1st meeting - Executive Board of UNDP, UNFPA and UNOPS (Annual Session 2026)

Distinguished colleagues, we're about to start our meeting. I declare open the Annual Session 2026 of the Executive Board of UNDP, UNFPA and UNOPS. This session is being held in accordance with the rules of procedure of the Executive Board and the approved annual work plan. We will start with our agenda before delivering My opening statement. I would like to welcome the colleagues joining me on the podium: Mr. Alexandre de Croix, Administrator of UNDP; Mrs. Diane Kita, the Executive Director of UNFPA; Mr. Jorge Moreira da Silva, Executive Director of UNOPS; and Mrs. Masa Jafari, Secretary of the Executive Board of UNDP and UNFPA. UNOPS. I myself, I will be looking forward to this annual session of the Executive Board, which constitutes an important benchmark in the work of this Board. I want to thank member states, I want to thank the members of the Bureau, the Vice Presidents that have been assisting the important work of the Executive Board. For the last several sessions, including the February session and from the beginning of the year, and navigating important debates on key issues. And as we know very well as member states, we are indeed at a key juncture in the work of the United Nations, and these— the entities that we are working with and providing governance for in this Executive Board play a crucial role in implementing the development agenda of the United Nations. And I want to also thank the executive heads of the organizations and the staff. I think together we have charted a good framework for member states to further consider the way ahead. What dominates, I think, now the conversations, of course, is the UNAT and how these boards and how member states work with the organizations on finding the best possible institutional but also operational framework for those organizations. What is important to note is that this conversation itself is is crucial, but it's not the only one to have. In the meantime, I think there are many tens of thousands of people, millions of people benefiting from the important work of the organization, and also we have thousands of staff members working on the ground together with the Vice Presidents and members of the Board. We had the chance to see them in action implementing the agenda that we decide here in New York, and that's meaningful work and has to continue. Having said that, I think what is important is for all of us to indeed define that operational and institutional framework that allows meaningful delivery. We have allocated 2 sessions for this annual session, this morning and this afternoon, discussing on the 2 proposed mergers by the Secretary-General under the UNAT. We will be focusing in the morning on the UNDP-UNOPS potential merger, and in the afternoon we'll be focusing on the UNFPA-UN Women potential merger. And we have invited also the Executive Director of UN Women as part of this ongoing dialogue. I will make some points related to the UNAT and the mergers as we get to that agenda item. I would like to proceed now to Agenda Item 1, Organizational Matters, including the adoption of the agenda and work plan for the session, and I invite Mrs. Massa Jafari, the Executive— the Secretary of the Executive Board, to provide an overview of the organizational and logistical matters to outline the agenda for the session. Ms. Jafari, please.

Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning, distinguished members of the Executive Board and observer delegations. Thank you for the opportunity to briefly highlight key arrangements for the Annual Session of the Executive Board. I will cover very briefly four key areas: documentation, draft decision negotiations, the tentative work plan, and key logistical and procedural points. In terms of documentation and negotiations, as noted during the pre-session informal consultation on 21st of May, all key documents are available on the Executive Board website. These include the tentative work plan, the logistics note, the list of informals and briefings, and links to the official session documents for UNDP, UNFPA, and UNOPS on their respective websites. Advanced virtual negotiations on draft decisions began on 2nd June and will continue in person this from 1 to 3 PM. Additional late afternoon negotiations may also be convened subject to the plenary schedule. Due to current UN Secretariat austerity measures, no meeting rooms are available after 6 PM. Evening meetings therefore remain subject to confirmation. With your permission, Mr. President, I will now briefly outline the agenda as reflected in the tentative work plan.

Plan.

Today, Monday, 8th June, the session will open with organizational matters including the adoption of the agenda and work plan for the session, as well as the adoption of the report of the First Regular Session 2026. The remainder of today, Monday, will be devoted to the joint segment on engagement with UNAT Initiative. This will include vision statements by the UNDP, UNFPA, and UNOPS principles, as well as discussions related to the potential UNDP, UNOPS, and potential UNFPA/UN Women merger assessments. On Tuesday morning, the board will be— take up the UNOPS segment, including the statement by the executive director, the annual report of the executive director for 2025, the UNOPS report on the recommendations of the Joint Inspection, uh, Inspection Unit, JIU and the implementation of the UNOPS mobility policy. On Tuesday afternoon, the Board will continue the joint segment covering internal audit and investigations, ethics, protection against sexual exploitation and abuse and sexual harassment, and the update on the implementation efforts on the repositioning of the United Nations Development System. On Wednesday morning, the Board will take up the UNDP segment, including the interactive dialogue with the UNDP Administrator and the annual report of the Administrator for 2025, together with the related JIU report and statistical annex. On Wednesday afternoon, the Board will continue with UNDP-related items, including UNCDF, UNV, UNDP evaluation. The Board will also consider the UNFPA evaluation item and the assessment of how the Executive Board executes its governance and oversight functions. On Thursday morning, the Board will take up the UNFPA segment, including the statement by the Executive Director and the Annual Report of the Executive Director for 2025, together with the related JIU report and statistical and financial review. On Thursday afternoon, the Board will consider the remaining UNDP and UNFPA items, including UNDP Gender Equality, UNDP Country Programs, and UNFPA Country Programs. The session will conclude under other matters with the adoption of the decisions under, under consideration, the tentative work plan for the second regular session, and the closing of the session. I will conclude with a few key logistical and procedural points. In terms of speaking protocol and time limits, to support efficient time management and the governance and oversight role of the Executive Board, the speakers list protocol outlined in the logistics note will apply. Interventions will proceed in the following order: Bureau members, group statements, Executive Board members, and then observer delegations. For Executive Board members and observer delegations, the order will be permanent representatives, deputy permanent representatives, and expert-level representatives. The Chair retains discretion to adjust the sequence of interventions as appropriate to facilitate the efficient conduct of the meeting. In terms of the time limits, which will be strictly applied, management presentations will be limited to 3 to 5 minutes. Individual statements, including statements by Bureau members, will be limited to 3 minutes. Group statements will be limited to 5 minutes. The 30-second grace period no longer applies. And microphones will be automatically cut off once the allotted time has elapsed, and delegations are kindly requested not to reactivate their microphones thereafter. To support interpretation, Delegations are kindly requested to submit their statements to e-statements@un.org at least 2 hours prior to delivery. The subject line and the heading of the statement should clearly indicate the session title, the speaker's name, the agenda number and title. Statements will remain embargoed until delivery and will be published in the UN Journal thereafter. Thank you, Mr. President. We look forward to a productive and well-organized annual session.

Thank you, Mr. Jafari. Dear colleagues, if there are no objections, I take it that the Executive Board wishes to adopt the proposed agenda and work plan for the Annual Session 2026. It is so decided. The Board also has before it the report of the First Regular Session 2026 containing document DP/2026/11, which has circulated in advance and reflects the proceedings of that session. If there are no objections, I shall take it that the Executive Board wishes to adopt the report. It is so decided. Before we proceed to Agenda Item 18, an engagement with the UN Haiti Initiative, we'll take a brief moment to rearrange the podium. We proceed now with Agenda Item 18, Engagement with the UNHCR Initiative. Under this agenda item, as I explained this morning, we will be engaging with the UNDP Administrator and UNOPS Executive Director on the potential UNDP-UNOPS merger assessment. I would like to make a few points related to both potential mergers that are under the consideration of the Board. As you know, we have formally started the consultations process during the first formal session in February, and since then we have already had a number of engagements informal and informal settings. I think member states engaged, and those consultations were not limited to the board members, were involving member states in general of United Nations. We have organized a series of meetings, we have had interactions with the UN leadership, with the Secretary-General, with the Deputy Secretary-General, —not to mention the daily contacts that we've been having, almost daily contacts with the executives of the entities. And of course, member states among themselves, they have discussed. For the— I would say that for the last 4 months, we facilitated together with the members of the Bureau this reflection that we wanted member states to have. And of course, we know that every reflection process can bring about some challenges and can create also uncertainty, both among staff members and also UN member states. But we have at our disposal a set of instruments that provide the means to transform the UN in a much better equipped system, fit for purpose and more impactful. The organizations that the board is in charge of—the UNDP, UNFPA, and UNOPS—they do play an important role in the UN system, and each and every one of them delivers important and meaningful results on the ground. I think we are all faced with a situation where we need to adjust, to adapt, to probably delivering even better. The process is ongoing, and that's why we focused today at the first— at the beginning of the Annual Session on the UNATN, discussing and engaging formally on this important issue. One important point to say is that the Executive Board has the central responsibility in providing strategic guidance Oversight and accountability. And before any proposals are ultimately considered by the General Assembly, Member States must take informed and assumed decisions within the Executive Board and as part of this process. The Executive Board is the legitimate and appropriate body for this process. And without further ado, I would like to invite first Mr. Alexandre de Croo, UNDP Administrator, to be followed then by Mr. Moreira da Silva, and then of course we'll open the floor for comments and statements from member states. Yes, please, Mr. Administrator, please.

