brazil, China, Denmark, Sweden, the United States, United Kingdom, I give the floor now to Rukwai speaking on behalf of the G77 and China.

Thank you. I have the honor to deliver this statement on behalf of the G77 and China. The Group of 77 and China welcomes this interactive dialogue and wishes to reiterate the general support to the UNAD initiative and its overarching objective of achieving a paradigm shift in how the UN system organizes its work in order to deliver greater impact on the ground. With regard to the proposal to merge UNDP and UNOPS, the Group of 77 and China takes note of the terms of reference for independent assessment of a potential merger between UNDP and UNOPS, jointly developed by UNDP and UNOPS in line with the mandate set out in Executive Board decision 2026/16, engagement with the UNAT initiative, adopted at its annual session last June. The group values the terms of reference explicit recognition of the importance of ensuring geographic diversity in the composition of the assessment team should member states decide to endorse the terms of reference and proceed with the independent assessment. However, the role of member states, particularly poor and countries could be more explicitly reflected in the terms of reference and most importantly in the conduct of the assessment. Regular, inclusive and representative consultations with Member States would help ensure that the process is sufficiently transparent and that the findings and recommendations of the final assessment enjoy broad-based legitimacy. Mr. Chair, at a time of growing financial constraints and increasing development needs, and taking into account the numerous questions and concerns raised by member states across all regional groups regarding the proposed mergers, the Group of 77 and China believes that the necessary conditions are not in place to approve structural mergers that would entail a prolonged process of institutional restructuring. Therefore, the Group of 77 and China is of the view that Member States decision making processes on structural merger options that involve significant legal, operational, financial, and delivery risks, as well as direct impact at the operational level for program countries, should not be rushed during the current year. Instead, Attention should be directed towards country level delivery, including to accelerate progress in the implementation of national development priorities and the implementation of the SDGs. Therefore, the group welcomes the provision in the proposed timeline of the terms of reference that the final report will not be available before the 2027 annual session, as well as the commitment to provide the executive board with regular progress reports. The group considers that the Board should seek to agree on a pragmatic, concise and consensual UNHCR decision focused on advancing non-structural alternatives to the proposed mergers through enhanced coordination. This could include options identified in the joint UNDP/UNOPS report, such as combining selected operational functions to reduce administrative duplication and improve efficiency, as well as exploring potential joint ventures. Such arrangements could serve as an initial phase or as pilot initiatives enabling Member States to assess their impact and potential efficiency gains before considering whether more structural measures may be warranted in the future. In this regard, the proposed terms of reference for the independent assessment, if endorsed, adequately provide for the independent assessment to consider a range of possible merger modalities, as well as alternatives to a merger. Mr. Chair, to conclude, let me reassure you that the Group of 77 and China is aligned with the vision and ambition of the UNAT initiative and looks forward to working with all member states to contribute to reforms that improve efficiency and coordination while strengthening support to program countries. I thank you.

I thank Uruguay for the statement delivered on behalf of the Group of 77 and China. I give the floor to Brazil to be followed by China. Brazil, please.

Thank you, Mr. President. As I always hate to recall, I will not read my statement. I will have it delivered to you. So first of all, I had to truly commend and thank all the principals for the obvious great deal of work that has been undertaken since our last meeting. In the case of UNDP, UNOPS, always to thank the productive dynamics that we all see in place now. And this is quite important. Very briefly on the potential merger of UNDP and UNOPS, we do thank for the terms of reference. We have conveyed our comments. Most importantly, as G77 and China have mentioned, has mentioned the key importance of consulting with Member States as the assessment is undertaken, especially programme countries. On UNFPA, UN Women, I'd like to thank the Director very much for the loads of information that have been provided. It's clear that you have heeded the call of member states and the board. And regardless of what is the decision to be taken at the end of the day, it's quite clear and in all cases that there is a lot of good wills, good ideas on how to further integrate deep incorporation collaboration. The complementary assessment does provide, as I said, a lot of information, good ideas, but what does not provide and could not provide and should not provide is the political assessment of the pros and cons of making such an important decision. This is up to member states, to the board, and then to the general assembly should we get there. And, Madam Executive Director, Brazil remains in the position that at this point in time we are unable to support the merger because we are unconvinced that the proper conditions, political conditions are there for us to engage in such meaningful and consequential exercise. So we do believe that what is wise at this point in time and productive and good for the system and good for the peoples we serve is to have the entities work fully in alternatives that will lead to a more integrated, more effective collaboration. And then we might take decisions when the time comes. Thank you.

I thank Brazil for the statement, speaking freely and also on time. I give the floor now to China to be followed by Denmark, please.

President, China thanks. the heads of the entities for their detailed presentations and commands the efforts by the Secretary General and the heads of the entities to advance the UNAT reform. China aligns itself with the statement by Uruguay on behalf of G77 and China would like to share the following three points. First, the reform must preserve core development mandates. Mandates are the fundamental basis for the delivery of entities and represent important long-standing consensus reached through consultations among member states. The reform should preserve the core functions and comparative advantages of each entity ensure the full retention of their existing mandates. This will help enhance their delivery capacity on the ground, strengthen to industry and coordination synergy, and better support the implementation of the 2030 agenda by the global south. Second, the reform must be grounded in facts and evidence. Comprehensive objective and impartial assessments are crucial for member states to make prudent decisions. China takes note of the terms of reference for independent assessment jointly submitted by UNDP and UNOPS. and expects the two entities to further improve it on the basis of views shared by all parties and promptly conduct follow-up work. We welcome the analysis submitted by UNFPA and UN Women on their reform, including the proposed merger and alternative options, and encourage the two entities to further engage with Member States so as to reach consensus. Third, reform must consolidate broad consensus among member states. Institutional reform bears on the long-term development of the UN development system. The reform should be transparent in the process, inclusive in participation, ensuring that the concerns and questions of all parties receive adequate responses. The reform should be member state led and any proposal should be fully discussed by member states so that consensus can be reached. The reform should also fully reframe the governance and oversight of the executive board as president. The UN aid reform provides an important opportunity for the UNDS to enhance its quality, effectiveness and efficiency, the development entities should seize the opportunity of the reform to optimize business processes, reduce administrative costs and orient entity setup and resource allocation more towards the country level. China is ready to continue to participate constructively in relevant discussions, work together with the broader membership to advance the relevant reform in a prudent and steady manner, and lay a solid foundation for the UN's development pillar. Thank you, President.

I thank China for the statement. I'll give the floor now to Denmark to be followed by Sweden. Denmark, please, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President, executive directors, administrator excellences, colleagues. In addition to the joint statement delivered by Germany, Denmark wishes to add just a few remarks in our national capacity. I will be brief. Firstly, Denmark would like to thank for the latest information provided. We appreciate the active engagement with the UNAD work packages. Denmark remains firmly committed to the UN and effective multilateralism. And this is not least signified by our 0.7 commitment and substantial core contributions to select UN funds and programs. We have an interest, therefore, of course, in ensuring an effective and coherent UN development system. The UNAD initiative is a unique opportunity to address fragmentation, competition, and duplication in the UN development system. and to enable the UN to deliver as one at country level, including with a strong mandate for the RCs to deliver impactful leadership and collective results to host countries. We therefore continue to call on all UN agencies, funds and programmes to engage fully at all levels to help drive reform ambitions forward. We continue to see clear value in exploring closer integration, including through a possible merger between UNFPA and UN Women. We would like to thank both the UNFPA, UN Women and the Secretary-General for the latest information provided regarding the merger assessment. The mandates of both organizations continue to be core priorities for us. It is critical that mandates and mandate delivery is protected, and Denmark will stand firm on this. In case of a merger, of course, operational disruption on country level must be minimized. Denmark does not support the exploration of a possible merger as a cost saving exercise, and any decision with regard to the merger assessment should be guided by the aim of strengthening coherence, institutional capacity and ensuring more effective and impactful delivery of mandates at country level in the long term. Also on UNOPS and UNDP, Denmark continues to support the proposal to explore the potential of a merger of UNDP and UNOPS, and considerations regarding the proposed merger should be guided by the same overall principles just mentioned. We welcome the joint development of a draft terms of reference for an independent assessment and we encourage both UNDP and UNOPS to help progress in a timely manner. And Denmark looks forward to engage constructively in the way forward. Thank you, Mr. President.

I thank Denmark for the statement. I give the floor to Sweden to be followed by the United States and then the United Kingdom. Sweden, please, you have the floor.

Mr. President, distinguished members of the Executive Board, Excellencies.

Sweden aligns itself with the joint statement delivered by Germany on the UNAD initiative and like to stress the.

