Economic and Social Council: 19th plenary meeting - 2026 Operational Activities for Development Segment

Good morning, Excellencies. Dear colleagues, may I kindly ask you to your seats. Declaro abierta. The 19th meeting of the Economic and Social Council is called to order. I now invite the Council to begin its consideration of sub-item B of agenda item 7, reports of the executive boards of the United Nations entity for gender equality and the empowerment of women, the World Food Programme, the United Nations Development Programme, the United Nations Population Fund, and the United Nations Office for Project Services, and the United Nations Children's Fund to hold dialogue with the UN Development System executive heads on system-wide accountability and delivery of the UN Development System reforms, including in the context of the UN80 Initiative. This session brings together executive heads of the United Nations Development System entities to discuss how the system is developing to deliver more coherent, effective, and country-responsive support for national development priorities. With poverty eradication and leaving no one behind at the center, The discussion will focus on how entities are responding to resource pressures and structural change, including through the UN80 Initiative, while at the same time preserving the policy expertise, country presence, and system-wide collaboration needed to accelerate progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals. The council will now hold a dialogue with UNDS executive heads, system-wide accountability and delivery of the UN development system reform, including in the context of the UNAT Initiative. I'm pleased to welcome our distinguished panelists, Mr. Alexander de Croo, Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme, UNDP, and Ms. Catherine Russell, Executive Director of the United Nations Children's Fund, UNICEF. I also welcome our lead discussants in our dialogue today, His Excellency Asim Iftikhar Ahmad, Permanent Representative of Pakistan, and Mr. Hrvoje Čuric Hrvatinic, Chargé d'Affaires of the Permanent Mission of Croatia to the United Nations. I first give the floor to Mr. Alexander de Croo, Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme, UNDP. You have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Mr. President, Excellencies, colleagues. It's a privilege to join you here, for me, for the first time as UNDP Administrator. It's not a secret if I would say that these are difficult times for development. We are 10 years in the 2030 Agenda, and today only one-third of the SDGs are on track. That is not because of a lack of ambition, But it is because we are encountering complex changes— challenges such as conflict, climate shocks, and debt distress. Yet we can still deliver on real breakthroughs. We have the means to have people make escape from poverty, to create new pathways to have better livelihoods and to create jobs, to restore hope in communities where unfortunately crisis has become the norm. And UNDP is doing this. Over the last strategic plan, we delivered $19.6 billion. We reached 1.1 billion people in 2025 alone. And we have 5 years left. And we have a responsibility to use those remaining 5 years in the best possible way. But geopolitical instability, The sharp increase in crisis, and not the least the financing picture, makes that incredibly hard. Over the last two years, we know that official development assistance fell by almost a third. This is the steepest drop that we have ever seen. Core funding to the UN fell by more than a quarter, with support to the LDCs, to the least developed countries in sub-Saharan Africa, down by a similar margin. So the situation is the following: we are asked to deliver more than ever for the people who are the furthest behind, with far less resources than we have ever had. And so UN80 is a real-world test to that contradiction to which we are confronted. I think there was a clear message from the Member States and the Secretary-General— and that it says that UNATI is a delivery agenda. It is not a mere restructuring exercise. The success of UNATI will not be measured by changing structures or by moving posts, but it will be measured by whether this will improve the UN's capacity to deliver. Reform only matters when it strengthens the delivery to where people experience the UN the most directly, and that is at the country level. And those reforms are not new. I mean, those reforms have been set in motion in 2018 through Resolution 72/279, and it already has changed the way we work every day. Today, the programming of UN country teams is more coherent, more strategically aligned through, for example, the cooperation frameworks. Operations are more efficient and we have more shared services and more premises— shared premises than ever. UNAT is now moving from ambition to action, laying the foundations for a leaner, more effective system. Take for example Expertise on Demand, which UNDP is leading together with ITU. Today, we have one online catalogue, 27 entities make part of that. More than 2,000 service offerings are in that catalog, and today we already have 6 pilots on the way. A shared team cuts transaction times from months to days. It leads to less duplication, faster access for countries, and more relevant support. And country configuration follows the same logic. Not every entity needs its own office in every country to add value. Larger entities, and UNDP is one amongst them, can host others, so specialized expertise reaches governments without the cost of a separate footprint. And shared services complete that picture— common back offices and premises that free resources for the frontline. This is UNAT working. UNAT is today not something which is just on paper, it is already in our working, and we are happy with it. But further reforms will only succeed if we preserve what makes the system worth reforming. The Secretary-General Progress Reports anchors country configuration in the impartial coordination mandate of the Resident Coordinators. Coordination should connect countries to partners, never stand between them. Access must remain direct—access to expertise, access to financing, being sure that national ownership is preserved. Mandates and approved country programmes must be respected. The system must be made more accessible, not more bureaucratic. Where proximity matters the most—that is, in fragile settings, And in the last mile, country presence is not a luxury. It is the difference between a promise and a result. And UNDP delivers on that as being an end-to-end development platform. So, in those reforms, we must be pragmatic. Every reform should be costed, should be sure that it is feasible, and should be matched with dedicated resources. Operational agencies cannot absorb the cost of structural reform without it would impact their ability to deliver on the ground. I think in these times we cannot be diverted from programmatic or core funding. If reform needs investment, please let's not divert funds that today we really use for our core work and for our programmatic work. And that means that we need a healthier finance mix. Core funding is not an overhead. Core funding is the catalytic capital that lets the system act early, coherently, and strategically. It helps us to de-risk the policy environment, to strengthen institutions, and to crowd in investments. It preserves countries' development impact. When that collapses, The poorest pay. So protecting it is a precondition for everything else. Through all of this, our compass must not move. It is poverty eradication, leaving no one behind. With the University of Oxford, UNDP produces the Global Multidimensional Poverty Index, which measures poverty as people experience it in daily lives: poor health, limited education, and a lack of clean water or electricity. UNDP treats leaving no one behind as a system-wide principle, prioritizing the most marginalized and tackling it through economic inclusion, social protection, and effective governance. Hundreds of millions of people have moved out of this multidimensional poverty in little over a decade. In 2025, UNDP and our partners supported more than 500 million people on paths to prosperity in more than 120 countries. And over the full cycle, 291 million gained access to financial services, including 149 million women. Not theory, lives that have changed. And I mention those gains because we should be proud of it. But we should also be worried. Those gains are incredibly fragile. Today, more than 1 billion people still live in acute poverty. And nearly 900 million of the poorest ones already face climate shocks. If you pull support away now, the line that we moved forward will begin to slide back. And so we need to be very clear: every reform must pass one test—whether it serves the furthest behind first. And we owe you, we owe the member states, A leaner system, and we owe the people we serve a stronger one. Excellencies, UNAT can give us both, but only if we keep delivery at the centre and if we keep the funding behind it. UNDP is ready to play its role. Let us use this moment of pressure into a decade of delivery.