Excellencies, let me begin by thanking the President and the members of our Board, Member States, Secretary-General, the Deputy Secretary-General and my colleagues for translating UNHCR into a programme that makes the UN more impactful, and more cost-effective. Since we have met on this topic in February, a few months ago, two important things have changed since then. First of all, UNAT now has moved from an ambition into action. We are now at the moment where we are starting to connect the dots of the different parts of the reform. And it is clear that a picture which is highlighted by the Secretary-General's UNAT Progress Report, is emerging at this moment. Second, on the specific question, which also has been addressed by the President in his introduction, on the proposed merger between UNDP and UNOPS, UNDP has provided its assessment and a joint report together with UNOPS, and will continue to provide additional information if that is needed. Excellencies, as I said a few months ago, UNAT, at its core, really is about one thing, and that is more effective, faster, and more cost-conscious delivery. It is about making the system better for the countries and for the people that we serve. And that sets a pretty high bar. Every reform must protect and must improve on that dimension of delivery. And I don't have to repeat you, but we all know the global context: an increasingly turbulent geopolitical environment, tightening financial constraints, and the highest operational demands that UN has ever faced. UNATI must help us to respond to those demands in the real world. And before getting into the specifics of the UN reform, I think it's important to take a step back. On Friday, during the joint board that took place, you reminded us of the challenges that UNAIDS is trying to solve at the country level and the type of UN that you need. A UN that is more impactful, that is more coherent, that is less costly and that it is faster. To do this, you said that we need to respect the mandates, the governance and national ownership. You told us that we should be building on what's working, and a lot of it currently is. You asked us to link efficiency with effectiveness. You asked us to minimize the disruption related to delivery. And you asked us to ensure fiscal discipline. When we connect the dots, several of the UNAT reforms are exactly doing that. And allow me to sketch a picture of what UNAT would look like if we execute the reforms that are on the table. First of all, and I want to emphasize really what it would look like at the country level. For example, Expertise on Demand, which is a practical mechanism to accelerate member access to what is available at the UN agencies, and the Resident Coordinators to play their role in offering the best that the UN has to offer. Less multiplication,— faster access, better and lower-costed support. The marketplace, which is being formed by a coalition led by ITU and UNDP, has now grown to 27 entities with 2,000 service offerings. Several pilots are today underway. We have a small legal and finance team, which is co-chaired by UNDP and UNOPS, which is cutting the transaction times from months —today to days in the future. So that's the first element: expertise on demand. Secondly, through hosting agreements, co-location and shared services by UNDP and other large operational entities, which are powered by technology and by data, UN entities can deliver their expertise without the cost of a separate presence on the ground. Last element: through the Resident Coordinator, as the SG highlighted in his UN80 Progress Report, —empowered by a strong coordination mandate which is anchored in the GA Resolution 72279—a more coherent, more impactful UN Country Team. UNDP remains fully committed to strengthening the RC's coordinating role. Excellencies, to achieve the value that these reforms and others can bring, there are a few crucial elements from our perspective. First of all, to respect the Member States, we must operate within the mandates that you have given us, operate within the Country Programme Document that you approved, and have the mandate-based leadership arrangements. All of that without disrupting the delivery capacity. Secondly, to ensure national ownership and the right incentives, access must remain direct. Access to expertise, access to financing channels, and access to you, so that we can better understand your needs, mobilize the resources that you require, and deliver to you. Third, to ensure we deliver faster, cheaper, bureaucracy, additional layers, and cost must be minimized. As the SG highlighted in his UN80 progress report on the reconfiguration of UN country team, A key lesson from previous reforms is the need for clear intergovernmental guidance on expectations for implementation. These elements were amply discussed during the ECOSOC Operational Activities Segment to ensure the coherence in implementation across the UN Development System. Let me now turn to the proposed merger between UNDP and UNOPS. You asked a clear question: could a merger help the UN Development System serve countries more efficiently and with greater impact? And if so, under what design and with which risks? Our answer, based on the evidence to date, is that there is a real value in bringing UNDP and UNOPS together. But that how we do it matters to ensure that the benefits outweigh the costs and the risks. The first finding of that analysis is that UNDP and UNOPS are not duplicates one of another. UNDP is UN's largest development organization with a country-led mandate grounded in national ownership, country programmes, over 5,000 development projects in parallel, and a presence in more than 170 countries and territories. EUNOPS is a self-financed provider of specialized product services operating on a fee-for-service basis. The potential value lies in connecting these complementary strengths. Our preliminary assessment suggests that a well-designed merger could generate benefits in two major areas. First area, on efficiency. Integration would save roughly between $100 and $150 million each year by streamlining leadership, enabling functions and shared services. Second, on a scaled impact. That is the second area of benefit. That would leverage UNDP's country presence and relationships. By this way, UNOPS would increase project service delivery and that could increase the potential upside to $300 million or more if a merger is executed well. These obviously are indicative estimates. They are dependent on careful design and they're dependent on the implementation choices that you would make. In response to our— your decision in February, UNDP has assessed 4 design options. First, The creation of a new development agency. Second, full integration of UNOPS into UNDP. Third, a partial integration of UNOPS into UNDP. Fourth, creating a common operational backbone under UNDP's Global Shared Services Centre. So your question was, where does the strongest option lie? Well, the first evidence shows that both the two integration options minimize the disruption to delivery because operational and legal foundations would remain and could be leveraged and would minimize the day-to-day delivery options that we have. Full integration of EUNOPS into UNDP offers the clearest pathway to realizing the full estimated benefits of a merger, as I said, between €100 and €150 million per year, in enabling functions shared service and scale benefits. The second option would be a partial integration, which would maintain distinct delivery arms and would more explicitly protect the UNOPS project service model. That would realize lower savings that would be estimated at somewhere between $75 and $150 million each year and scale benefits. The current evidence has found that a new legal entity would not generate additional benefits than the ones that you could realize in an integrated option, though it would actually increase the complexity and it would lead to higher cost, higher risk, and it would need more time to implement it. On the other hand, a common operational backbone would deliver tangible efficiency somewhere between $50 and $100 million at comparatively lower legal and delivery risk, and advance UNATIS' unified service agenda. But it would not integrate UNOPS project service capacity into UNDP's country platform, and it would— or it would not materially change institutional separation. Also, it's clear that that option would not realize the objective of a merger which has been put forward as the thing to analyze. Overall, this is also what we hear when we question our partners. At the start of my speech, I have mentioned the importance of delivery. So we have asked those who deliver, we have asked those who fund, and we have asked those organizations with whom we work together on a daily basis. We did that through a survey where we had responses from more than 87 countries. We did that to fully understand those who are in the field, those who do the daily work, those who sometimes deal with the complexities but also see where we are able to develop, what they value, what their needs are, what their day-to-day experiences are, and what they care about, and also what they fear. Now, the majority saw benefits in such a merger. The benefits they saw were improved efficiency, reduced fragmentation, greater scale, and stronger combined capabilities. They were also very clear on what needs to be safeguarded. UNDP's country presence, the national ownership model through country programme documents, and an integrated end-to-end policy-to-implementation platform. They also were very clear on the fact that UNOPS' ability as a specialized project service organization, that that expertise needs to be maintained. Their concerns focused on the disruption of the delivery model, loss of distinctive capabilities, and an uncertainty about funding and the existing agreements. Excellencies, we are here today presenting a preliminary evidence-based assessment. We understand that there might be additional questions that could be answered before a decision is to be made. It is clear that we are at your disposal to do that. Over the past weeks, we have heard your concern on the need to realize benefits, but also to be sure that doing so we are not increasing complexity, bureaucracy, or costs. This is perfectly feasible to do so, provided that every reform is properly costed feasible and backed by additional dedicated financing. Without doing so, we risk that we are jeopardizing the delivery capacity that we need every day, and I would say in these days more than ever we need that constant delivery capacity. In closing, allow me to return to the question that I asked at the start. If we get UNAT right, how will the UN be different tomorrow than it is today? Well, I would summarize it in a few phrases. First of all, more impact at lower cost. Now how do we do that? Well, by providing greater coherence through a stronger resident coordinator system. Secondly, by enabling you to access the best that the UN has to offer by a well-functioning expertise-on-demand system. Third, by implementation at scale and at a lower cost through shared services and a shared delivery model. UNDP looks forward to working together with you, working together with other UN agencies, and working today together with partners to create the UN of tomorrow—leaner, sharper, and more united in delivering real results for the ones that need us most. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. de Croo, for your remarks. I would now like to invite Mr. Jorge Moreira da Silva, Mr. Krasnov, Executive Director of UNEPS, you have the floor, please.