Following in its national capacity.

Sweden strongly supports the UNAD initiative, which offers an opportunity to develop and adapt the multilateral system towards greater efficiency.

In an increasingly challenging global context.

On the matter of a possible merger between UNFPA and UN Women, however.

We are not in a position to support such a merger at this stage due to the associated risks for the organization's critical mandates. Any reform effort must ensure that UNFPA's critical mandate and country level work will be protected. Sweden welcomes the information provided on alternative options to a merger. The alternative options resonate well with the ambition set out in the UNAD initiative while protecting UNFPA's mandate. We encourage UNFPA to move forward with the implementation of the alternative options and keep this board informed on the progress made. The important role of this executive board in guiding decision making on a possible merger or alternative options must be respected. Sweden attaches great importance to a steadfast commitment to UN reform processes. We have continuously made the case that enhanced delivery at country level must remain at the core of all reform efforts. The UN's continued engagement in fully implementing already agreed reforms is imperative in this context. The UNCT reconfiguration, the regional reset, expertise on demand, common back offices and the global shared service centers will all be essential to strengthen the impact, effectiveness, coherence, transparency and accountability of the UN development system. We therefore urge the UNFPA, UNDP and UNOPS to continue to engage fully and constructively in advancing these reforms. Thank you.

I thank Sweden for the statement. I give the floor now to the United Kingdom. And then we have the United States. We have Cuba, India, Norway, Japan, Armenia. I'll revise the list of speakers as we see that going. United Kingdom, please, you have the floor.

Thank you, Administrator, Executive Directors, Mr. President. The United Kingdom reiterates its strong commitment to the Secretary-General's UNAT reform agenda. I will make three points. First, delivery. The 2018 reform of the UN development system achieved much, however, important elements remain unfinished. We expect UN leadership to fully deliver this agenda. Key priorities include reconfiguring UN country teams and ensuring all UN development system work adheres to cooperation frameworks. Delivery must be improved through system-wide shared services, common enablers, notably technology and data. By consolidating and modernizing back office functions, the UN can build a leaner, more effective and resilient operational backbone. To support these efforts, it's crucial to empower resident coordinators and to lead one UN teams. Second, mandates. Institutional change must not undermine mandates entrusted to UN entities by member states. On the proposed UNFPA UN Women merger, there is not sufficient evidence for the UK to support a merger at this time, nor assurance that mandates will be protected. We have stood in union with other member states in calling for the preservation of distinct SRHR and gender equality mandates and are supportive of the aforementioned work packages. On UNDP and UNOPS, we appreciate the joint terms of reference and the independent assessment of the merger proposal and urge momentum in assessing reform proposals and continued collaborative working. Member States must have adequate opportunity to review and influence merger proposals, minimising disruption to ongoing operations, mitigating risks and protecting accountability mechanisms, particularly in fragile contexts. Third, evidence. Any merger decisions should be informed by strong evidence and full transparency regarding the costs of transition, the scale of efficiencies, the implications for future funding. We expect alternative approaches to be rigorously explored where they may deliver comparable benefits at lower cost and fewer associated risks. In conclusion, the UK supports UNAT and encourages UN leadership to fully implement the work packages and deliver a stronger UN able to deliver greater impact. I thank you.

I thank the United Kingdom for the statement. I give the floor now to the United States.

Good to see you, Cornell. Hi, Alexander. Hi, George. How are you guys? Look at that. Got some people to chuckle. Thank you for being here. The United States prioritizes reform of the United Nations system, including through UNAD, so that it remains fit for purpose for the next 80 years and beyond. Building on historic cost reductions and efficiency gains last year, we welcome bold changes that bring agencies back to core mandates, eliminate duplication, and improve return on member state investment. However, while some areas of work under UNAD have offered practical improvements, today we share our serious reservations regarding the return on investment of both this independent assessment and the proposed merger overall. We are being asked to consider committing increasingly scarce resources to a costly year-long consultancy simply to reconcile divergent data for a merger Member States did not propose and for which no rationale has been given. I feel compelled also to go off script here for a second and say that I think we all are aware of an agency within the UN family that has found a way to do a consultancy, albeit for a smaller project, gratis. They put an RFP out, they got three or four global consultancies to bid, and that work is being done as part of a corporate social responsibility at no cost. So a one and a half to two million dollar consultancy for a year is very different than a gratis one. And we would encourage for all the UN to be looking at that kind of model going forward. This comes alongside estimated merger transition costs reaching $250 million or more. In an era of shrinking budgets, every dollar spent on external consulting and administrative restructuring is a dollar diverted from direct field delivery. The business case remains speculative. with projected savings likely to be swallowed by transition friction, legal complexities, and operational disruption, with steady-state operation not anticipated until 2030. We do not believe this exercise offers a genuine return for Member States. Instead, we risk funding a costly bureaucratic process that yields minimal real-world benefit for the people we serve. Furthermore, we must express our disappointment at the inability of the agencies to collaboratively answer questions this board has asked. UN agencies capable of rebuilding economies, legislative and governance structures, and entire cities should be able to conduct objective analysis when requested by member states without seeking recourse to expensive private third parties. In turn, we are pleased to see you both come together with a common sense way forward. While always willing to consider concrete proposals and work with member states and secretariats to drive reform, we cannot support the terms of reference or a board decision for a costly and drawn out merger that the member states did not propose. I thank you.

I thank the United States for the statement. I give the floor to Cuba to be followed by India, Norway, Japan, and Armenia. Cuba, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, we're grateful for the presentations shared with us, and we align with the statement of Uruguay on behalf of G77, China, and Cuba reaffirms its commitment with the United Nations capable of transformation, more, there is more agile and targeting concrete results. With this in mind, we acknowledge the legitimate purpose of the UNAD initiative, strengthening coherence and making better use of increasingly scarce resources. However, reforms must go beyond a mere budgetary exercise and ensure the protection of mandates and delivery on the ground. We believe that structural transformations must respect the following principles. Operational continuity must be a guiding principle. No reform can justify the interruption of programs and projects that are being implemented. Secondly, institutional credibility is a strategic asset to be preserved. Changes could generate the loss of trust among donors and affect the availability of resources at all levels. Thirdly, The resources available must be geared first and foremost to strengthening impact on the ground rather than to new institutional structures or processes of reorganization. Fourthly, Any merging exercise must preserve the comparative advantages of each entity and a multidimensional approach that integrates development. Fifthly, any potential establishment of a new structure on the ground or allocation of additional functions must be agreed with the country concerned and respond to its priorities and national needs. Regarding the merger proposed between UNDP and UNOPS, we acknowledge their possible complementarity. The program capacities, territorial presence and experience of implementation of UNDP could boost the operational strengths of UNOPS. However, we should also evaluate risks such as interruption of programs, weakening of basic financing and dilution of the distinct capabilities of each entity. With regard to UNFPA and UN Women, while We'd like to highlight that while in theory a merger does bring economic benefits, it also carries certain worrisome risks such as greater financial instability. We insist on a process of consultation that is transparent and substantive without imposing artificial deadlines that compromise deliberations among member states. Cuba will continue participating constructively in discussions on the UNAD initiative. Thank you.

Thank you for the statement. I give the floor to India to be followed by Norway. India, please you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President.

India aligns itself with the statement delivered by Uruguay on behalf of the G77. India reiterates its support for the overarching objectives of the UNAD initiative, particularly efforts to improve efficiency, reduce duplication, and strengthen coordination across the UN system while ensuring greater impact at the country level. With regard to the proposed assessment of a potential merger between UNDP and UNOPS, India takes note of the terms of reference and the intention to ensure an independent, evidence-based and impartial assessment, including appropriate geographic diversity in the assessment team. At the same time, given the significant legal, financial, operational and programme delivery implications of a potential merger,

India believes that member states should have sufficient evidence and time to carefully assess all possible options. Any reform should remain firmly

focused on the needs and priorities of program countries and on strengthening delivery of the SDGs. In this regard, India has the following observations. Firstly, the assessment should undertake a specific analysis of the needs and perspectives of program countries, including the impact of different scenarios on country level delivery, implementation, capacity, and responsiveness.

Second, the methodology used to assess the financial sustainability of the two organization should consider not only

projected efficiency gains, but also transition and restructuring costs, cost recovery arrangements, and longer term financial implications. Thirdly, behind the merger scenarios identified, the assessment should comprehensively examine alternatives such as enhanced coordination, shared services, and consolidation of selected operational functions. Fourthly, the member states should be allowed to meaningfully consult throughout the assessment process, including on its methodology and emerging findings. Mr. President, India believes that UNAT reforms should be evidence-based, member state-driven, transparent, and focused on delivering better results for program

countries.