Thank you. Muchas gracias. Thank you very much, Administrator of the UNDP. I now give the floor to Ms. Catherine Russell, Executive Director of the United Nations Children's Fund, UNICEF.

Mr. President, I appreciate it. Excellencies, distinguished delegates, good morning. At a time when development gains are under pressure, humanitarian needs are rising, and public resources are increasingly constrained, the question before us is not whether the United Nations should reform, The question is how we reform in ways that strengthen our ability to deliver for the people we serve. For UNICEF, that means reforming to help us reach children faster, more effectively, and at greater scale. UNICEF fully supports the Secretary-General's UN80 Initiative and remains committed to building a more coherent and more effective United Nations development system. Our organization has reduced costs by 20%. We've established centers of excellence and modernized our operating model. We have also adapted our in-country presence to better reflect the different realities children face all around the world. Today, UNICEF is leading on the integrated humanitarian supply chain with WFP and other partners, shared services across the system, and joint leadership of the UN system data commons. These efforts show that greater coherence and efficiency are possible while protecting what matters most: delivery for children. As discussions on UNAIDI move forward, accountability must remain central. Each UN entity has a distinct mandate, governance structure, and responsibility to member states. Better alignment should strengthen those accountabilities. Country presence must be determined by need, national priorities, and comparative advantage. One size does not fit all. The needs of children living in a middle-income country facing climate shocks are different from those of children elsewhere who may be affected by conflict, displacement, or chronic poverty. A strong resident coordinator system is essential to this effort. Resident coordinators play a critical role in convening partners, fostering coherence, and helping countries access the full breadth of expertise expertise across the whole UN system. In addition, country program documents should remain vital instruments for service delivery. They translate cooperation framework priorities into concrete, amendment— government-endorsed and Executive Board-approved commitments. Strong alignment between cooperation frameworks and country program documents is important, but they must not be overly rigid. We must preserve the flexibility —needed to respond to changing realities while maintaining clear governance responsibilities. A healthy development system requires, as Alexander said, a balanced funding mix. Our objective should be to improve the quality, predictability, and flexibility of funding, while at the same time maintaining the mandate-specific accountability that gives member states confidence that resources are achieving results. In a period of declining resources, every dollar redirected from program to administration is a dollar no longer reaching children. The costs of implementing reform should be transparently assessed, properly planned, and supported through dedicated resources. Excellencies, children today remain disproportionately affected by poverty, conflict, displacement, disability, climate shocks, and economic instability. Disability. UNICEF is working with governments and partners to expand social protection, strengthen education systems, improve access to health and nutrition systems, and ensure that children with disabilities are fully included in society. We are helping countries protect investments in children even as fiscal pressures and debt burdens increase, and we are strengthening the humanitarian-development nexus ensuring that children affected by conflict, displacement, and climate shocks are not forgotten. Because if our reforms do not reach the child excluded from school, the child displaced by conflict, the child living with a disability, or the child growing up in poverty, then we have not truly succeeded. As we move forward with UN80, UNICEF stands ready to work with member states and partners across the system. We support reforms that make the United Nations more coherent, more accountable, and more effective. And for UNICEF, that means ensuring that every reform ultimately delivers for children. Thank you very much.