Mr. President, dear Alexander, Excellencies, colleagues, I want to start by thanking our President of the Board for his leadership. Even Before today's meeting, he has been trying to get us together to gathering more intelligence to connect all the evidence, so I want to thank you for your leadership on this— in this process. I want to start by outlining a few preliminary elements that are relevant to this reform process. The first is reforms started before UN 18. UNOPS has been reformed in the last 3 years in a very extensive way under your leadership and guidance. So it's important to reform organizations beyond UN 80 processes. Second, UN 80 reform goes beyond the mergers, and this was already said by my colleague Alexander de Croo. The reconfiguration of country teams that have been leading for one year. The Expertise on Demand, the Global Thematic Apps, the Regional Reset, the Funding Compact, just to name a few elements, are fundamental to deliver at scale and this cannot be disconnected from the conversation we are having today on the mergers. Third element: any outcome of the UN 80 reform, particularly on the mergers, must preserve the added value of each organization—what UNDP is doing at its best, but also the role of UNOPS, which is unique and, I would say, irreplaceable. Since we left UNDP, we increased our delivery in the last 3 decades 10 times. And in the last decade we tripled our delivery. This is an organization that charges the lowest fee in the system, 4.1%, delivering $2.7 billion in more than 130 countries with less than 6,000 personnel. So any outcome of the reform must preserve the neutral, independent, demand-driven fee-for-service, full-cost recovery element that is provided by UNOPS. Finally, the reform started in Copenhagen when we hosted the Chief Executives Board meeting and the Sec Gen launched this formidable initiative of UN80, including the merger. And it was very clear from the very beginning that what was at stake was not an acquisition, what was at stake was the creation of a new agency. But why? And this is the most important element. Why are we embarking in this conversation about a new entity to deliver at scale on sustainable development? What we are witnessing today and in the last few years has no parallel in the previous decades on development cooperation. Despite the fantastic agreements in 2015, we are lagging behind. Only one-third of the SDGs are on track. We are overshooting on climate. Rather than 1.5 degrees by the end of the century, we will likely be above 2.3, 2.5 degrees. And on the financing for development agenda, Despite the change in moving beyond ODA and addressing all financial flows, today we are facing a $4.2 trillion gap in developing countries to implement the SDGs. And the issue is not just the funding gap, it's the misalignment. Less than 10% of foreign direct investment goes to fragile context. Less than 4% of— less than 7% of blended finance goes to social sectors. Less than 12% of blended finance goes to low-income countries, and 95% of sustainable finance goes to high-income countries. So with these facts and figures, and the most important is the people's needs—2 billion people without access to clean water, 700 million people without access to electricity, one-third of the population without access to digital platforms, we shall ask ourselves, 'Is business as usual good enough?' So I think this is a moment of truth for development cooperation. We see fragmentation of aid, trade, tax, investment. We see a fragmentation on standards and norms. We see fragmentation on measurement and learning. That's why we need a reform of the International Development Corporation architecture. But can we reform the International Development Corporation architecture without starting by the UN? And by the way, without starting by two fundamental engines of development cooperation in the system, which is UNDP and UNOPS? No. We have to embrace change and we have to embrace change, as I said, based on the need to preserve the added value of the two organizations, but clearly ensure that we go well beyond just the sum of the parts. What do we want? And we have shared with you our report, EUNOPS report, focused on the creation of a new agency, and we have also with UNDP provided a consolidated report with other options. But let me focus on the case of a merger into a new entity. Because this was the base case. What's the case and what's the vision? It's to deliver at scale. We are not just facing a policy and finance gap, we are facing a capacity for implementation gap. So integrating in a new organization the fantastic capacity of UNDP on policy and programming, on knowledge with UNOPS' fantastic capacity, I would say, on delivery on the ground in a fee-for-service approach, projects on infrastructure procurement and project management, would allow to create a real powerhouse for sustainable development, to move from development to sustainable development, to deliver at scale, and to ensure consistency and alignment. So as Alexander said, the issue is not the overlapping— of course there is overlapping between the two organizations, there are some areas where we overlap, on projects and on procurement for instance— but that's not the case. The real case is not to fix the overlapping, the overlapping could be fixed differently with the division of labour. The case is how can we work together to deliver at scale, also redefining the financing model. We have to be humble and listen and watch to what partners are telling us. The dichotomy between earmarked and core is hijacking us in conversations that should go beyond the surface. So we think, from our case, EUNOPS, that a merger into a new organisation should be triggered by new financial discipline, which is: projects are financed by fee-for-service, all projects should be financed by fee-for-service, it's the cheapest, it's the most frugal, it's the most efficient; core should finance policy and pooled funding should finance the transitions. So the vision of a new agency is not just tackling the redundancies, it is really embracing change on the financing, on the policy and on the implementation, and of course also dealing with efficiencies. In our report, we have outlined some risks we consider that the risks with a good design of the new agency can be overcome. There are risks, of course. I remember quite well when in my own country I was Minister of a merged ministry that for the first time put in the same ministry two ministries on environment, energy, and special planning. Of course there were risks. But what matters is finding mitigation elements to minimize the risks and maximize the opportunities. So how would the new agency look like? Of course, we are dealing with a new branding. It could be UN Sustainable Development, it could be UN Development, it could be UN Development Programme Project Services. There are lots of possibilities. The branding is not the issue. The only branding that matters is the UN, right? That's the only logo that matters. It's United Nations. all the rest is part of the means of implementation. So what we are putting on the table is a matrix organisation, lean and rooted with financial discipline. Matrix because we would have some horizontal axis on policy and strategy, on thematic knowledge and transitions, and on implementation and operations. And then another axis on the global, the regional, and the country level. It would be a lean organization that would significantly reduce leadership positions to allow the space to increase the capacity on the ground and the capacity to attract and retain talents that are already working in the two organizations.. And as I said, it should be rooted by financial discipline, which means that projects cannot subsidize policy, that regardless the solution that we will address, it's fundamental that fee-for-service finance projects and projects cannot subsidize policy. What are the gains? According to our estimates, and let me be very blunt, you are reading estimates that are different from the two organizations. That's why probably we need some additional assessment, independent and neutral assessment. So the numbers that I'm sharing with you are not exactly the numbers that UNDP has shared. I think that that's important for member states to judge and of course some additional neutral and independent assessment could be helpful. We estimate that on shared services this new organization could save $40 million a year. We think that, of course, on procurement there are massive gains because the two organizations combined would represent $4.6 billion on procurement. But the most important element is how much will we save on delivery? The simple fact that you bring the two organizations together into a new organization and you apply to all portfolio, all projects, the fee-for-service fee rate of UNOPS, so you would apply that fee not only for the existing projects of UNOPS but also for the UNDP projects, that would, which is the 4.1%, that would allow a reduction of $171 million a year on the costs of delivery. And what we are asking you is not to reduce that amount. What we are asking you is, with that amount that will be saved, please finance more the policy branch and also probably getting more projects. So those savings are savings that could free the space to finance more the activities from UNDP currently on policy and programming and to have more projects on the ground. We have shared with you a transition plan, 2-3 years, with 4 phases, with elements that allow governance continuity and all the legal resilience and prudence that is required. In our report, in the 4 pages, you can judge why we think that despite the risks this is feasible and a good transition can be put in place. Finally, you have asked us, go beyond that idea of the merger into a new entity, can you assess other options? Well, and we considered other options. UNDP has put some options on the table. As you imagine, the acquisition or the integration of EUNOPS into UNDP is something that I can't agree, we can't agree, because basically I see risks for member states on losing the independence, neutral, demand-driven element that is unique at UNOPS, but we have put on the table two alternatives. A division of labour in case there is no merger between the two agencies, we could, to save some money, to shift the UNOPS— UNDP portfolio on delivery to UNOPS because that would lower the costs by $171 million, as I said, But then we put another proposal on the table that I would kindly ask you to check because it's like a pilot on the merger. It's creating a joint venture on energy transition. The two organizations would not merge in that scenario but will have a joint venture on energy transition where the two organizations will have one single team going from upstream policy capacity building enabling to downstream implementation. And I've checked— we have checked the numbers. You know the numbers about the people that lack access to electricity— $700 million. You know the nexus between energy access and poverty. There is no poverty eradication without sustainable energy access. The same with clean cooking, with 2 billion people without access to clean cooking. But then if you check the portfolio of the two organisations, and we have done that, you realise, for instance, on grids that are fundamental, that most of the work from UNDP, which is fantastic, is on the enabling context, and most of the work from UNOPS is on implementing and constructing the grids. So you can see the complementarity. But then, if you check how much money— what's the financing for clean energy that has been committed globally and how much of this the two organizations are doing? Just 2%. So from the billions that the international community has already agreed to commit to sustainable energy, the JETP, the energy access, namely the Mission 300, the grid infrastructure, from all those billions, the two organizations are only delivering 2%. So clearly there is an opportunity to, in case you don't want a merger into a new entity, but you still want to give a try to see whether it would work in one area where there is no UN agency, because there is no UN agency on energy, this could be an option. I would like to finally, in the last minute, to say that obviously member states may require additional information and we are ready, as Alexander said, we are ready to, of course, support member states with all additional information that you need. But I think that you would also agree that it's very difficult for us to go beyond the conceptual elements that were shared with you. I think that we somehow exhausted all the scenarios possible. Now I think it's a matter of fact-checking and assessing the numbers, particularly cost-benefit analysis and the legal and the transition elements. And I think that this is the kind of thing that can be done, and we are ready, of course, to follow your guidance, Mr. Chair, and member states in this process. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Maria da Silva, for these remarks. Dear colleagues, we have heard the Administrator and the Executive Director. We now open the floor for comments. Any questions, statements? You are familiar with the protocol. We'll first give the floor to Bureau members and then groups. I have first Zambia speaking on behalf of the African Group, and then I have Uruguay on behalf of G77 and China, followed by the Republic of Moldova. For a cross-regional statement, the Ambassador of Zambia, Vice President Milambo, please, you have the floor.

All right. Thank you very much, Mr. President, the heads of the three agencies that are here, the two agencies currently. Excellencies, distinguished delegates, Mr. President, thank you for giving me the floor. I speak on behalf of the African members members of the Executive Board, namely Chad, Côte d'Ivoire, Madagascar, Mozambique, Rwanda, Tunisia, Nigeria, and Zambia. I thank the Executive Heads for UNDP and UNOPS for their presentations on the potential measures of the two agencies. I also want to thank you for the joint analysis that was presented to Member States. As we advance reforms under the UN 80, Africa supports efforts to strengthen the effectiveness, efficiency, and coherence of the United Nations development system. The development challenges facing our countries, including poverty, inequality, demographic pressures, and climate vulnerability, require a United Nations that delivers results more effectively at the country level. Reform should therefore be measured by its contributions to development outcomes rather than by institutional change alone. Excellencies, Africa approaches this discussion with an open mind. However, any decision, decision on a potential merger must be supported by robust evidence on the ground. Allow me to highlight three considerations. First, with only four years remaining to achieve the SDG SDGs. We cannot afford disruption to program and project delivery. Any institutional arrangement should strengthen development impact and accelerate progress towards the SDGs. Second, both agencies provide distinct and valuable contributions. UNDP plays a crucial role in development policy, program implementation, and system-wide coordination. While UNOPS contributes specialized expertise in project management, infrastructure delivery, and procurement services. Any reform should preserve and build upon these comparative advantages. Third, at a time of constrained resources, reforms should enhance efficiency and financial agility without weakening support for development programs or undermining existing funding arrangements. Mr. President, while we appreciate the work undertaken thus far, the information before the Executive Board does not yet provide a sufficiently consolidated assessment of the available options. Further analysis is required regarding the following: the anticipated efficiency gains, the full transition and long-term costs, as well as how these costs will be financed. The comparative merits, risks, and operational implications of each option. The Board would also benefit from clearer assessment of whether alternative arrangements, including enhanced functional integration while maintaining separate entities, could achieve comparative results with lower risk and costs. Excellencies, Mr. President, before considering a decision of this magnitude, Member States require a consolidated and technical grounded— technically grounded evaluation that objectively examines feasibility, efficiency, financial implications, risk, and development impact. We therefore encourage UNDP and UNOPS to return with a joint assessment that provides the Executive Board with a comprehensive basis for decision-making and enables Member States to discharge their oversight responsibilities with confidence. Africa remains committed to a stronger, more effective United Nations and looks forward to continued engagement on this matter. Thank you very much, Mr.

President.

I thank Zambia for this statement on behalf of the African Group. I give the floor to Uruguay on behalf of G77 and China.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. Let me begin by thanking the Executive Board's directors for their statements and clarifying that due to time constraints, I will deliver a short version of the G77 statement. The full version will be uploaded in the G77 website. The Group of 77 and China welcomes this interactive dialogue and wishes to reiterate its general support to the UNHCR 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 for the people we serve. With regard to the proposal to merge UNDP and UNOPS, the Group of 77 and China takes note of the preliminary assessment of a potential merger between UNDP and UNOPS presented a few days ago, which includes 3 structural merger options and 2 alternatives to structural mergers. Without prejudging the G-27 and China and its member states' position, the group notes that in accordance with the reports and data provided, the option of creating a new merged entity appears to carry the highest legal, operational, financial, and delivery risks since it would require the dissolution of both UNDP and UNOPS and the renegotiation of legal governance regulatory and policy frameworks, country arrangements, and funding arrangements. At a time of tightening resources and rising development needs, the opportunity cost of prolonged institutional reconstruction should be carefully weighed, since transition financing and management attention could otherwise be directed to country-level delivery, including for SDG acceleration. The Group of 77 and China would like to present the following question: Questions: 1. The Group would welcome further clarification on the precise rationale for the proposed merger, including the primary challenge it is intended to address out of the objectives identified in the assessment. 2. Regarding the efficiency case for a merger, given the consolidated UNDP-UNOPS assessments provide two competing cost recovery saving estimates, the Group would like to ask if the Secretariat could provide transparent comparable data to Member States through independent verification, including to set out the assumptions behind the savings estimates, and how we can prevent cross-subsidization between the implementation arms? 3. How would it be ensured that any decision preserves UNDP's development mandate and country presence, including the resident representative function, nationally owned programming, and the continued implementation of country program documents, bearing in mind the significant value that UNDP brings to Programme Countries, as well as the long-standing relationships of trust it has built with national authorities since its establishment in 1965? Likewise, how would the preservation of UNOPS' distinct value as a provider of non-programmatic services be ensured? 4. What concrete gains could only be achieved through a structural merger and could not be achieved through non-structural options that ensure efficiencies through closer cooperation, shared services, data, and expertise, and joint planning? Furthermore, has the Secretariat assessed whether the projected efficiency gains would outweigh the operational, financial, and partnership risks identified, including in large program countries where both organizations have substantial and potentially complementary engagements? In addition, could the Secretariat clarify the methodology used to arrive at the 5% duplication estimate and provide country and sector-level evidence supporting this conclusion? 5. The consolidated UNDP-UNOPS assessment assumes that UNOPS fee-for-service revenue can be added to UNDP voluntary funded base while both the fee model and cost recovery discipline remain intact. Can the Secretariat set out exactly how a merged entity would reconcile two different financial logics? 5. Can you confirm if a hybrid two-window model is what is actually being proposed? 6. Could the Secretariat provide a country-level example showing how the country office setting would: a) handle a programmatic UNDP engagement and a fee-for-service UNOPS-type project simultaneously; b) how the two cost recovery rates will be applied; c) how project selection between the two arms will be decided; d) How conflict of interest between advisory and implementation functions will be managed if it arises. To finish, let me reassure you that the Group of 77 and China is aligned with the vision and ambition of the UNHCR initiative, and it looks forward to receiving the information requested to continue to assess the merit of the different options presented in the UNDP and UNOPS joint assessment. I thank you.

I thank Uruguay for this statement on behalf of G77 and China. The next speaker is the Republic of Moldova, and then to be followed by Member States Armenia, Nepal, Brazil. I give the floor now to the Republic of Moldova, who will deliver a cross-regional statement. You have the floor, please.