Given the scale and complexity of a potential merger, decisions with significant long-term institutional consequences should not be rushed. India looks forward to working constructively with all the member states towards a pragmatic and consensual approach to UNAD initiative

that strengthens the UN development system and supports program countries in advancing the national development priorities and the SDGs.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I thank India for the statement. I give the floor to Norway to be followed by Japan. Norway, please, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President. Dear colleagues, Norway aligns itself with the group statement made by Germany. I make these statements for Norway on a national level. Norway strongly supports the Secretary-General's UNAD initiative and the broader goal of building a more effective, coherent, and impactful United Nations. Reform, however, must be guided by a clear vision and by our shared commitments to multilateralism, the UN Charter, and the sustainable development goals. Efficiency is important, but it is a means to an end, not an end in itself. We need a UN fit for purpose, a UN that delivers on its mandated roles, a UN that takes the lead, defining and upholding human rights, delivering to those most in need. From Norway's perspective, a success criterion of any reform is whether it strengthens the UN's ability to deliver results on the ground. We have consistently advocated at delivering as one approach with stronger UN country teams and a reinforced resident coordinator system. We consider the proposed mergers of UNDP and UNOPS and of UNFPA and UN Women as constructive propositions that could lead to a more coherent UN development system. The information we have before us documents efficiency gains, but reform must not be a mere cost-cutting exercise. The aim, however, must be to free resources to strengthen the UN at country level where the organization matters the most. Let me be clear, we share concerns expressed by several colleagues on the risks involved in a merger exercise. We underscore again that the mandates and normative frameworks of the organizations must be safeguarded. Norway will continue to insist that development, gender equality, women's rights and sexual and reproductive health and rights remain fully protected and where possible strengthened through any new institutional arrangements. Thank you.

I thank Norway for the statement. I give the floor to Japan to be followed by Armenia and then plan to go back to the principles for reactions to comments and questions from member states. Japan, please, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President, distinguished members of the executive board, excellencies, ladies and gentlemen. Japan aligns itself with the joint statement delivered by Germany.

Japan continuously supports the objectives and ongoing efforts of the UNAD initiative. That said, I would like to make a few additional comments in my national capacity. First, regarding the proposed merger of UNFPA and UN Women, we appreciate the dedicated efforts reflected in the comprehensive report, including all alternative options, which provides a valuable framework for comparison, including from a cost aspect. We also appreciate the additional merger assessment shared last week which provides detailed scenarios of mergers and associated processes as well as a reassuring response to our

question regarding UNFPA's role in addressing population dynamics. We will continue to remain

focused on ensuring that the regional mandates of both organizations are fully preserved across all options under consideration. Furthermore, the next steps should also further address financial aspects, including initial costs and funding mechanisms, as well as implementation processes and concrete measures to minimize any disruption to essential ground level operations. Second, regarding a possible UNDP UNOPS merger, Japan has consistently emphasized the importance of maintaining and strengthening field level service delivery, particularly in fragile settings. while preserving both organizations' mandates, expertise, and trusted partnerships. Japan welcomes the jointly developed terms of reference for the independent assessment. To determine our position, an evidence-based and objective analysis should be provided. Relevant information and emerging findings should be shared at an early stage. Furthermore, Japan expects regular and transparent updates on the assessment and next steps, as well as clear information on the funding sources and cost breakdowns for the assessment and implementation of any option considered. I thank you.

I thank Japan for the statement. I give the floor to Armenia. Armenia, you have the floor, please.

Mr. President, Excellencies, Armenia supports the United Nations development system that is more coherent, efficient, and better equipped to deliver results. At a time of growing development needs and tightening financial resources, it is important to consider how the system can adapt to provide more responsive support. The central measure of any reform should be whether it strengthens support at the country level while preserving existing mandates, country programs, and partnerships. In this context, we take note of the proposed vision for closer alignment between UNDP and UNOPS. In principle, stronger complementarity between UNDP's development policy expertise, country presence and pragmatic role, and UNOPS implementation focused capacities in infrastructure, procurement and operational support could offer opportunities to strengthen delivery for sustainable development. At the same time, any decision on a potential merger or on alternatives to a structural merger must be based on a complete and independent assessment. We therefore welcome that the terms of reference on independent assessment of a potential merger between UNDP and UNOPS reflects many of the issues raised by member states, including country level delivery and mandate specific technical capacities. Mr. President, with regard to UNFPA and UN Women, Armenia believes that any future consideration of institutional reform should be -- remain firmly anchored in the full preservation of their respective mandates without undermining the impact on women and girls. Any such process should ensure the interrupted delivery of essential services, maintain donor confidence, and carefully address the operational and pragmatic risks through a phased and transparent approach. We also take note of the information provided in the joint executive summary on both the merger scenario and alternative options to enhance alignment, impact, and efficiency, which identifies implementation considerations under the scenarios examined. Mr. President, we are of the view that member states must remain at the center of this process. Any recommendation on possible structural changes should follow the established procedures and allow sufficient time for consideration by the executive board. Armenia remains committed to engaging constructively in these discussions and looks forward to continued consultations with Member States, UNDP, UNFPA and UNOPS as consideration of the assessments moves forward. I thank you.

I thank Armenia for the statement. We will now go to the principals. They have a chance to react to the statements. We start with the UNFPA Executive Director, Ms. Skita. You have the floor, please.

Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to thank Zambia on behalf of the African group and take note of the comment and fully agree on the fact that any change should not bring any more complexity or any other layer of bureaucracy and shall lead for a better impact. and that every investment should be thinking about country programs. I would like to thank Nepal on behalf of the LDC group as well, that every dollar invested should amplify result at the country level. And that country presence and country program are very important. I would like to thank Germany on behalf of a group of country for emphasizing the importance for coherence, evidence-based information, and continue to work on options that deliver results while protecting mandates, and as well the work on others work streams. I would like to thank Uruguay on behalf of the G77 plus China and note the express position and we stand ready to provide further information at request. I would like to thank Brazil for recognizing the work done by the entities and as well for the clear mention of importance of the complementarity of the work and recognize and note that the political assessment should be done by member state and not in any case ourselves and take note of Brazil position and thank Brazil. I would like to thank China for the comment made and for the important for the result for the global south and that the reform remain and is member state led. We take good note of that and we are available for any other information request. Would like to thank Denmark for the importance of having the mandate protected and avoid disruption. And they hope that the principle continue to guide the process and remain available for any further discussion. And we thank Denmark for all the financial and mandate support. would like to thank Sweden and note the position and the work at the country level that is important to remain protected and that we continue to be guided on the next step and ensure that the mandate is protected. Thank you, Sweden, for your support. I would like to thank the United Kingdom and to ensure that delivery that need to continue is continue and not remain unfinished, that the UNCT work is strategic and important and the technology and data are absolutely essential as well. And the operational backbone remain critical in everything that we do and that the mandate remain protected. And I note your position on SRHR. I would like to respectfully salute the distinguished member state from the United States. I take note of Cuba's message as well and the constructive engagement and the importance of continuing to work and provide more information. I take note as well of the honorable distinguished delegate from India about the importance of evidency, transparency, and make sure that the country perspective remain the focus of the work. I would like to thank Norway for your comment and your support to the UN reform, a UN that is coherent and evident in the work we do and guided by a clear vision, delivering results and ensuring that women's rights, SRHR remain protected. I would like to thank the honorable distinguished representative of Japan for the comment. We take note. I appreciate the effort that has been done by us, UN Women and UN Women, and want the population mandate to remain at the center of it. Thank you very much. And the last comment I have is the distinguished representative for Armenia for the preservation of the mandate, the cost implication as well. I thank you, Mr. President, and thank all member states. Thank you.

I thank the executive director of UNFPA. We continue with UNOPS. Mr. Mario da Silva, please.