Muchas gracias. I thank Executive Director of UNICEF. I now give the floor to our first lead discussant and invite his His Excellency Asim Iftikhar Ahmad, Permanent Representative of Pakistan to the United Nations, to make a statement.

Thank you, Vice President, and a very good morning. I would like to thank the UNDP Administrator and the Executive Director of UNICEF for their interventions. We deeply value the contribution of the UN Development System to Pakistan's national development efforts. And I think I must pick up some of the points that have been made in these interventions, particularly we share the concern regarding the reduction in ODA and core funding. And the point that the reforms focus should be primarily on delivery and implementation, that is the results on ground. And lastly, that coordination, which is important, it should translate into enhancing and strengthening partnership with the countries concerned and the national ownership. Vice President, colleagues, Pakistan hosts over 20 UN entities in country, and like many others, we are not immune to the funding pressures that is affecting, affecting the broader UN development system, as evident in the drawdown of humanitarian coordination capacity on ground, including in Pakistan. At the same time, we appreciate that some entities, including UNDP, have maintained their country presence despite significant financial headwinds. I would like to highlight a few queries with regards to the reform agenda under View 180 for our deliberations today. First, on coherence and alignment, the UN SDG Chair's report finds that cooperation frameworks are shaped around entity timelines rather than national planning processes. Moreover, it is stated that country program documents are not substantively derived from them despite RC certification of alignment. This reflects a collective gap in incentive structures and oversight. We therefore would like to ask the executive heads, would the sequencing proposal in the QCPR report, that is cooperation frameworks to be finalized before the work begins on country program documents, will it resolve this issue or are there deeper structural obstacles? Second, on national priorities, there remains room to improve alignment of entity operations with genuine national priorities. For example, in Pakistan, programming towards core development priorities— and I think this is something that the Administrator also mentioned— so the core development priorities, such as poverty eradication, employment, and economic growth, could be scaled up, in our view, rather than focus on some other areas. We have seen that often entities move into areas not based on comparative advantage but on funding availability. So addressing this requires better visibility Host governments need to know what the entities are planning and resourcing in real time. So we note the proposal on entities maintaining live work plans and visible resources pipelines throughout implementation in the QCPR report and would like to ask the executive heads whether this is feasible to implement. And thirdly, on knowledge hubs and expertise on demand, these are promising mechanisms, but their value depends on whether demand is genuinely country-defined, whether expertise fills real gaps, and whether the model is more cost-effective than the in-country presence it is replacing. We would appreciate further insight from the Administrator on how these mechanisms are being practically implemented. And fourth, on country configuration—Pakistan is open to a more focused U.N. presence, but reconfiguration must be a genuine dialogue. Led or co-led by host governments. Equally important, program countries must retain flexibility in their points of access to the UNDS. Lastly, on efficiencies, and an example from Pakistan, where work is ongoing on common premises and with some entities relocating to more cost-effective locations. Progress on common back offices has, however, been uneven, and we do believe that a frank conversation about why efficiency initiatives falter in some contexts is essential. I would like to I would emphasize in closing that no amount of efficiency gains can replace adequate funding, because we think that without predictable and core resources, even the leanest of systems won't be able to deliver. So, Vice President, these were some of the queries that I thought we should contribute to this discussion. Pakistan remains committed partner of the UN development system, including UNDP and UNICEF, whose presence and leadership we deeply value. I thank you.