Mr. President, distinguished members of the Executive Board, Excellency, I deliver this statement on behalf of Australia, Armenia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Japan, the Kingdom of Netherlands, Luxembourg, Monaco, Montenegro, Norway, New Zealand, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and my own country, the Republic of Moldova. We reiterate our full support to the UN Haiti initiatives and our strong commitment to a reform-oriented, fit-for-purpose United Nations. In line with the QCPR, we support reforms that strengthen system-wide coherence, complementarity, and impact, while reducing fragmentation. At the same time, reform must remain anchored in mandates agreed by Member States and deliver tangible benefits for people on the ground. We underline the central governance role of the Executive Boards in considering and recommending— within their remit any proposed structural changes. To fulfill this role and sustain confidence in the UN Haiti process, boards need timely, robust, and evidence-based information, as well as structured, regular, and transparent consultations. The process must be inclusive, guided by realistic timelines coherent across boards, and based on open and substantive engagement with member states. We appreciate the efforts of the agencies to share information on UN Haiti work streams and agency-specific work packages, while acknowledging the additional pressure this places on already stretched resources. Nevertheless, important questions remain. Mr. President, on Work Package 4, we note that assessments and consultations are ongoing. At this stage and without the full information and evidence requested by the Executive Board during their first Regular Session of 2026, there can be no emerging consensus in favor of any proposed model. Any decision must be guided by robust, independent, and transparent analysis of the options, including implications of mandates, governance, funding, staffing, and country-level delivery. Reform should be assessed not only through the lens of efficiency or institutional configuration, but also about whether it strengthens delivery for women, girls, young people, and communities in vulnerable situations. The protection and full implementation of existing mandates remains crucial, including those relating to gender equality, CRCR, population dynamics, women's empowerment, and leaving no one behind. This is especially important in the current global context marked by pushbacks against these mandates. Structural reforms must not dilute, deprioritize, or weaken them. At the same time, options to enhance collaboration and coordination between organizations, including better alignment of strategic plans, should also be considered. On Work Package 3, we note progress on the as-is analysis and on separate merger assessment presented so far. We recognize the importance of exploring options to strengthen efficiency, transparency, and effectiveness, and to reduce fragmentation and duplication. However, quick questions remain open, both a possible merger and on credible alternatives. Next step must rest on a comprehensive evidence-based and independent assessment of cost, including transition cost and financing, expected efficiency gains, risk, and implications for governance, staffing, and operational capacity. Any way forward must clearly safeguard UNDP's development delivery and mandate for the 2030 Agenda and poverty eradication, as well as UNOPS operational strength. Mandate safeguards must hold be held in practice, not only on paper. Any design that structures— separates policy direction from delivery risk weakness mandates in the field, even where they remain intact in legal instruments. Mr. President, other system-wide elements of UNAID, including UN country team reconfiguration, the regional reset, the expertise on demand mechanism, and financing arrangements such as improved quality pooled funding mechanism, will also be important for strengthening the efficiency, transparency, and accountability of the UN development system. They should enable better delivery on mandates at country level through more coherent UN country teams under the leadership of Resident Coordinators. We look forward to learning more about how the full range of UNAID reform will support the mandates, operations, and country-level development and humanitarian impact of UNDP, UNFPA, UNOPS, UNICEF, and UN Women. We remain fully committed to engage constructively across regions and across boards to shape a coherent way forward on UNAID. Mr. President, the full version of this statement will be made available on the Executive Board website. I thank you.

I thank the Republic of Moldova for the statement delivered on behalf of the Cross-Regional Group. I will now I will now give the floor to Nepal, to be followed by Armenia. Nepal will be speaking on behalf of the group of LDC. Nepal, you have the floor, please.

Thank you, Mr. President, UNDP Administrator, Executive Director of UNOPS, Excellencies, colleagues. I have the honour to deliver this statement on behalf of the LDC group. The group aligns itself with the statement delivered by Uruguay on behalf of the G77 and China and wishes to stress three key points. First, any reform process, whether institutional, operational, or mandate-related, must remain formally member-state-driven, transparent, inclusive, and evidence-based. Second, reform must not dilute development mandates or weaken longstanding partnership with the UN development entities at the country level. Third, for LDCs, it is essential that reforms safeguard policy space and the integrity of the mandates, particularly LDC-specific mandates that are vital to structurally vulnerable countries. And I would like to stress that the review must not become a vehicle for weakening, but rather an opportunity to reinforce and strengthen mandates of special importance to LDCs, especially in areas such as development finance, trade, climate resilience, LDC graduation, and smooth transition. Mr. President, against this backdrop, the LDC Group would welcome further clarity on the following issues. First, appreciating the rational benefits and implications of the merger, the Group would appreciate a clear understanding of why this merger is being considered, what specific challenges it is meant to address, and how it supports the broader aims of Resolution 80/251. For LDCs, this clarity matters because changes at the institutional level can directly influence the support they receive on the ground. It would will therefore be helpful to help straightforward and reliable information on the expected efficiency gains and cost savings, how these figures were arrived at, and what measures will ensure that resources intended for development work, especially in LDCs, are not unintentionally diverted across different funding streams. Second, the protections of development mandates and institutional integrity. It is essential to understand how the reform would safeguard UNDP's development mandates, its country presence, and its interface with the Resident Coordinator System while ensuring continuity of nationally-owned programming and country programming documents. Equally, the group seeks clarity on how UNOPS' distinct fee-for-service identity would be maintained and how the reform intends to reconcile fundamentally different financial and operational logics, including any hybrid or dual window arrangements. Third, the operational consequences for delivery on the ground. The Group also appreciates understanding on which efficiency gains truly depend on a structural merger rather than restructural cooperation. Shared services or joint planning, or— and whether the projected benefits outweigh the operational and partnership risk. Further details is needed on how country-level delivery would operate in practice, including management of programmatic and fee-for-service engagement, cost recovery, application project selection processes, and safeguard against the conflicts of interest. In closing, Mr. President, the LDC Group reaffirms its commitment to engaging constructively with member states, UN entities, and all partners in this process. The outcome of the UN Haiti Initiative must strengthen a mandate architecture that is fit for the purpose, preserve development integrity, and remains fully aligned with the needs and priorities of the least developed countries. I thank you.

I thank the Ambassador of Nepal for the statement delivered on behalf of the Group of LDCs. The following speakers are Armenia, Brazil, China, Norway, Turkey. I give the floor to the Ambassador of Armenia.

You have the floor, please.

Thank you, Mr. President, Mr. Administrator, Executive Director of UNOPS. Armenia thanks UNDP and UNOPS for the additional assessments provided in response to the relevant board decision. We appreciate the effort to engage member states and to provide more information on opportunities, implications, and challenges. Armenia has welcomed exploring the potential benefits of a more consolidated institutional arrangement between UNDP and UNOPS, given their complementary strengths. We recognize the value of UNDP's development expertise, country presence, and longstanding partnerships, complemented by UNOPS' operational and implementation capacities. Any reform effort should seek to strengthen end-to-end delivery, particularly in support of countries like mine facing complex development recovery and resilience challenge. The assessments presented to the Board demonstrate potential opportunities, but also significant complexities. For Armenia, preserving continuity of operations and safeguarding development impact remain central considerations. Any transition should avoid disruption to ongoing programmes, maintain partner confidence, and keep resources focused on delivery on the ground. Building upon the assessments presented so far, Armenia does not see a compelling case for creation of a new entity. The case has yet to demonstrate benefits that would overweight the significant legal, operational, and transition-related risks identified in the assessment. At the same time, we believe that institutional reform is not an objective in itself. We therefore support a measured, transparent, and evidence-based process under the guidance of member states and with sufficient time for further consideration of the information presented.

I thank you. I thank the Ambassador Farminia for the statement. I give now the floor to Brazil. You have the floor, please, to be followed by China.

Thank you, Mr. President. I do thank both principals for taking the time again to engage with us and making very useful contributions to our thinking and reflection. Mr. President, in hearing delegations again, I do feel there is a great deal of convergence as to principles, main objectives. Everybody wants mandates to be preserved. Everybody wants mandates to be fully and better delivered on. At the same time, I do feel that the membership has more questions than direction at this point in time, and this is obviously not helped by the yet or still different numbers presented to the membership. Although I understand there is work there to seek to reconcile numbers and information to be provided. But I do feel that at this point in time, based on some progress that the two entities hopefully will make in at least presenting some numbers in a consistent— in a in an integrated manner. For example, the numbers for transition, they are different. But what I do feel we need is a pathway to consolidating this information, to reconciling numbers that can be reconciled, and therefore the membership is given a more consolidated set of information. And when I say consolidated, I don't mean necessarily univocal, they can be different options, that's fine, but that they're comparable and that we have the whole picture so that we can at least make progress in advancing guidance to the two entities into the system. And once again, I think we'll be relying very much on your leadership to do that. Not easy, we know, but count on us to help as much as we can. Thank you very much. Thank you, Marshal.

Thank you for that last offer. All right, thank you very much, Brazil, for this statement. I have now China to be followed by Norway, Turkey, United Kingdom. China, you have the floor, please.

President, China aligns itself with the statement by Uruguay on behalf of the Group of 77 and China. We thank the heads of UNDP and UNOPS for their detailed presentation. China would like to make a few points. First, reform should consistently follow the principle of national ownership and leadership. Reform efforts should be guided by the pressing needs and priorities of developing countries, promote greater coherence and coordination among entities, reduce duplication, and leverage respective comparative advantages. So as to better serve member states, in particular program countries, and support the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. In the reform decision-making process, it's essential to ensure the effective participation of member states, and the Executive Board should fully exercise its important role in governance and oversight of the organizations. We encourage the two entities to provide, as a matter of priority, a consolidated and comprehensive analysis of the potential merger, so as to enable member states to make well-informed decisions in light of the evolving circumstances. Second, reform should safeguard the mandates of the organizations. As a core pillar of the UN development system, UNDP has a broad mandate cover— centered on poverty reduction and encompassing areas such as climate change, energy, and resilience. It operates through a global field presence and plays a unique role in program design, policy guidance, and project implementation, and has long been highly relied upon by program countries. UNOPS, leveraging its fee-for-service model and comparative advantages in agility and responsiveness, has continued to expand in recent years. The ultimate outcome of the reform should be to empower development entities, strengthen implementation synergies, reduce duplication, consolidate the development pillar, and further enhance the effectiveness of the UN development system. Third, reform efforts should be coordinated across different levels. Reforms at the regional and country levels should be tailored to local contexts and avoid a one-size-fits-all approach. RCs should remain focused on development, play a central coordinating role, and ensure the work of the UN country teams is aligned with national conditions and development strategies. Coherence should be strengthened to ensure that the sustainable development cooperation frameworks and country program documents are aligned with the needs of program countries. President China stands ready to engage fully with member states, discharge its responsibilities as a member of the Executive Board, and play a positive and constructive role. Thank you, Chair.

I thank China for this statement. I now give the floor to Norway, to be followed by Türkiye.