Thank you, Mr. President, and I don't have the talent of my colleague, the end to go one by one, so if you Don't mind, I will try to aggregate several interventions as many elements were present in several of the interventions. And I really want to thank member states for the strong commitment. Clearly, the number of interventions shows deep commitment from member states in this topic. And I'll start by a reflection which is very much present in most of the intervention, which is UN80 is by far much more than the mergers. And this is the reason why I think that you heard from all of us references to other work packages as definitely the success of the UNAT won't be measured by the mergers. It will be measured about everything including other work packages including the reconfiguration of country teams, the expertise on demand, the thematic knowledge hubs, the regional reset, and the financing compact, unified services and many other work packages. Second point, I think that there is obviously an issue that it's up to member states to solve. And if you don't mind, I'm not going to comment on that about whether you want or not to move with the terms of reference. Clearly, there is nuances in the interventions, Mr. President, if you don't mind, I'm not going to comment on that. This is a members driven organization. And it's up to member states to decide whether you want or not to move with a third party assessment. In case you want to move with a third party assessment, clearly the interventions were aligning on the scope. In case you want to move with a third party assessment. And I took note of the requirements that most delegations made about what would be needed on the third party assessment. On process, you said that we need consultation along the journey with the countries we serve. The idea is that the assessment is independent, but the assessment cannot be done in isolation from those we serve. Therefore, you said that you want the third party assessment to ensure that there is consultation along the journey and not just at the end of the consultation. This is an important element that is framed, it was framed by several delegations. Second point was that you want to ensure that the assessment is not just dealing with a financial cost benefit, you want to ensure that that assessment will be dealing on the merger on the impact on delivery. So it's more than savings and financial benefits, it's also about coherence and delivery. Therefore, the idea of impact being framed as part of the assessment is key, as is the coherence, particularly when we are lagging behind in several commitments that we have all made during the last few years. You have also said that it is key to avoid disruptions. and to ensure smooth and predictable transitions. I couldn't welcome more this element. Obviously, if you ask me what keeps me awake at night when I think about the merger, and you know that I've been, uh, quite… positive about the idea of a merger into a new entity, but at the same time I have been always cautious about the transitions and the potential disruption. So obviously this must be part of the assessment to which extent not only the legal aspects, but also the stability that is needed will be assured. And believe me, this is one of the things that I'm most worried, not about the merger, but what will happen until we get an outcome of the merger. I'm getting reports from my colleagues on the ground. I don't know if Alex, you get the same and the end that sometimes partners are postponing decisions to sign contracts. or are hesitant about signing contracts until there is clarity about the merger. And this is an important element. Very often I get calls from country directors, multi-country offices, regional directors saying, well, the country A and the country B said, well, in principle, we would like to work with you, but it's not clear what's going to happen with the merger. So I would say that clarity and predictability will be key. Even if Member States decide that it will be a third party assessment, I kindly ask you please don't use that as a reason to pause or to slow down the engagement with the agencies because we can't slow down in a moment where there are so many people. in need in developing countries. So I think that we have all conditions to ensure that predictability. As you know, at least from UNOPS, we said to member states, if you want to sign, we can put a clause in the contract saying that this will be honored and respected by any future configuration. So the idea that the organization will honor the contract and it will be honored if there is a transition into a new modality. And I think that this element of predictability and stability is key. We also heard from most of the delegations that mandates must be preserved. And I think that from the SecGen you heard that very often. The The mergers, if there is a merger, mandates are not at stake and I can't agree more with that element, particularly for an organization that is demand driven. And finally, we have several delegations mentioning their interest in assessing the non-structural options so that the mergers shouldn't be a reason not to test and to consider other options. And that's why both Alexander and myself, we included in the five scenarios, two scenarios that are non-structural options, one on operational backbone, the other on a joint venture on energy. It's part of the five scenarios. Finally, I want to thank your reaction to what both Alexander and myself said about we won't use the assessment as a reason to delay collaboration by country while member states consider whether you want or not to move to the assessment and if you want to move with assessment until we get the assessment we will work together and clearly there is progress in areas for collaboration and I'm sure that in the next few weeks we can go even further but if you understand I'm not going to comment on some dissent or some differences that I heard today because it's about member states decision making. Thank you.

Thank you, George. We continue with the UNDP, Alexander.

Yes, thank you. I think what is encouraging is I think in the introduction of the three of us you heard, our ambition to reform, but at the same time to continue to deliver and to make sure that reform has a positive impact on delivery. And almost unanimously, I heard all of you saying, yes, indeed, we acknowledge that and we want to be sure that when we take steps forward, that while doing it, it's not hampering the delivery aspect that we do. And then in the reforms, the lens at which you look at reforms have that element. That is the first thing. The second thing, indeed, as George has said, the terms of reference are now in your hands, and we really want to use this board to understand how to go forward to this, but I think the terms of reference are clear and are, I would say, actionable. But obviously we will listen to the discussion taking place here. Then maybe a few specific elements that have been put forward. I think Zambia, speaking in the name of the African countries, emphasized the need to have the programme countries being part of that discussion. The TORs reflect that element. It is the boards, the observers, but with a specific emphasis on programme countries and doing it in the right sequence. First, evidence. then the potential solutions, and then how do you go forward. That demand for sequence was mentioned also by Nepal in name of the LDCs is to make sure that we don't come with solutions before having the evidence. I think that has been part of a discussion over the past months and it is now quite clear how to sequence that. Germany talking in name of a large group of countries, Indeed, I agree that first of all, in the terms of reference, you emphasize the fact that there's multiple options, which is true, but also you put it in a broader UNAT context. I mean, as all of us have said, mergers are very tangible and it might or it might not in whatever form it happens, but there is way more in UNAT. on us working together as one UN. Working as one UN, it's not a structural merger discussion, but it's a discussion about, I think first of all about attitude, but then also about the procedures that we have in working together between us. Intervention from Brazil. You said talking about the practical pathways of collaboration between UNOPS and UNDP, you called it productive dynamics. I think that's a very good definition. I think that is what has been happening between our teams and really looking at how can we make sure that no time is lost and that we can come up with practical avenues for delivering efficiency and more value. intervention from China. You emphasized the right sequence, the need for membership, leadership in any of those analysis, the focus on maintaining the delivery, but then also that any UN reform we do is, yes, it is about cost efficiencies, but it's also about being stronger. We really want to make sure that it's not a cost-cutting exercise only. Yes, there is an element of cost-cutting, and it's a very important one at the moment where the financial resources are reduced, but it's also about how we can make our organizations stronger. Denmark, you mentioned the importance of the TORs and really making sure that we still explore the full potential. We agree with that. I think that on the merger, both organisations have put forward the potential that we see. I think the real question is how you make the realisation of that potential as certain as possible and the downside of the cost in doing it and the risk, how do you reduce that as much as possible. I think it's not an impossible exercise, but it is not an easy one if you look at the sheer complexity of the organisation. I think Sweden mentioned the importance of maintaining mandates. I've heard many of you saying that, and that yes, the current How to say, the current parameter of unity is just the start. There is way more to it than what is just here. UK, I think, also mentioned the need to minimize the impact on delivery. And yes, I mean, we had the occasion multiple times in bilateral meetings to talk about that. I think you've heard all of us. because we're all involved in some type of merger discussions, that really is a priority that you want to keep. From the United States, hear your concerns about at the moment where financial contributions are scarce, and we understand the choices that you have to make as member states. I think all of us understand that, yes, there is demands in all dimensions. not only from multilateral organizations. And we understand that you have to make choices. So when we are in these circumstances, we have to be very, very prudent on what we use it for. And that is why the merger discussions, we've looked into what we call no regret decisions, things that we can move forward, which we think are common sense and which do not require outside analysis and outside support to realize them. Then, Kuba, yes, you mentioned specifically the upside potential that there is of a potential merger. And we agree. I mean, we kind of came to the same conclusion again. How you execute it in the most risk-reduced way is, I think, the key question. India, you mentioned the need for evidence for member state leadership and then making sure that program countries are part of the discussion. And it's a key one. I mean, this is not only -- first of all, we see that the financial contributions are becoming way more heterogeneous than it was in the past, and we think that's a good thing. We are a big fan of South-South cooperation. That should also be reflected in the type of analysis that is being done. Norway, I heard you having a constructive view on both mergers, and I agree with that. And that reform is not an objective. I mean, it's a means to an and the means to an end is making the UN more powerful and more effective. And then I think Japan and Armenia both mentioned the importance of country presence, of maintaining that country presence, especially in fragile circumstances. I think the three of us have emphasized the work that we do in fragile environments. which is not an easy one, but really should be a priority. I think George, you talked about 75% of your work, you haven't put a percentage on it, but in our case it's more than 50%. So these are organizations that are very, very present in fragile context and where our perspective is how can we get out of fragility? How can we get into recovery and a path to prosperity perspective? Thank you.

Thank you very much. Very valuable feedback. Before we continue with the rest of the speakers, I think this issue of the third party assessment and the terms of reference has been raised. You may recall that I invited Member States at the briefing on UNAT that was taking place a bit more than a week ago to reflect on the sequence, having been in contact with a number of Member States. asking about the utility or the timeframe of the third party assessment and the terms of reference, I've been encouraging member states to look exactly at the sequence. I did the same yesterday in my discussion with the Bureau. I've been continuing discussing with member states, with the heads of the entities. I want to appreciate once again the important role that teams from UNDP and UNOPS played in not only developing the terms of reference, but also integrating comments and questions from Member States. Now, of course, the terms of reference, the third party assessment has been agreed in a context when the interaction between UNDP and UNOPS faced some challenges. We know it very well. And the potential of identifying particular way ahead was somehow limited. In the meantime, I think we have significant progress in how, and we heard it today as well from UNOPS and UNDP principles and I can confirm that there is important work ahead. And even when I made the point a week ago in the briefing, I was monitoring these conversations between the two agencies. So here is not whether to have it or not to have it, but how we as member states politically integrate this important work in the output of the board and to avoid any redundancies in the process or contradictions. between the track that we heard from the UNDP administrator and UNOPS executive director under three key headings and the important work continuing and of course the terms of reference that at some point may put a question mark as we heard from George on the underground on the implementation of different programs. So it's something for us that we have to think thoroughly these days before we conclude the board meeting and to see how to go forward. I'm not saying that we should not approve, I'm saying that probably we should consider a different timing. That's why I thought that yes, we may need at some point to meet again in a board format, even if it's for a short while. But again, that's reflection in progress and work in progress for all of us. Now we continue the list of speakers and I'm gonna read you the first few speakers. I have Netherlands, Australia, Mexico, Belgium. And then I will let you know about the rest. The Netherlands, Ambassador, please, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President. And we thank UNFPA, UNDP, and UNOPS for this update and for advancing the UNAD initiative. We align with the joint statement delivered by Germany. I have two points to make. First, we should use UNAD to address longstanding structural and operational challenges and make the UN system more fit for purpose. And we call on UNDP, UNFPA and UNOPS to continue to and reinforce their constructive engagement in taking these reforms forward, including the work streams on UN country team reconfiguration, regional reset, expertise on demand and unified services. These offer important opportunities to strengthen system wide coherence at country level under the coordination of the Resident Coordinator. The expertise on demand model, for example, will enable country teams to access specialized expertise from across the UN system when and where it is most needed, while avoiding the need for a permanent presence for every agency in every country. We would be interested to hear from UNDP, UNFPA and UNOPS about your efforts to support these work packages. Are current pilots delivering intended results and what is working well and where are the greatest potentials to scale these approaches. We would also welcome reflections on what support is needed from Member States. Second, on mergers, we welcome the efforts from UNDP and UNOPS to develop the new terms of reference. We encourage both organizations to work constructively and provide their final report swiftly so the Board can provide a recommendation on a merger. With regard to UNFPA and UN Women, we do not have sufficient evidence that a full merger would preserve the distinct mandates of the agencies and therefore we are not in a position to support the merger as presented. However, we see significant opportunities in the alternatives that could strengthen collaboration and deliver better results for women and girls globally. We would be interested to hear how UNFPA and UN Women envisage testing these approaches. To conclude, we encourage all UN organizations to use this moment to be ambitious, collaborative, and willing to challenge established ways of working. I thank you.

I thank the Netherlands for your intervention.

I give the floor to France, followed by Australia, Mexico, and Belgium. Ambassador, you have the floor.

Mr. President, thank you very much, President, Commissioner, and colleagues. heads of agencies for a year now we've been working hand in hand to build a UN that is more legible in terms of what it does stronger on the ground and better equipped to face the new financial and political realities of our age our objective is clear lifting ever more people out of poverty broadening access to sexual reproductive health all over the world and making progress as regards the achievement of the SDGs in order to leave no one behind. We're well aware of the efforts that were required in order to achieve staff streamlining, relocation and other budgetary consolidation measures which you've undertaken as part of the UNAT initiative. This executive board gives us an opportunity to continue to provide support to you, as well as providing you with the guidance that you need to undertake and complete this reform. Mr. President, for us, the mergers proposed by the Secretary General, with the mandates remaining unchanged, can help complete these efforts to by reducing the agency's structural costs and promoting new working methods on the ground. It falls to the Executive Council to explain the challenges thrown up by the various scenarios and the decision itself will be up to the General Assembly. First and foremost on the merger between the UNDP and UNOPS, France supports the proposed terms of reference in preparation for a third party independent analysis. The results of the analysis and the agency's response should be submitted ideally by the first regular session of the Executive Board in 2027. In the interim, France encourages the two agencies to continue close cooperation in all of its various forms, shared services and above all, a shared offering, for instance, as regards the energy transition, where we're well aware there is room for collective improvement. Second, turning to the UNFPA and UN Women. France welcomes the additional information which was swiftly transmitted to us in accordance with the requests of, with the request of the executive board, we do have two comments, first, without a doubt our choices will come with costs. It would appear that a merger will result in $38 million in recurring savings starting in 2030 versus $10 million under the alternative scenarios. Over five years, that adds up to $100 million extra dollars, which could be invested in agency action. Next. a number of measures can be implemented right away so as to bring UNFPA and UN Women closer to better align their work, to strengthen synergies. I'm referring, of course, to the common strategic frameworks and data collection without prejudging. This speaker's microphone has been cut off. Mr. President, let me conclude. The UN80 initiative is an opportunity for the Executive Board to consider all of the various options which can help us to consolidate our agencies and their activities for the benefit of the people they serve. France will make every effort to support the agencies to this end. I thank.

You.

I thank France for that statement. I now give the floor to Australia to be followed by Mexico. Australia. Thank you for your flexibility, you have the floor.

Australia remains a strong supporter of the UNAD reform process. We align with the group statement made by Germany and make the following additional points. Reforms must strengthen country level delivery and ensure development gains are protected. This is especially important for small island developing states, which are on the front line of climate change and remain particularly vulnerable to external shocks. Australia underlines that potential mergers must be informed by Executive Board consideration and recommendations and backed by a compelling case commensurate with the scale, complexity and importance of the work led by these organizations. Today I want to address three key points that have been made by others. First, with respect to the proposed merger of UNFPA and UN Women, Australia welcomes the additional analysis requested by the Board on alternative approaches. We need to consider these approaches in the context of the broader UNAT reforms with a focus on finding efficiencies and improving delivery. As discussions progress, preserving the mandates, expertise and comparative advantage of both organisations is essential. The distinct mandates of each organisation reflect commitments agreed by all member states. Reform must enhance outcomes. It cannot become a means for dismantling important progress, protections, and services secured over decades. As a longstanding partner of UNFPA, particularly in advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights, Australia sees its work on the ground as more important than ever. Second, Australia notes the joint UNDP UNOPS terms of reference and welcomes an independent, credible, and evidence-based assessment process. We recognize the challenge of designing an independent assessment capable of addressing complex questions. While the terms of reference do not capture issues perfectly, Australia will engage constructively and pragmatically in discussions. Looking ahead, the threshold consideration for Australia will be whether the options under review contribute to a more effective, efficient, and coherent UN development system demonstrated through in-country impact and alignment with UNAD and UNDS reforms. Australia also encourages an assessment process that's both timely and allows adequate time for consideration by the executive board. Third, we appreciate agencies' continued contribution to the broader UNAD reforms, such as on UN country team reconfiguration, the regional reset, recalibration of the resident coordinator system, and improving system-wide results management and funding mechanisms. These reforms have clear potential to improve the UN's delivery where it matters most on the ground. and should be pursued alongside agency-specific reforms in line with UNAT. Thank you very much, President.

I thank Australia for the statement. I give the floor now to Mexico, to be followed by Belgium.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the heads of various agencies for being here and for the information they've shared. We acknowledge the efforts undertaken in the framework of UNAD to strengthen efficiency, coherence, and response capacity of the UN system. We fully share these goals. However, we believe that efficiency should not be reduced to simple institutional consolidation. Based on the information available, Mexico that the conditions are not met for example to support a merger between UNFPA and UN women we'd like to highlight three considerations first of all it's essential to preserve the integrity of mandates as has been said previously both entities have distinct specialized and complementary goals and any reform should ensure that these specializations and capacities built on the ground over decades are not weakened secondly it to demonstrate efficiency based on evidence that we have stated various times. A transformation of this scale requires clarity on cost savings, operational benefits, and program implications. The reliability of evidence should be proportional to the scale of the reform. Thirdly, and perhaps the most important, protecting results on the ground. The fundamental criteria should be whether the reform will make it possible to obtain better results for communities that we This is why Mexico joins other delegations that have preferred other alternatives to strengthen shared services. Mexico also considers that this process should strengthen the role of the executive boards by ensuring their effective participation in orientation, supervision and evaluation of the reforms that affect the mandates and functioning of the mandates under their responsibility. In the same spirit, Mexico takes note of the proposal pertaining to the merger between UNDP and UNOPS, any process in this context must also preserve the capacities, comparative advantages and ensure the continuity of their fundamental operations, avoiding disruptions in programs and delivery on the ground. Mr. Chairman, Mexico does not defend the status quo. We believe that there is a lot of margin for improvement. However, we do believe that an ambitious reform guided by evidence and efficiency results, always putting first and foremost the populations that most need it. That is our ultimate goal. Thank you very much.