Norway, please. Thank you, President, and really thanks to both principals for being here and for your presentations. And dear members of the Executive Board, Excellencies and colleagues, Norway strongly supports the Secretary-General's UN aid reform initiative, and we want a UN that delivers measurable impact for people on the ground. Grounded in its normative framework on efficiency, on efficiency, and as one. Our continued partnership and support are closely linked to your contributions to this joint reform effort. This applies across the UN system, including your organizations. We expect ambitious and system-wide change. this means adopting common administrative systems, expanding shared services, and advancing integrated supply chains. Active support of the RSE strategic leadership at the country level. In this context, we see the potential in closer integration between UNDP and UNOPS to better align policy and operational delivery. But for any merger process, it must be evidence-based, clearly sequenced, and guided by a transparent timeline. Let me be clear: reform must streamline mandates and structures. They must never weaken them. And likewise for the other proposed merger, which is subject of discussion in, in the afternoon, would just add that Norway cannot except an erosion of the mandates of UNFPA and UN Women. At a time when gender equality and sexual and reproductive health and rights are under extraordinary pressure, both the normative and operational roles of these entities must be safeguarded, no matter the outcome of an emerging discussion. President, financing must match ambition. We call for strength stronger adherence to the Funding Compact, less reliance on earmarked funding, and increased joint resource mobilization. We also support relocating functions to lower-cost duty stations, particularly in the Global South, and shifting the UN Development System toward integrated policy advice rather than fragmented project delivery. And in this case, the boards play a vital role in advising ECOSOC and the GA. Norway will act constructively and we will strive to avoid placing unnecessary reporting burdens on the UN. Let us ensure that reform strengthens the UN and that it delivers more and stronger impact on the ground. Thank you.

I thank Norway for the statement. I give the floor to Türkiye, to be followed by United Kingdom and then India, the United States, Bangladesh. Turkiye, please, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, and we thank for the informative briefings. Türkiye supports the Secretary-General's UN80 initiative and the objective of ensuring that the UN remains fit for purpose and responsive to evolving global challenges. We believe that any reform must ultimately strengthen the UN development system and improve its ability to support programme countries on the ground. As discussions on a potential UNDP-UNOPS merger move forward, we appreciate the efforts of UNDP and UNOPS to keep member states informed and to share information and assessments regarding possible merger scenarios. Turkey appreciates the possible merger— approaches the possible merger of UNDP and UNOPS with both openness and caution. Our primary consideration is that comparative advantages of both entities must be preserved and protected. As both a donor and program country, Turkey is in a unique position to assess such a merger proposal from multiple perspectives. Our own experience illustrates the distinct value that both organizations bring to the system. Following the earthquakes that struck Turkey 3 years ago, both UNDP and UNOPS responded rapidly and effectively. UNDP played a key role in supporting recovery planning and assessments, while UNOPS demonstrated considerable operational flexibility, agility, and deliver capacity under difficult circumstances. These are complementary strengths that should not be lost in any future institutional arrangement. At the same time, we continue to regard UNDP as the backbone of the UN development system. As UNDP marks its 60th anniversary, careful consideration should be given whether any proposed reform would reinforce or inadvertently weaken that role. For this reason, we believe that several important issues remain to be addressed. We need a clearer understanding of legal, operational, financial, and governance implications of any potential merger, including transition costs, expected efficiencies, associated risks, and impacts on field delivery. We'd welcome further analysis on the legal implications of any new institutional arrangement, including its potential impact on existing agreements, host country arrangements, and operational frameworks. Any requirement to revise or renegotiate such arrangements could entail considerable complexity and transitional risks. More fundamentally, given the scale and potential consequences of such a reform, we believe that further analysis is needed to determine which options would provide sufficient sufficient added value. We should consider the alternatives where the anticipated benefits would outweigh the operational, legal, and institutional risks involved. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Executive Director Administrator, and Mr. President. The United Kingdom continues to support the Secretary-General's UN80 reform agenda and the ambition of the UN that delivers the greater clarity, greater pace, and greater impact. The UK strongly supports accelerating practical reform efficiency savings now and within existing leadership authorities to strengthen performance across the system and achieve early visible gains. This means collaboration between agencies to provide the required evidence space. The UK wants to see UK— UN country presence that more— that is more agile and tailored, scaling up shared services and sharpening the UN's offer around policy expertise, technical support, and convening power. A stronger resident coordinator system is fundamental to this effort. The resident coordinator must be clearly empowered as the UN's most senior development representative in country. That means consistent financial contributions to the cost-sharing model and full operational backing from agencies. There should be no ambiguity. UN entities must act in ways that reinforce, not sidestep, the Resident Coordinator leadership role. The Resident Coordinators must in turn support agencies to deliver. We heard from Resident Coordinators last week at OAS, who gave many examples of where one UN join-up is working well on the ground. This is encouraging. However, there is further to go. As discussions move forward, the UK will focus on 4 key issues. First, delivery impact. Reform must improve results, not create avoidable disruption. Proposals need to demonstrate how services will continue without interruption, how risk risks will be managed and how accountability will be maintained, especially in fragile settings. Any reform must fully uphold existing mandates. We are not yet convinced this is assured for UNFPA and UN Women. We urge UNDP and UNOPS to cooperate and jointly agree, refine, and narrow down merger and alternative options, as well as jointly agreed and independently verified data on the savings on the transition costs, on efficiency gains, as well as timelines and the legal implications. Third, costs and value. Decisions must be grounded in clear evidence of financial implications with transparency regarding transition costs, expected efficiencies, and potential funding consequences. We also expect to see serious examination of alternatives that would deliver similar outcomes with less risk and lower costs. Fourth, decision-making. Member states, and particularly the Executive Board, must be able to properly scrutinize and shape these reform proposals.

I thank you, Naki Kinua, for the statement. I give the floor now to India, to be followed by the United States.

India, you have the floor, please.

Thank you, Mr. President. We thank the principals for their briefings this morning. India aligns itself with the statement delivered on behalf of the G77 and wishes to make the following remarks in its national capacity. We welcome this interactive dialogue and reiterate our support for the objectives of the UNAT initiative. Particularly efforts to enhance effectiveness, reduce fragmentation, improve efficiency, and strengthen delivery across the United Nations system. We recognize the need for the UN development system to adapt to evolving global challenges and resource constraints. At the same time, any reform process must remain member-state-driven, evidence-based, transparent, and guided by a careful assessment of costs, benefits, and risks, and implementation implications. Development remains a core pillar of the United Nations. Any reform proposal should preserve and strengthen development mandates, support national ownership, and remain responsive to program country priorities. Reforms must enhance development outcomes rather than be driven solely by financial considerations. Institutional arrangements should strengthen, not dilute. The distinct mandates, expertise, governance structures, and accountability frameworks entrusted by member states. Mr. President, with regard to the proposal concerning a potential merger of UNDP and UNOPS, India takes note of the preliminary assessment presented. Without prejudging our position, we note the significant legal, operational, financial, and governance and delivery-related complexities associated with a structural merger particularly where the creation of a new entity is envisaged. We remain unconvinced that mergers in themselves necessarily produce better development outcomes or efficiencies, given the potential transition, transition cost, risks, risks to specialized expertise, and challenges to accountability. In this regard, India would appreciate further clarification on the following: What are the safeguards to preserve UNDP's development mandate and country presence while maintaining UNOPS' distinct implementation and service delivery strength? What are the specific benefits that could only be achieved through a structural merger rather than enhanced cooperation? And third, how a merged entity would reconcile the fundamentally different financial models of UNDP and UNOPS while maintaining accountability and financial discipline? India remains committed to constructive engagement and looks forward to further information that will enable member states to assess the merits, risks, and implications of the options under consideration. I thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, India, for the statement. The following speakers are the United States, Bangladesh, Australia. I give the floor to the United States, please.

Thank you, Mr. President. We echo many of the questions asked today, and we join other board members in expressing disappointment and how this UN-proposed initiative has progressed, or rather failed to advance as directed. The United States has continuously championed reform across the multilateral space, and we have not been timid to call out organizations that do not support U.S. priorities or return on investment for American taxpayers. And we appreciate— while we appreciate the comments that were made today, including by the agency heads, for the last 6 months we have received separate proposals that advance different agendas passionately. Even the so-called joint reports submitted for this annual session is a collation of markedly separate analyses, short of, uh, markedly separate analyses of a short list of options. Frankly, we are beginning to wonder how much it costs in time and resources to not provide the requested analysis for a merger, a merger that the executive board didn't ask for. From what we have seen, every option presented comes with a significant price tag. We demand absolute clarity and detailed financial transparency from management regarding how these transition costs would be financed, and we firmly maintain that any institutional adjustments, um, uh, under the UNAD banner must achieve a measurable reduction in parallel UN bureaucracies. The UN system must also not lose sight of the there are significant reforms that can be achieved short of mergers, and we are increasingly concerned that these merger conversations are distracting us from other possible reforms. Moving forward, our position remains clear. The UN80 initiative must not serve as a justification for administrative expansion or for the institutionalization of dependency. The United States will only support realignments that streamline the UN's operational footprint, enforce rigorous cost containment, and focus exclusively on core mandates that drive global prosperity. Thank you.

I thank the United States for the statement. I give the floor to Bangladesh. You have the floor, please.

Thank you, Mr.

President. Bangladesh supports constructive reform efforts across the UN Development System, particularly when they are aimed at improving coherence, reducing duplication, and strengthening country-level impact. We recognize that current financial and operational environment has faced increasing pressure on development entities. In this context, it is indeed reasonable to explore different institutional models under the UNEP process. However, our approach to this discussion remains guided by core principle that reforms must ultimately strengthen, not weaken, delivery for programme countries. Any transition process must ensure zero disruption to ongoing field-level operations. Programme delivery and country-level partnerships must continue seamlessly. Functional clarity and institutional strength must be preserved. UNDP's policy and coordination role and UNOPS' implementation and operational capacities have evolved differently over time. Any future structure should not blur mandates, reducing effectiveness and responsiveness on the ground. Member states need greater clarity regarding financial staffing and governance implications expected from the proposed model. Efficiency gained from the reform must translate into stronger delivery at the country level. Finally, we reiterate that this process must remain member-state-driven, transparent, and evidence-based. Given the scale and long-term implications of such a decision, sufficient time and meaningful consultations with program countries remain essential. I thank you.

I thank Bangladesh for the statement. We continue our list of speakers with observer delegations. I have first Australia and then El Salvador, Portugal, Mali.

Australia, Ambassador, you have the floor, please.

Thank you, President. Australia continues to support ambitious system-wide reforms that advance sustainable development, and we acknowledge the work undertaken by UNDP and UNOPS on potential merger options, but unfortunately, at least in our view, the process has been less than optimal. In our view, numerous separate assessments have impeded clarity of options, their benefits, costs, and risks. Australia is now keen to move the process forward to ensure we are actioning reforms based on informed decision-making by member states. We'd like to make 3 points. First, coherent legal advice is crucial. On our reading, the legal advice from UNDP and UNOPS is conflicting, reaching very different conclusions on the same proposed options. This divergence is not minor. With transition costs estimated up to— at up to $1 billion for some, uh, approaches, this misalignment makes our own analysis consideration of the alternatives extremely difficult. Given the scale and complexity of any potential mergers, and the risks of downstream impacts on development activities and those most in need, member states need a clear shared understanding of legal risks. This should also include advice on the mechanisms to action any decision, including specifics on the role of the Board, ECOSOC, and the General Assembly. Second, clear costings and funding arrangements are essential. Australia recognises that any meaningful reform is likely to entail costs. However, the range of cost estimates presented is wide and the two agencies have reached materially different conclusions on the costs of merging. Furthermore, there must be greater recognition that securing new or additional resources will be challenging. Critical questions therefore remain: how will transition costs be financed, and are there innovative approaches that could help support the transition? Third, and most critically for Australia, on scope and next steps, we see merit in narrowing our focus to a smaller number of merger options. We want to see more detail on a smaller list of proposals. Australia sees merit in a deep, independent analysis of specific models possibly two, allowing more robust examination of benefits, risks, and delivery impacts. Across all proposals, we emphasize the importance of preserving the mandates, strengths, and unique capabilities of both organizations, including UNDP's upstream policy and development role and UNOPS' downstream operational effectiveness. Thanks so much.

I thank Australia for the statement. I give the floor to El Salvador, to be followed by Portugal. El Salvador, please, you have the floor.

Gracias. Thank you, Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, representatives of the various bodies. My country aligns itself with the statement of Uruguay on behalf of the G77 and China, and we'd like to add the following: my delegation has participated actively in the exchanges during the last months on the various structural changes proposed by the Secretary-General as part of the UNAT initiative. During that period, the documentation provided to the member states has confirmed that the proposals are not actions that are purely oriented to operationally and administratively simplify the bodies, but they actually affect the fundamental basis of some of the UN bodies, and particularly thinking about the proposed merger between UNDP and UNOPS, Al Savour thinks that it should take into consideration the high value of interagency work in order to confirm once again that the adjustments made to the United Nations system for development in the recent years were not only timely but also effective and consistent with the reform efforts that have been undertaken more recently. Which have disrupted not only the entities but also the country teams as a whole, the RC system, and they extend to other proposed actions such as the regional reset and the new humanitarian compact. Mr. President, when we talk about the need for coherence among the various efforts, my delegation thinks it's urgent to preserve not only the mandates given to the entities after they were established, but also all those efforts that were agreed upon bilaterally among the entities and national governments, which are a roadmap for structured interventions, and these are decisions that have been approved as appropriate at the appropriate time by this Executive Board. Now, with regard to the Sustainable Development Corporation framework, the country program documents and the new strategic plans for 2022-2029, both for UNDP and UNOPS, they must be at the heart of the matter. Now, we would like to ask the following questions: how are we going to address the various risks identified up to now in the merger, in particular those linked to the potential disruption of work on the ground as a result of the transition to a new merged entity? And is there a potential risk in implementing a merge at a time when the current development agenda is expiring and we may have the start of deliberations on the principles for the new agenda during that very transition period. So we thank you in advance for your comments and opinions.

I thank the Ambassador of El Salvador for the statement. I give the floor to Portugal, to be followed by Mali and France. Portugal, Ambassador, you have the

Thank you, Mr.

President. We welcome your continued engagement with the UN Haiti Initiative, as well as the one of UNDP and UNOPS. We support the UN Haiti ambition to build a more coherent, effective and accountable UN development system. Any future configuration should demonstrate clear and measurable enable efficiencies, strengthen delivery at country level, and preserve the mandates, comparative advantage, and institutional clarity of the entities concerned. Portugal takes note of the preliminary assessment submitted by UNDP and UNOPS in response to Executive Board 2026/2. While we have clearly referred a more integrated comprehensive assessment, we might see this input— we recognize that this input might be relevant for discussion going forward. We also took very good and attentive note of the content of both presentations today. Having said this, key questions remain open on the different scenarios. regarding the possible merger and credible alternatives. Next steps should be guided by member states, supported by evidence and independent analysis. Due consideration should be given to the impact of each scenario, including transition costs and their financing, expected efficiency gains, risks and implications for mandates, governance, staffing operational capacity and country-level delivery. Safeguards should not only— should hold not only on paper but also in operational design and delivery at country level. As Member States are simultaneously the decision-makers and the beneficiaries of this reform, we, the Member States, bear the shared responsibility of the decision. And I think this is an important point that the Secretariat and both agents should be aware and absorb. At this stage, and having listened to today's presentation and having that in mind, the difficulties, we also think that we should not discard alternative options, including separate legal entities with a common operational backbone, and joint ventures whereby UNDP and UNOPS can consolidate working in more joined-up ways on thematic portfolios. Finally, Portugal would welcome greater clarity on how any future configuration would affect the wider UN Development System, including the division of labour among entities, the neutral coordination role of Thank you, Portugal, for the statement.

I give the floor to Mali, to be followed by France, South Africa, and the Russian Federation. Mali, you have the floor, please. Ambassador, please. Merci.

Thank you very much, President. President, UNDP Administrator, UNOPS Executive Director, ladies and gentlemen. Mali aligns itself fully with the statement made by Zambia on behalf of the African Union, as well as Uruguay on behalf of the G77 and China, and Nepal on behalf of the LDCs. Mali would like the reforms that have been envisaged to strengthen the capacity mandates of the UN agencies. Right, it should strengthen rather than weaken these mandates. We want less bureaucracy, fewer reports, and more action that is targeted on meeting the needs of people in the field to allow the agencies alongside beneficiary countries to achieve their mandates. I'd like to take this opportunity also to highlight that the executive boards have before it the cooperation programs for UNDP in Mali for the period 2027-2031. I'd like to inform members that this document was draft— drawn up jointly with UNDP following an inclusive national consultation process. It is fully in line with Mali's priorities and faithfully translates the principles of governance and cooperation enshrined in our constitution. The government also welcomes the fact that this program implements the shared will to strengthen national resilience, to accelerate social and economic transformation, and to promote inclusive, transparent, and effective governance. I would like to reiterate our thanks to the UNDP for this strategic partnership and for the trust that they— the confidence that they have been enjoying with Mali for the last few decades. We would recommend to the Executive Board of UNDP to approve the cooperation program between UNDP and Mali for 2027-2031, and to provide significant support for the implementation of this program via Interalia, the mobilization of strategic and financial resources. I'd also like to commend the frequent partnership that we have with UNOPS. This is an operational body that has provided a huge amount of assistance to Mali in implementing development initiatives, humanitarian action, and peacebuilding, providing concrete solutions on— in terms of infrastructure and project management. So I would also like to share that despite all the challenges that we've been facing, particularly security challenges, Mali is mobilizing its own national resources resources to contribute to the implementation of these programs. So this is an example that I think that we could use. It's not always a question of resources, but we also need the political will for implementation. So once again, I'd like to commend the staff that you have working in Mali, are working in often difficult contexts.

And the speaker's microphone has been cut off. I thank the Ambassador of Mali for his statement and now give the floor to France. Ambassador, you have the floor.

Merci. Thank you, President. President, UNDP administration, Executive Director of UNOPS. Secretary-General has set a clear goal with the UN80 Initiative, and our Executive Board is therefore meeting at a crucial time to implement the necessary reforms to have a more legible, effective development system that best uses its resources. 3 points on our side today: we welcome your work to strengthen the effectiveness of your agencies despite the difficulties of the time. The work that you've been doing in recent years in terms of relocalising, reorganising, and restructuring is part, part of this, and we're aware of the significant effort that has been undertaken. France will continue to support you in your internal reforms, particularly to pool support services, accounting, etc., to maximise the amount of resources that you have— you can allocate in the field to benefit people directly. The strategic plans adopted last year refocus the areas of work that you cover where— to where there is greater added value, and that should guide us in our reform exercises. Next, the system functioning must become a reality. Resident coordinators can guarantee strategic and programmatic consistency within the UN in the field with two consequences. Firstly, your program documents should stem indeed properly from the global strategy agreement with countries, with host countries on board working with resident coordinators. Next, we would like the resident coordinators to provide an opinion on the programs and projects submitted by the agencies and that they have a clear vision of how to implement them. New working methods could also be imagined here to support the development work of the UN. A joint venture that would be an experiment between UNDP and UNOPS as part of energy transition could also be an option that we could explore, of course, without prejudice to a decision on this further down the line. Also, we should indeed keep this direction that the SG has put forward, fully respecting existing mandates. We share the ambition of the Secretary-General to streamline the number of entities present on the ground, and this is a major issue in terms of simplifying UN work, making it more— making it smarter. The work plans so far show that what's been done what's been planned for so far can contribute to this goal, ensuring scale— economies of scale, showing an agency that can provide a service that is tailored to the needs of the beneficiaries. The costs, of course, are a concern, and the resources to cover them and demonstrate officially gains in efficiency in preserving mandates for operational work should also be made more clear to provide advice to the General Assembly on inform them on how it's been going. France's president supports all of your efforts to help these executive boards to set clear and practical—

the speaker's microphone has been cut off.

I thank the Ambassador of France for his statement, and I now give the floor to South Africa, to be followed by the Russian Federation, Uzbekistan. South Africa, Ambassador, you have the floor.

Thank you very much for giving me the floor, Chairperson. Let me at the outset indicate my delegation's concurrence with the statement delivered by Zambia and Uruguay on behalf of the African members of the board in the G77, and Moldova on behalf of a number of states respectively. Allow me to begin by thanking the UNDP and UNOPS for the comprehensive report and detailed assessments provided on the possible measure. The information therein is a clear demonstration of due diligence to the task we asked them in the first session of 2026. The tremendous amount of work and commitment that has been put into this important question is truly appreciated and warrants warrant a particular mention. South Africa remains committed to support structural and programmatic alignment, efficiency, and cost-saving measures without compromising mandate delivery, effective governance, adequate funding, and country-level delivery. We have always been open to considering the possibility of measures within the UN development system, recognizing that more than 40 funds and programmes is a source of duplication and inefficiency. However, we have consistently maintained that mandates should not be compromised, there must be limited operational disruption, especially with in-country programmes, and fiscal responsibility applied to the measures. Thus, we are pleased to note that the preliminary findings of the report has given due consideration to these elements and and importantly understood the particular concern by including them as either a benefit or a risk in each of the options provided. We acknowledge that there would be more cost-saving measures and the various models have differing legal concerns. However, the greatest concern would be, would be the operation disruption, and each model that integrates the entities in some capacity security identify operational disruptions as a risk. In many instances, the mitigation of the risk is coordinated planning and preparation, which would require more time. Mr. President, this system is designed whereby the Executive Board gives fair and due consideration while acting responsibly in reviewing all assessments and reports on all of the options as well as the feasibility of the proposed measures. In line with the governance responsibilities, it is important for the respective executive boards to make recommendations on proposals for consideration of the General Assembly. South Africa is again very happy to have received this report and understands that it is an excellent assessment that helps guide and indicates evidence which prompts greater interaction. The full statement has been uploaded and will be shared.

I thank the Ambassador of South Africa for the statement. I give the floor to the Russian Federation. You have the floor, please.