I thank Mexico for the statement. I give the floor now to Belgium, to be followed by Spain.

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, Belgium aligns itself with the joint statement delivered by Germany and would like to add a few elements in its national capacity. Belgium reaffirms its support for the UNAT initiative and remains committed to engaging constructively in discussions on how to strengthen the effectiveness, efficiency and coherence of the United Nations system. Such engagement requires that Member States, through the Executive Board, have access to timely, complete and evidence-based information, as well as clarity on process and timeline. While we recognize the scale of the work this process demands, we remain concerned that this requirement has often not been met, limiting Member States' ability to fulfill their oversight role. That said, Belgium wishes to look ahead constructively and welcomes the opportunity this session offers to build a shared understanding of the way forward. On the proposed merger of UNFPA and UN Women, important questions remain. It is still unclear how the distinct mandates of the two entities would be preserved under the proposed arrangement, as the documentation shared to date does not provide explicit assurances or a clearly defined mechanism to safeguard their integrity. Although the establishment of UN Women is often cited as a successful institutional reform, the current proposal raises different considerations and broad support among member states for major structural change has yet to emerge. In that context, could you, Madam Executive Director, clarify if the perceived legitimacy and operational capacity of a potential new entity would be impacted in case of a reform based on a close or contentious vote, rather than by consensus? On the proposed mergers of UNDP and UNOPS, we thank the agencies for their presentation of a joint TOR and look forward to advancing towards a full picture of the process ahead. We thank UNDP for strengthening cooperation with humanitarian actors. This is an illustration that beyond the proposed mergers, a range of options to strengthen system-wide coherence and efficiency exists and merits careful consideration. Overall, we encourage exploration of such options while remaining open to structural reforms. Ultimately, the success of the UNAT process will not be measured solely by the reforms it decides on, but by the reforms it delivers. Lasting reform requires broad confidence among Member States. Belgium remains fully committed to working constructively with the agencies and fellow member states to ensure that UNAT delivers a stronger, more coherent, and more effective United Nations for the new generation. I thank you.

I thank Belgium for the statement. I give the floor now to Spain to be followed by Portugal.

Thank you, Chairman. Spain is grateful for the opportunity to continue this dialogue on the UNAD initiative and its implications for the UN development system. We strongly support the process of reform as an opportunity to strengthen the efficiency, coherence and capacity of the United Nations to respond to the needs of countries and to obtain better results on the ground. Based on this perspective, I'd like to highlight four priorities for Spain. First of all, UNAD must consolidate and deepen the reform of the development system began in 2018. We must preserve its main achievements and continue strengthening the system of resident coordinators, the central role of cooperation framework and country teams that are more adapted to the needs and priorities of each country. Secondly, We fully support an ambitious agenda of efficiency, advances already achieved demonstrate that there's significant margin to share services, consolidate administrative functions, use common platforms and reduce duplications. According to the last progress report, the efficiencies obtained by the system obtained some $900 million in 2025. We encourage the UNDP, UNOPS, and other organizations to identify opportunities for cooperation, joint programming, and interoperability. Thirdly, the reform of the system must also address financing. If we want a system that is more integrated and coherent, we need financing that facilitates the joint efforts and reduces fragmentation. With this in mind, Spain strongly supports the proposal of the working package 18 to strengthen the joint SDG fund and consolidate it as the main joint fund of the EU of the sustainable development efforts, similarly to the way the World Peacebuilding Fund plays in peacekeeping. This effort will contribute to greater coherence and more integrated efforts of the system. Fourthly, with regard to the possible structural reforms and mergers, SPIN considers that any decision must be based on sound evidence, demonstrate added value and fully preserve the mandates and capacities of each entity. with regard to UNFPA and UN Women, we value the opportunities in strengthening both entities. We consider these other alternatives are promising way to achieve our goals. Spain considers it a priority to deepen the functional integration before considering a merger. It's important to preserve the specific mandates and comparative advantages of each entity.

Thank you for the statement. I give the floor to Portugal to be followed by South Africa.

Thank you, Mr. President. As the UN initiative moves into its delivery phase, Portugal welcomes the progress achieved thus far and believes that its success will ultimately be measured by its ability to build a United Nations that is more agile, more coherent, and better equipped to meet the evolving needs of the people it serves. The challenge now is to translate the ambition of reform into lasting changes in the way the United Nations works as one system, fostering greater collaboration, innovation and accountability across its entities. Portugal welcomes an evidence-based and comprehensive assessment of the potential UNDP UNOPS merger as an important opportunity to support member states in identifying institutional arrangements that offer the greatest added value for the United Nations development system. Against this background, Portugal recognizes UNFPA and UN Women as indispensable pillars of the UN development system. At the time of profound global challenges, their normative leadership, technical expertise and partnerships remain essential to advancing gender equality, upholding the rights of women and girls, empowering women, girls and young people, and promoting sexual and reproductive health and rights to the benefit of society as a whole. For Portugal, structural reform is a means, not an end. Its success should be measured by its ability to deliver better for people and planet. Thank you.

I thank Portugal for the statement. I give the floor to South Africa, to be followed by Canada.

Thank you, Mr. President. South Africa thanks UNDP, UNFPA, and UNOPS for the continued engagement on the UN 80 initiative. We remain supportive of reforms that strengthen coherence, efficiency and effectiveness across the United Nations development system, whilst ensuring that these do not come at the expense of mandate delivery and development outcomes. We appreciate the extensive additional information provided on the proposed UNFPA UN Women merger. The follow-up work provides more detailed financial modelling, examines alternative options and gives greater consideration to country and regional implications. Notwithstanding this progress, South Africa remains concerned about the sequencing of the proposed approach. The assessment itself recognizes that it is not a final country by country implementation plan with future configurations to be determined on a case by case basis. For South Africa, this raises an important question. The impact of structural reform may differ considerably across regions and country contexts. Institutional presence, partnerships, technical capacity and the way mandates are delivered are shaped by those contexts. It is therefore important that these implications are understood before, rather than only after, a structural decision is taken. This is particularly relevant for Africa and other programme countries where any loss, reconfiguration or weakening of capacity may have direct consequences for development delivery. South Africa is therefore not in a position to support the merger between UNFPA and UN Women at this stage. We support continued consideration of the alternative options presented, including approaches that strengthen coordination and efficiency while protecting the full delivery of both mandates and limiting disruption. This same consideration informs our approach to UNDP and UNOPS. We welcome the terms of reference for the independent assessment, particularly their attention to development impact, country level delivery and consultation with program countries. We encourage that the assessment also considers differentiated regional and country context before recommendations are advanced. South Africa remains engaged in the UNAT process and continues to value UNFPA's important contribution to development outcomes, particularly in program countries. Thank you, Mr. President.

I thank South Africa for the statement. I give the floor to Canada to be followed by Belarus and then El Salvador. and Iran. Canada, please, you have the floor.

Mr. President, Canada staunchly supports the UN80 initiative, as well as the United Nations development system reform. The initiatives are producing results. Canada is determined to continue working with the UN member states, so as to build a UN that is fit for tackling the current challenges that stand in the way of the SDGs implementation for Canada. This involves a resident coordinator system and humanitarian coordinator system that is more robust and financed in a sustainable fashion, as well as country teams that are better equipped for achieving concrete results. Now this requires reforms underpinned by evidence-based decision making, thereby bolstering efficiency, accountability, coherence and system-wide results. Canada would like to align itself with the statement delivered by Germany and would like to make the three following points. First, on the importance of UNFPA. Canada is delighted to be partaking in this session at an inflection point, a time when global challenges are multiplying, especially the persistent inequalities, limited resources and the backsliding we've seen on gender equality as well as on the protection and promotion of health and of the rights of women and girls. While progress is increasingly under threat, UNFPA should remain a key driver of ambition, accountability, a driver of change. Second, it's important to pick a path forward, a path that does not risk triggering an interruption to service delivery on the ground. Canada reaffirms its staunch support for UNFPA and its singular normative mandate, a key pillar of the implementation of the Sustainable Development Agenda 2030. Gender equality and the protection and promotion of health and of the rights of women and girls are a topmost priority for Canada. They're also a lever, a key lever for bolstering security, supporting sustainable economic growth and building more resilient societies. Turning now to the proposed merger between UNFPA and UN Women, Canada believes that the information we have available at present does not yet meet the standards for reliable evidence, financial rigor, and risk analysis, standards or requirements which need to be fulfilled in order for us to agree to support such a merger at present. Canada is delighted to continue dialogue with both entities, member states, civil society, and UN senior leadership so as to weigh up the various options.