Spasibo. Thank you very much, President. A very good morning to the heads of the UNDP and UNOPS. The Russian delegation has on many occasions called for caution. And to take into account all the four factors at stake when working on optimization, including in the context of optimizing the work of the UNDP and UNOPS, and also the UNFPA and UN Women in the context of UN80. As it would seem, the options for this optimization can't yet convincingly guarantee— that launching a complex administrative reform of the two biggest development agencies, particularly at this key stage of the 2030 Agenda, will lead to drawing attention and resources from fulfilling their main mandates. And it can't say that it will avoid obstacles in implementation of this on the ground. Many people have mentioned this today. We cannot support a weakening of the UNDP to create— in order to create a new entity. All— the whole architecture of the UN development system was built around program mandate of the UNDP and its presence on the country level and its integrating role and its analytical technical expertise. On UNOPS, this agency also has a set of unique advantages in terms of its flexibility and how it can maneuver. That's something we don't want to put at risk. In brief, I will— while I have the floor, this kind of concern on me merging UNDP also concerns merging of UN Women and UNFPA, and my colleague will speak to this at greater length this afternoon. But we are also concerned about the merge that could mean weakening the attention to key traditional topics that the UNFPA covers, such as the fall in death rate, work on neonatal assistance, and also demographic-related issues. Of course, both mergers raise the important issue of budgetary economies and— budgetary savings and not increase of costs, and the review of regional presence of these agencies. We think it would be wise to continue studying the different options from all angles, addressing this without a specific deadline being imposed. Thank you very much.

I thank the Russian Federation for the statement. The following speakers are Uzbekistan, the European Union, Republic of Korea, Kazakhstan, Mexico. I give the floor to Uzbekistan.

Mr. President, distinguished colleagues. First of all, on behalf of the Republic of Uzbekistan, I would like to thank all the delegations for presenting their strategic visions on the eve of a historic milestone, the 80th anniversary of the United Nations. For Uzbekistan, the UN development agencies remain key partners in driving national reforms and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Uzbekistan reaffirms its strong commitment to multilateralism and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. We highly value the important role of the UN development system in supporting the national priorities of Member States. Today, the world faces major challenges including climate risks, economic uncertainty, and growing development needs. More than ever, we need a strong, effective, and inclusive United Nations. We are convinced that any reform and adjustment of UN country teams should be guided by one main objective: increasing the effectiveness and impact of UN support at the country level. The success of this reform should not be measured by administrative changes alone. It should be measured by real improvements in people's lives, stronger resilience and more inclusive development. We recognize the important coordinating role of Resident Coordinators. At the same time, any changes to their system should remain fully in line with mandates agreed by member states. In our mind, any further strengthening of the resident coordinator system should avoid duplication of functions and ensure efficient use of resources. Furthermore, we believe that a consolidated decision by member states should come before the practical implementation of these proposals. Dear colleagues, Uzbekistan welcomes the continuation of an open and inclusive dialogue on all aspects of improving UN agencies. We support inter-agency consultations and the use of existing coordination mechanisms within the Secretariat. This will help us achieve balanced and consensus-based outcomes. I thank you.

I thank Uzbekistan for the statement. I give the floor now to the European Union. To be followed by the Republic of Korea. European Union, please.

Thank you, Chair. Excellencies, colleagues, I deliver the statement on behalf of the European Union as a donor. The EU welcomes efforts to strengthen the UN Development System and supports the Secretary-General's UNAID ambitions. And thank you to the Administrator and Executive Director for their vision statements to make this happen. Reforms must create leaner operations, stronger country teams, and better outcomes for the people on the ground. The UNAID work packages under the Sustainable Development Pillar, including the possible UNDP-UNOPS merger, must be considered together as they are interconnected. As a major donor, the EU greatly values its partnership with both agencies. We would have 3 points and 3 questions. First, the EU stands ready to discuss merging UNDP and UNOPS, and we thank you, the Chair, for the opportunity. A single entity would constitute an important signal for the broader UNAID efforts, as would the redesign of the country and regional teams, access to expertise on demand, and the strengthening of resident coordinators. Based on available information, we stand ready to explore options, including foreign integration, but the exact modalities should be based on a clear analysis of benefits, risks, and governance with the buy-in from both agencies in the process. Second, we emphasize the need to preserve each agency's strength while enhancing efficiency. UNDP's strengths are its country presence, host government relations, and development track record. UNOPS' strength is its effective pay-for-service model. A merger must preserve UNDP's central development role under the 2030 Agenda while protecting UNOPS procurement and project management expertise. Finally, a merger should reduce transaction costs and harmonize standards without compromising effectiveness. A detailed cost-benefit analysis is needed, particularly on how to reconcile the funding models. Excellencies, colleagues, as a strong supporter of UN80, the EU will continue working with partners to make the UN more responsive, accountable and fit for purpose. On that basis are 3 questions. First, how would a merger retain donor confidence while avoiding partner government or beneficiary confusion, and how concretely can the 2 delivery models be preserved with a single entity? Second, what are the key milestones for deciding on a merger and the realistic implementation timelines, and how does this concretely align with other UNAT work packages? And finally, what transitional arrangements would minimize disruption to ongoing programs and how would the transitional costs be funded? Thank you very much, Chair.

I thank the European Union for the statement. I give now the floor to the Republic of Korea. You have the floor, please.

Thank you, Mr. President. The Republic of Korea welcomes and supports the UN Haiti Initiative to strengthen the performance and efficiency of the UN Development System. It is in this spirit that we approach the issue of UNDP-UNOPS merger that warrants careful and open-minded consideration. I recognize the efforts both entities have made in this process, including their respective as-is report and the joint report on merger options. These are constructive steps. We appreciate the work, and in this line, I would like to highlight 3 points. First, while taking note of the different views on the merger options, expressed by the two principles, the ROK stressed that any merger should be assessed with a clear standard, whether it meaningfully advances our goal of achieving the SDG. Bringing the two bodies together is not simply an administrative task. The process and result will affect program delivery and outcomes in the field. Both organizations have distinct identities and proven track records. UNDP has the broadest global footprint and network among UN funds and programmes. UNOPS has developed its own operational model and carved out its clear role. Consolidating these two institutions calls for careful judgement with ample deliberation grounded in thorough evidence and rigorous cost-effectiveness analysis. Second, the cost of this merger deserves close and careful scrutiny In the current development financing environment, resources must be directed where they are needed most. Cost estimates for the merger process should be based on firm evidence, and those costs should not be so substantial as to divert resources away from achieving development results. Costs are front-loaded while the benefits are long-term. If the gap between the two is too wide, it would be difficult to have confidence that the case for merger holds. Third, I would like to reiterate that a structural reform of this nature should be pursued through full and transparent consultation with member states. Their views should be genuinely reflected, and we look forward to continued dialogue and substantive consultation as this process moves forward. My question to both entities is, what are your candid and detailed plan and idea for mobilizing and covering the cost of this possible merger in the current financial landscape. So as a responsible partner to UN development activities, the ROK remains committed to engaging with this issue in a constructive and considered manner. I thank you.

I thank the Republic of Korea for the statement. I give the floor to Kazakhstan, to be followed by Mexico. Kazakhstan, please.

Thank you, Mr.

President. We would like to express appreciation to UNDP and UNOPS for this important discussion. Kazakhstan remains a strong supporter of efforts aimed at making the United Nations more efficient, transparent, accountable, and fit for purpose. We recognize the importance of identifying opportunities to reduce duplication, streamline administrative processes, and enhance the effectiveness of the organization. At the same time, any proposal concerning a potential merger of UNDP and UNOPS should be approached with caution and be guided by clear evidence, realistic assessments, and broad consultation with Member States. From our perspective, there are several important considerations. First, the value proposition of such a merger must be clearly demonstrated. Any structural reform should deliver tangible operational and financial benefits that outweigh the costs, risks, and disruptions associated with the transition process.

Member States require a comprehensive assessment of the expected efficiency, implementation costs, and long-term impact.

Second, operational continuity must remain a central priority. Both UNDP and UNOPS play distinct and important roles in supporting development efforts worldwide. In Kazakhstan and across Central Asia, UNDP has been a trusted strategic partner in advancing sustainable development, governance, and climate initiatives, while UNOPS provides valuable expertise in project implementation and infrastructure delivery. Any restructuring should avoid disruptions that could affect program delivery and support to beneficiary countries. Third, it is important to preserve the comparative advantages and mandates of both entities. UNDP's role as the leading development agency of the United Nations systems and UNOPS' specialized implementation capacity have been built over decades. Any institutional changes should strengthen rather than dilute these respective strengths. Finally, we believe that reforms should be driven not only by efficiency considerations but also by development impact. The ultimate measures of success should be whether the United Nations is better equipped to support Member States in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. And addressing emerging development challenges. In conclusion, Kazakhstan supports constructive and evidence-based reform. We remain open to further discussion and look forward to receiving additional information and analysis that would allow member states to carefully assess the implications of any potential merger.

I thank you. I thank Kazakhstan for the statement and I give the floor to Mexico. You have the floor, please.

Gracias.

Thank you, Mr. President. Mexico thanks the Executive Directors of UNDP and UNOPS for their presentations. Mexico has backed the UN Haiti Initiative and has worked actively in order to achieve the necessary reforms to strengthen the United Nations in an international context that is complex. Mexico believes that success will be measured not in the institutional restructuring in itself, but by the capacity to improve the organization's response to the needs of people and the member states. For Mexico, it will be essential to have absolute clarity on the comparative advantages that a possible merger between UNDP and UNOPS would have on the basis of the recognition of the the distinct natures of those two bodies and taking account of the fact that they will reach different conclusions. On this matter, Mexico thinks that the process should be gradual, transparent, and evidence-based. The risks must be mitigated and possible disruptions must be avoided in the execution of programs. Mexico considers that we should go in more detail into the full integration model setting out clearly the financial and human resources that will be freed up at the end of the possible merger and how they will be channeled to operational activities for sustainable development. An aspect that is fundamental to my country is that whichever option the United— the member states adopt must strengthen the operational capacity of the United Nations. The Executive Boards therefore have an essential role in guaranteeing that the reform proposals are transparent and consistent with the mandates handed down by the member states. Mexico thanks and takes note of the proposals made. Considering that UNDP and UNOPS have different financial models and cost recovery models, we'd like to ask the following questions. What would be the estimated costs if the proposed merger continues to progress? And how will those funds be obtained? Thank you very much and we wish you every success in the rest of your work.

I thank Mexico for the statement. We have exhausted for now the list of speakers. I want to acknowledge indeed the high degree of discipline from member states in confining the comments and the statements to the allocated time. I'll give now the floor first to Executive Director UNEPS, Mr. Moreira da Silva, and then Administrator de Croo.