The speaker's microphone has been cut off.

President, I do apologise. Excuse me, could you please hit the microphone button again? Or have you finished? I'll give you the opportunity to finish if you like.

Regarding UNDP and UNOPS, the proposed merger, we are awaiting an independent assessment with a keen interest, one underpinned by evidence-based data about the structural options, the possible scenarios, including the costs, the funding, the benefits and the risks. It's vital for the fundamental mandates to be maintained in order to ensure the continuity of activities and their sustained impact on the ground. I thank you.

President, thank you, Canada, for that statement. I now give the floor to the representative of Belarus. to be followed by El Salvador.

Thank you, President. The Republic of Belarus attaches particular importance and values the high level and the atmosphere of cooperation with UN development system entities, UNDP, UNFPA and UNOPS. In light of the complex challenges the UN is facing, including the so-called liquidity crisis, we support the Secretary-General's efforts as well as those of involved entities aimed at undertaking the UNAD initiative. However, much like many other member states, we are disquieted by the potential consequences this reform will have for the UN development system. We've consistently stated that we need to ensure that we have a transparent intergovernmental reform process underpinned by evidence, one that must not be rushed. The reform should help us to bolster the effectiveness of the organization by doing away with bureaucracy, duplication, and an overburdening of the agenda. The principles governing the UN activities dictate that the final outcomes, the final decisions about any concrete practical steps must be taken by member states. We believe that the main outcomes, the main improvements must be palpable at the country level. Thus, the UN development system reform should not weaken neither the mandates nor the entities nor result in less support to beneficiary countries. Therefore, Belarus believes that we need the following approach. The process should not replace the result. Also, measures aimed at bolstering efficiency and reconfiguring the UN presence at the country level at the end of the day should help to strengthen activities on the ground and to maintain technical and expert capacity. Republic of Belarus thanks all parties involved in this process and reiterates its readiness to continue constructively cooperating on this issue. I thank you.

Thank Belarus. I give the floor to El Salvador and then Iran. El Salvador, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. El Salvador is grateful for this opportunity to engage in dialogue on aspects related to the UNAD initiative, especially given that the various proposals related to this have a direct impact on the work of the entities that form this executive board and its operation on the ground. With this in mind, we would like to reiterate the need to ensure respect for the mandate of each one of these entities. their particularities and specific actions, including those that take the form of strategic plans, country programmes and other documents, and especially to recall the reasons and the needs that gave rise and led to the establishment of these entities. With regard to the proposed merger between UNDP and UNOPS, we would like to highlight the importance of the terms of reference elaborated the consideration of an external assessment on the potential merger of the entities. We'd like to reiterate the need to have a comprehensive vision on the impact that a merger could have at the level, not only administrative level, but also operational level, and also in substantive terms. We'd also like to underscore the need for this analysis to address in depth the effects of the potential merger with regard to its action on the ground through various programs and projects. and also the impact that changes could bring about regarding the makeup of the various teams in country offices inter alia. With regard to the proposed merger between UNFPA and UN Women, we welcome the report of the Secretary-General with regard to various alternative options and would like to express our readiness to have an in-depth discussion during the informal consultations underway. Considering, we consider it's important to examine in greater depth alternatives to the merger that make it possible to maximize the differentiated capacities through greater coordination, joint implementation and operational interoperability. This is especially relevant given that the financial projections that have been presented are based on assumptions and do not offer certainty on whether the envisioned savings can be generated. This is why alternatives must be examined based on their program and operational benefits. Mr. Chairman, lastly, it's important to highlight that during the annual session consultations on the decision pertaining to this item of the agenda would require tremendous amount of work by delegations, teams from the entities. The microphone is switched off. Thank you. We'd like to express the hope that the dialogue underway to consolidate a new draft decision could have sufficient transparency and neutrality for the adoption of a result that is as balanced as possible. Thank you.

I thank El Salvador for the statement. And I now give the floor to Iran, and then we will go back to the principles for comments and reactions. Iran, please, you have the floor.

Excellencies, colleagues, my delegation welcomes the opportunity to engage on the UN80 initiative.

At a time when discussions on the possible merger of UNDP and UNIPS are underway, we believe it is particularly important that these discussions be approached with great care and that all their implications be fully considered.

Any reform should ultimately improve the effectiveness of the United Nations in program countries, not unintentionally undermine it. In particular, we should ensure the efficiency, national ownership, and the implementation of UNDP country projects are not adversely affected. Any institutional changes should remain firmly grounded in the mandates of the respective entities, country program priorities,

and above all, national ownership.

Reform should ensure better delivery of results on the ground rather than creating institutional gaps or disrupting established partnerships. Mr. President, Islamic Republic of Iran also wishes to underline its concern regarding the proposed

merger of UNFPA and UN Women.

From our perspective, these two entities have distinct and clearly defined mandates. Their respective expertise, priorities, and program address different, though complementary, dimensions of development and gender equality. Combining them could seriously affect the effectiveness and delivery of their program. We therefore believe that any consideration of such a merger should be based on a careful assessment of its operational and programmatic consequences. More broadly, UNAD should strengthen rather than reduce the capacity of UN system to support countries facing conflict, development challenges, and humanitarian pressures.

Mr. President,

for developing countries, reform must translate into stronger partnership, faster delivery, and more effective support, not simply administrative restructuring. We therefore believe that the success of UNAD should be measured by three principles, greater efficiency without loss of capacity, a stronger coherence without weakening mandates, and reform that reinforce rather than diminishes national ownership. The ultimate test is very simple. Will these reform enable the United Nations to serve program countries better and deliver more effectively on the ground? My delegation stands ready to contribute constructively to this important process.

I thank you.

I thank the Islamic Republic of Iran for the statement. And for the time being, we have concluded the list of speakers. And we want -- we will go back to the principles. We start with the UN Office Executive Director, Jorge. You have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to thank the delegations. for their questions and again, as several elements were already covered by my previous responses, I will try to park in some remaining points that were made. One is the reference that several delegations have made again about the reconfiguration of country teams. And indeed, this must be considered as a as a way to move us more into the readiness mode. And flexibility is key. That's why the collaboration between the agencies, including UNDP and UNOPS, but between all agencies is going to be so important because agencies will need to get used to deliver through others and also to host others. And this is a real breakthrough or a game changer. So rather than having multiple logos in a country, sometimes just with one person, it's important that we have country teams that have more critical mass, that are smaller in terms of number of agencies, but are stronger in terms of the capacity to deliver, which means that agencies will be obliged to collaborate. and protocols will need to be put in place to ensure that an agency can still be viable, visible and impactful if it delivers through others and an agency that accepts the programme of others to be delivered through them can also have the due visibility. So you can see that this element embeds very strongly the element of collaboration. So I want to thank Member States for again making the case for the relevance of that reform as well as the strengthening of the resident coordinator system. Second point, there was a reference to energy. And both myself and Alexander mentioned this topic in previous occasions. As you know, it's one of the options that is on the non-structural options that is on the five scenarios that will be under this third party assessment. Clearly, if we check the numbers, we realize that there is a nexus between energy access and poverty eradication and a nexus between energy access and climate action. Unfortunately, the loopholes are more on the grid, more than on the supply. We have 250 gigawatts of backlog on energy transmission. So definitely we need to give a boost to energy grids and storage. And definitely this is an area where the two agencies in this case have a complementary strength. So I have no doubt that regardless what will be the outcome of the third party assessment, there are multiple opportunities for the two agencies to collaborate on the energy sector, as both myself and Alexander already mentioned in previous occasions. There is also a reference that several delegations made again about coherence and impact. So I think that I will use this occasion to explain why we see the advantage of the integration in case there is a merger, and I will not comment on the scenarios. So what's the case for the merger in terms of integration? Is to ensure that we have coherence from policy to delivery, from policy finance and delivery, and addressing simultaneously the policy gap, the financing gap and the implementation gap. At the same time, it is very important that this does not oblige Member States, partner countries, programme countries to take the full package. If there is one day a merger of UNDP and UNOPS, and I will not comment on what could be the configuration to avoid creating any noise in this session, but in case there is a merger, regardless what's the modality, it's very important that member states, the partner countries, still have the access to choose whether they want the full package, which is something that goes from policy to implementation, or they just want the policy support or just want implementation support to make sure that when a country approaches that entity for a school, it doesn't get an education policy unless it wants. And the same if they want an education policy, it shouldn't be obliged to also have a series of schools to be constructed. So this element of freedom of member states, it's key. This must be rooted on countries aspirations and their own demands. So this is why in our assessments we have included this element. Let me end with an element that I think it's important. In case there is a third party assessment, we won't start, that entity won't start from a blank page. There was very strong work, I think, solid work done by UNDP and UNOPS. during this year. Those five options that we have densified in the report may have differences on the numbers, on the cost effectiveness, the cost benefit and on the transitions. So reconciliation will be needed on the numbers, but on the content, On the case for each of the scenarios, I think that the joint work of the two organisations is very solid and robust. I want to make this statement because I think it is important not to give the impression that the third-party assessment is the panacea and that we are waiting for that to know what to do. assessment that the two agencies have provided may not have provided the clarity that you need but already pointed into a certain direction that now can be further improved. Final point, Mr. President, is to stress the point that I made at the beginning with Alexander, which is we are in your hands. It's up to Member States to decide what's the next steps regarding the third party assessment. But we won't wait for that strengthen the collaboration. We are deeply committed in strengthening the collaboration between the two agencies with a third party assessment or without the third party assessment. Thank you.

Thank you very much. So Alexander, please.

Yes, thank you. Let me first maybe react to the statement made by G77 and China in the previous round. I think what we appreciate there is the emphasis on having the program countries being part of the discussion on reform and the emphasis on prioritizing delivery. When we do reforms, we need to make sure that that process of reform is not taking energy or space or management space away from the daily work that we have. I think you also asked us to explore non-structural alternative to a merger, which is exactly what George and myself have put on the table here. Remarks from the Netherlands. You mentioned expertise on demand, and you're one of the only ones that mentioned it, and we really appreciate that because we think this is a workstream that needs to have more attention because we really see it as the connector of many of the other things that we are doing. You asked what can we do to help this. be part of the testing and the piloting that we are going to launch and then see based on that what is more needed. On the mergers, you also mentioned the terms of reference and for us these are an important avenue to see how we can maximize the impact and minimize the risk. And then you asked a more general question on what do you expect from the member states. If I can put forward one element and we'll have an occasion to talk about it tomorrow, it's definitely a good mix of different funding options which would enable us to deliver on the expectations of the member states and especially on the ground.

At first, yes indeed. as regards the potential merger between UNOPS and the UNDP, we must consider all the options you mentioned. Energy? Yes, indeed, but we need to think broader than just energy. I think all of those discussions about infrastructure, about utilities in the crisis and post-crisis context, those are important too, for instance, when it comes to water. Well, that's almost as important, water, as access to energy is. At the start of your statement, the Permanent Representative mentioned the fact that a lot of effort, many efforts have already been made on relocation. and staffing readjustments. Indeed, that's something that we absolutely must flag because it's a considerable effort. It's a big ask from our teams. So thank you very much for highlighting that.

You mentioned specifically in country presence and there's many reasons why to do that, but one of them is, of course, the emphasis that you have on small island development states. And we know how crucial maintaining presence in those countries is. and giving them access to everything that the UN has to offer. And they're doing the country reconfiguration in combination with expertise on demand, we think is the right way forward. On Mexico, You asked us to look at what the different options are in reform and in merger, but to emphasize the necessity to continue on delivery. And that's a crucial one. Combining those two is really an important one. Remarks from Belgium, I heard you say that you encourage us to go forward in the meantime with what we would call no regret options on bringing UNDP and UNOPS closer one to another, but make sure to not prejudge on structural choices. We are fully in line with that. And also appreciate that you mentioned what you are doing in the humanitarian sphere on bridging crisis to recovery and then a path to prosperity afterwards. Remarks from Spain, you specifically linked to, sorry, you're sitting there, you're specifically linked to reform started in 2018, and I think it's a crucial one. That anything we do refer to what has been decided, uh, there based on, on GA resolutions and so on, we know that the discussion took place in, in ECOSOC on that, uh, on, on that, uh, on, on that element, um, and, and we are… fully aligned with what has been decided there and the need to have consultation and for us to facilitate those consultations. Portugal, you mentioned that UNAT should be seen as an opportunity and not only as cost cutting. As I said, we need to be more efficient, less overlap, faster and so on, but then let's also use it to work on those domains where we see that there is more expected from us and where certain capabilities need to be developed. South Africa, I think one point that I really want to echo on what you said is that the reforms might land in a different way in different countries and in different regions. And that is totally true. I mean, we cannot just see this as one environment and being in close consultation with the country with our country teams, but also our country partners on how these reforms would work and how you need to adapt it country and region by region, I think is a totally valid point. On.

The comments from Canada, you spoke of the terms of reference, stating that there are very high expectations that have been pinned on those. We want the assessment standards, the transparency standards, we want for those standards to be high so that you can make the right decision. We completely agree and that's why many countries have asked for more time to be able to make the right decision.

Larissa, I think indeed, as you said, you mentioned that many things work and there should not be a necessity to reform things that actually work or to repair things that work. As I said in my introduction, Do we as organizations need to evolve and need to adapt to changing circumstances? Totally. But many things actually do work and are totally valid in the circumstances of, um, of today. Salvador, you mentioned the priority. to look at what is the impact on the ground of potential merger, potential reforms. That is why we also mentioned these pathways where we could already do certain things, which from our perspective are a bit no-brainers and which do not demand structural reforms. And then the Islamic Republic of Iran, you mentioned the respect for mandates. have other countries heard say that as well, respect for mandates and for country programs. And it's important. Those country programs are made together with the countries. They are signed off by the resident coordinators, and then they are voted here. This meeting is not only a meeting to talk, it's also a meeting where oversight takes place, and the country programs are one important instrument you have to provide oversight.

Thank you very much. Dear colleagues, it's now one o'clock, but I want to thank the interpreters for agreeing to continue a bit beyond one o'clock, and thank you very much for your flexibility and support, because we cannot conclude this conversation without giving the floor to Deanne. She will have the last word. Please, Deanne.

Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you to the board for accepting that. The Kingdom of Netherlands, thank you very, very much. Thank you for your comment. We take note of the comment. The only comment I will make will be on expertise on demand. Everything else we expertise and demand in the mandate I am population data and gender-based violence SRHR are country-owned information that cannot any expert cannot come in country at the last time to do the job. This is based on trust. This is based on confidence and you need to build that relation throughout the years. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your comments on the importance of the fight against poverty. I think We certainly take due note of the comments you made and we're available for any additional information.

Point is so critical for seeds and everything is about people and planet and for seeds for more than any other country kind in the world, commodity prepositioning is absolutely crucial. Everything that linked to seed is crucial. So we take note of all your comment and are grateful for them. Mexico, muchisima gracias for your comment. note of what you said and looking forward to working closely with you and ensure that you have all your questions answered. Belgium, thank you for your comment and the continued exploration will remain available to you and discuss vis-a-vis the procedural thing that links to member states and we follow your lead into that regard. Thank you. Spain, muchisima gracia, muchisima gracia for the support and I take note of your comment as well. And peace and security are critical for women, peace and security. I just want to make a comment, youth, peace and security, we are the one implementing on the ground and it's important to note because in that youth, peace and security, young women are at stake into that concern. Thank you, muchisima gracia. Portugal, muito obrigada, I take note of your comment as well, they are important and grateful. normative and technical expertise at the centre of it. South Africa, I take note of your comment. Thank you so very much. We are available to give every information in order to be able to protect the mandate. Thank you. Canada, merci infiniment pour votre commentaire et pour l'importance.

Thank you for your comments, Canada, and for the importance of preserving mandates and for the fact that any future exercise has to be based on evidence.

Thank you for your comment. They are critical and important, the funding liquidity and the reform, and to make sure that everything is based on evidence. Thank you. El Salvador, muchisima gracias. We take note of your comment and your willingness to have alternative option work on and importance of the coordination on the ground. Gracias. Islamic Republic of Iran, thank you for your comment. They are absolutely critical on what we do. Again, national ownership is critical, especially on the work that UNFPA does. If we don't have the support of the country we implement, there will be no work for UNFPA anywhere on this planet. Thank you. And I think on that base, Mr. President, merci.

Thank you. Thank you very much. I want to thank member states and the principals of these entities. I think it was a very rich dialogue. We'll reflect on it in the coming days and weeks. This brings to a close this agenda item. We also have a draft decision under discussion before our closing on Thursday. And we will reconvene at three o'clock with the UNOPS segment, this meeting is adjourned, thank you.