Please. Thank you, Mr. President, and I will now do an effort to be much more concise, also to be in line with member states on discipline in terms of the time use. First of all, I would like to thank something that was present in all interventions, which is you want to preserve the added value of the two organizations. So clearly the discussion has shown that the merger discussion is not about fixing any of the organizations, but by contrary, you seem to be worried with the possibility of a merger undermining the strength and the added value of the two organizations. And I think that for someone that is leading one of the organizations, I feel very honored by the strong support that you have provided to the two organizations, to the way we deliver our mandates. So the fact that you are asking mandates not to be diluted, you are asking that added value of future organization shall be retained, obviously it's something that I would like to thank you, and as you mentioned, my team who is for sure watching— this discussion will appreciate— is appreciating this, because as you mentioned there is also some anxiety and I think it's important— some delegations mentioned this. Every time there is a conversation about the merger, the teams, our teams, UNDP and UNOPS teams, are obviously following very carefully what will be the outcome of this conversation and I think that I can speak Alexander on behalf of UNDP, but we have exchanged the two of us. I think that the two organizations have managed to keep focus, so despite these discussions you can see on the ground, on our outcomes and outputs, that the two organizations remained focused, delivering in parallel to these discussions. Second point I'd like to make is that to stress is the independence and the neutrality that is needed now on the numbers and on the legal aspects. I think it was extremely important to get this feedback. Clearly, member states are not asking us to go back to the drawing board. Member states seem to be telling us that now that we have options on the table, that there are some aspects that would need some careful assessment based on a strong methodology and with independence being guaranteed. And those aspects— and I took note from all interventions— those aspects seems to be cost-benefit analysis, because clearly there are difference on the costs. UNDP considers that the cost of a new entity is 4 times the cost that we consider that will be incurred. And of course, if I put myself in member states' shoes, obviously this is something that you would need some sort of independent reconciliation. So clearly, I think that the element about cost-benefit analysis for all options would need to be addressed. And the second is the legal aspects and particularly the transition. How disruptive would be this transition? What's the phased approach? Are we starting with some pilot countries? So these are elements that of course both organizations have put in our assessment, but you want some sort of independent assessment of this. I would say when it comes to legal aspects, we have a legal department in the UN system, OLA, and for sure I think it's the place to go when it comes to legal aspects. A different thing is cost-benefit analysis that obviously would require other kind of discipline. Third point— and on this point, Mr. President and distinguished member states, I know that you are negotiating the decisions for this week. The more granular you can be about the specific terms of reference and the scope of this third-party independent analysis, the best. So I think that if member states can continue engaging on this aspect, it would make our life easier, especially in the way out, which is getting quickly this third-party assessment based on sound methodology and independence. Final point, if I may, is about the UN Haiti reform agenda and particularly the resident coordinators. I heard many delegations stressing this point. I think it's extremely important that one of the outcomes of the UN Haiti is precisely to to strengthen the role of Resident Coordinators, coordinating, enabling, integrating the different delivery on the ground. And I think that the way that on the reconfiguration of country teams we have addressed this aspect is balanced and ambitious at the same time.— that's the proposal that I've put on the table. We preserved the country programme documents as an accountability tool that helps the different agencies deliver their mandates, but at the same time enhancing the cooperation framework as the most strategic document. And that's why, as you know, and we discussed, as Alexander mentioned last week at OIS, what is considered the topic for the way forward is to have the CPDs being sequence-derived and consulted, and that's why preserving the two instruments but ensuring that we don't have any kind of misalignment or fragmentation. And I think this was one of the the topics that many of you mentioned today, the insurance that you want, that the reform of the mergers is consistent with the strengthening of the resident coordinator system and idea to have on the ground a smaller number of agencies but with much stronger capacity to deliver at scale in a coherent and impactful manner. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Executive Director. Mr. Administrator, please. Yes, thank you.

I think this was a great interaction that we've had. I'm convinced it's not the last time we will discuss on this topic. I think there's a few common topics that came out of this discussion. I think a few of you have asked, well, what is the rationale on the merger? Why are we discussing Well, to me that's quite clear. I mean, UNAT has as an overall objective to see how, as a UN, we could be more efficient, we could have better cost containment, we could be better at responding to the requirements that we have from our partners. And in UNAT, a hypothesis is being put forward And the hypothesis was, well, those UNHCR objectives, can you please assess if a merger between UNOPS and UNDP would contribute to that? That is the rationale why we have been doing this analysis, and this is why we have this discussion. So to me, it is fully aligned with the overall objective that UNHCR has put forward, and we have provided you a first level of analysis in doing that. Many of you have mentioned the fact that, well, there is now maybe a need to further consolidate what we have done. I think on some dimensions we are not wildly different on the numbers. I mean, if you look at what is the potential cost saving of such a merger, I think the numbers are not that different. And in any case, this is not an exact science. I mean, you try to do a kind of an assessment of what it could be. Where the numbers are different is on the cost of executing such a merger. That is correct, there we have a different assessment. And I think that the question being asked by many of you, can we use an independent third party, outside party to do an analysis of of that. I think we both agree that it would be a good idea and it would help to push the discussion forward. Many of you have talked about the need to protect mandates. I think that's very clear. That is a discussion in the other merger, that is clearly one discussion here as well. Both organizations, many of you have said that, are quite different in the way they operate and also in the way they are being funded. The overlap is actually quite limited. I think the group of— when Uruguay talked in name of the Group of 77 and China asked the question, 'Well, this 5% number, where is it coming from?' Well, that is the pure overlap that we have. UNOPS works in a fee-for-service model. UNDP is doing some fee-for-service, but for us it is quite marginal. It's 5% of our total activity. All the rest is not fee-for-service. So those 5%, that is a real overlap in activity. Of course, in overhead, we have much more overlap that we can share. But so how do you— to me, both organizations, they are two different tools in the toolbox. Bluntly speaking, one is a screwdriver and one is a hammer. If you want to, you could use a screwdriver to get a nail in, but it's not super effective. You could use a hammer to get a screw in, it could work, but it's not super effective. I mean, these are two different methods of doing work, and when I listen to you, you value that. You understand that these are two different models which are funded in a different way as well. So the way how to preserve that, well, today actually in UNDP's rules and regulation, we already have what we call a two-window system where we have a different way of financing. As said, fee-for-service is something that we do have. We have it in our rules and regulations. It's quite limited for the moment, but you could easily use the rules and regulation system that UNDP has to guarantee that both models of delivery and of financing are 100% being maintained. On costs and cost containment, very valid point. I think the US, Mexico, Australia, a few of you have put that forward. It's clear that at this moment, The choice of doing such a merger in the lowest cost possible way is totally legitimate question. I think in any case it is a very legitimate question, but at this moment where we see that the demands to the UN system are higher than ever and the funding has seen the biggest drop that we have ever seen, Next to our operational duties which we have, looking at how the cost of such a merger is going to be financed is a totally valid question. And if we look at how this has been done in the past, these type of reforms, it's our structural institutional reforms, you will have to look at what is the right model to finance this. Just to preempt some of the questions, Can this be funded with core funding that you already provide to us? No. You have been very clear in your board decisions on how core funding could be used. And can it be financed with our operational reserves? No. Those reserves are there for a good reason. They guarantee us that we are able to take on a certain level of risk. I mean, there's very clear rules from your side as well on what you can do with our reserves. At this moment, everything you provide to us, being it UNOPS or UNDP, we really need this to help the countries and the populations who we serve and who are really in need to be served. There were questions on what are alternatives to this. This? This is not a question that you have asked us, so I'd rather be prudent in how to answer that question. Yes, obviously you could go to some type of non-structural alignment. You will have some benefits on that, but I think we have to be clear that the magnitude of the benefits that you could get out of that are a fraction of what you you could get by doing a merger. It is a different level of risk, that is clear, but I think that we've also showed that these are things that can be managed. Let me just go through a few of the elements that maybe have not been answered. I think the questions of the G77, China, group are covered. I think Zambia, in name of the African countries, were pretty much aligned with those remarks as well. Moldova and the group of countries that were represented made an interesting comment on the fact that you should not separate policy from delivery. Today, that's not the case. I mean, if you look at UNDP, some would say, 'Well, you are a policy organization.' Yes, we are, but we are also a delivery organization. I mean, the majority of the policy work is linked to some type of implementation, to some type of delivery work. So saying one is doing policy and the other one is doing delivery, that is really, really a far-reaching amplification of how it is today, and that would make the assumption that this is actually something that you could functionally separate. I really don't see how you could functionally separate it. Our policy work is deeply grounded in the experience that we have as a delivery organization, and the way we deliver it is also very much linked to what we do on the policy side. I think Nepal, in name of the LDCs, asked a question on I mean, what if not? Well, you could make a choice of not doing this, but as I said, I think the benefits are much, much lower. I think Brazil talked about the need for consolidated numbers. I think indeed, in going forward, you need to be able at some point to have data which is 100% aligned. As I said, I think it's not that wildly different on some dimension on the cost side. It is different. I think the intervention of China emphasized the need for national ownership. I think indeed that is a crucial one. The discussion on the country programme documents and the cooperation frameworks I think is a valid discussion, but making sure that national ownership is there and that national ownership is being promoted as the ultimate model of development I think is an important element that has been being put forward. Tirkia, you talked about our capacity to intervene together. I think we have shown that indeed at the moment of the earthquake, many organizations were active on the ground. UNOPS and UNDP were, and in many locations we work together. I mean, often it is being put forward as that we are in two worlds apart. We are not. I mean, we very often work in the same circumstances. And our teams work really well together and at the management level that is definitely the case as well. The questions of the United States, Mexico on cost, I think we have covered, we were able to cover them.

Question du Mali. On the question from Mali, I think yes indeed, reform that we do carry out should aim to reduce bureaucracy and make things less complex. I completely agree with you, and that's indeed what we discussed last week within ECOSOC. We need to reform. A lot of things need to be made more efficient. But if we do it by making things more bureaucratic and more complicated and don't think we'll meet that goal. The intervention from France, you asked a question, well, beyond this objective of the merger, what else are you doing within your organisations to be more effective and efficient? Yes, it's true that in our strategic plan that we've just begun, there are a lot of other areas that we're working on, workforce optimisation, for example. Moving services and plans to make them more decentralised. The fact that the UNDP has a lot of links with organisations on the operational front. So we're doing a lot already. Now, if there's a merger or if there isn't, in any case there is a cost reduction programme in place.

Questions on cost, I think we have addressed them. Yeah, I think with that we could conclude a very fruitful discussion.

Thank you very much. Indeed, I think that was very fruitful. If any of the member states want to follow up, with a comment. Of course we can do that. We still have a bit of time. I think the conversation this morning was very helpful. I do detect a number of directions from member states, and this type of input is very much important. I do have a bit of a question myself. There was this mentioning of a potential third-party review or assessment Of course, what would be important to look at is the cost associated with it, but also the timetable of a potential third-party review. We have also to reflect very much not only on putting the responsibility on the entities themselves, but also— and third-party reflections— on the role of the board, because the board itself can come up with avenues for whatever may be happening. We should— I mean, in some instances we have to acknowledge that, yes, we still need some information to be provided and shared with member states, and probably that's what we will be looking at identifying through the decision of the board. But the effort that we are— the effort that is ongoing also should not focus on situations where we don't like the conclusions themselves to drag our feet. You know, it's— an answer is an answer. An answer through this Board and the Annual Session, it's a good indicator, and I'm glad that we had this discussion this morning. We'll continue this afternoon with the other potential merger, and I think after the Annual Session, we Member States as well, we need to reflect proactively and continue engaging with the heads of the organizations to come up with any potential avenue. But I think the views of the member states, I have to say, were much more clear than it may appear, and definitely take note and very much interested to continue our dialogues. Any member state wishing to take the floor again? Well, that gives us a bit of time before lunch and yes, there will be an announcement because some of us will still need to continue working, not me. Please, Masa.

Thank you, Mr. President. We'll reconvene the decision negotiations at 1:00 PM in Conference Room A. Thank you.

Thank you. This morning's session is adjourned. Thank you very much, Administrator. Thank you, Executive Director. Thank you. Thank you.