I thank the Permanent Representative of Pakistan for those very constructive inputs. I'd like to invite delegations that wish to participate in interactive discussion to go to go ahead and press the microphone button to indicate their request. Also, would like to highlight that in order to give the opportunity to as many speakers as possible, the limited time allotted will be 3 minutes for statements on behalf of groups and 2 minutes for national statements. I now would like to invite Mr. Hrvoje Kuric Hrvatinic, Chargé d'Affaires of Croatia, to make a statement. You have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Vice President, and for the pronunciation. I know it's a difficult task, and I notice when someone does it correctly. Thank you so much. And I also thank you for this opportunity, and I would like to thank the UN DP Administrator and UNICEF Executive Director for their interventions. The operational activities segment matters, and it is where we assess how the UN Development System affects real people. And we value the presence of Executive Heads, obviously, for this reason even more so, because it allows genuine dialogue. And we have listened with interest to the discussion here on where we are in the reform, especially in the context of the UN80, as it is our chance to strengthen the Resident Coordinator System and the UN Country Teams. The 2018 reform delivered real structural improvements, but more is needed. The UN Haiti Initiative gives us the momentum to move further, for sure, but let me elaborate a few points I deem important for this reform to accelerate in the right direction. The accountability infrastructure now is in place. The System-Wide Evaluation Office provides independent, evidence-based assessments of collective performance, and annual RC reports add transparency at country level. Yet we still lack system-wide performance metrics that measure collective outcomes, not agency-specific activities. We need mandates and resources and capacities aligned behind a one-country strategy. We also need a single interoperable results system, a common data standard, shared analytics, real-time dashboards linking resources to results in global, regional, and country levels. And this reduces, obviously, duplication, but also lowers reporting burdens and strengthens evidence-based oversight. And finally, the UN country teams need greater flexibility. They must be able to deploy the right skills to design and deliver cooperation frameworks in an integrated way, and the regional collaborative platforms are a positive step in that direction. As they also pool expertise and support country teams more effectively, but we need to empower resident coordinators and their authority to decide what is needed to implement the country's priorities. Our focus should be clear, in our opinion. We should review and rationalize mandates so the UNCTs work with fewer, clearer priorities. We should strengthen system-wide oversight by aligning the Secretariat, the funds, the programs, and specialized agencies under shared accountability frameworks. Also, we should establish a unified results system to track performance across mandates, budgets, and outcomes; streamline regional structures and expand common administrative platforms; and reinforce the Funding Compact and incentivize pooled, flexible financing aligned with cooperation frameworks. I believe— we believe these steps will help the UN Development System deliver coherently, efficiently, and with greater impact., especially in this very demanding moment. And this is also exactly what Member States expect as we approach the UN80. I would like to stop it here. Thank you so much. Doy la gracias a la señora presidenta.

I thank the chargé d'affaires of Croatia, and I now give the floor— as we enter the interactive section, I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Uruguay on behalf of the G77 and China.

Muchísimas gracias.

Thank you very much, Ambassador. We thank the representatives of the UNDP as well as the Executive Director of UNICEF.

Statement on behalf of the Group of 77 and China. The group appreciates this dialogue on the progress in the implementation of UN development system reforms, including the structural reforms set out in General Assembly Resolution No. 72/279 and implications of the UN Haiti proposals for the delivery of development mandates. At the outset, the Group of 77 and China wishes to emphasize that the eradication of poverty in all its forms and dimensions and the implementation of development commitments, including the 2030 Agenda and its goal of leaving no one behind, must remain the key focus of the UN development system agenda while taking into account national priorities and circumstances.. The Group also considers it essential that the views, needs and priorities of Programme Countries be placed at the centre of any potential reform and that any decision is directed to strengthen rather than to weaken the development mandates. With less than 5 years remaining until the 2030 deadline, the Group of 77 and China shares the Secretary-General's concern regarding what he has described as a development emergency. In this regard, the Group deeply regrets that despite two iterations of the Funding Compact, the anticipated shift toward core, pooled, and flexible financing has not materialized in any meaningful way. The UN Development System, including the Resident Coordinator System, should be adequately funded to operate, and to do so in full conformity with national development priorities and relevant intergovernmental mandates. The Group of 77 and China remains firmly committed to engaging actively and constructively in the discussion of the UN Haiti Initiative and recognizes progress made to strengthen coordination and efficiencies between development entities to maximize impact, including by sharing services, platforms, technology, and data. The Group acknowledges that some of the proposals included in Workstream 3 could build on the repositioning reform approved by member states so far, while also providing an opportunity to mobilize urgently needed financial resources. While the Group considers these efforts to be extremely important, it believes that adequate time is needed to understand the exact challenges we face, assess the implications of any structural reforms, analyze alternatives and conduct inclusive and transparent intergovernmental negotiations on all actions for which intergovernmental consideration is envisaged. Ensuring respect of the diverse operational realities of field presences and avoiding disruptions to field-based support and service delivery is also key. The Group also wishes to remind the central role of the General Assembly in setting broad policy orientations for operational activities for for development and approving any structural reform. Regarding specific UNHCR proposals, the group would like to ask whether you could elaborate on the Secretariat's vision behind Work Package 5 on UN Country Teams Reconfiguration and Work Package 6 pertaining to the regional reset, including by—

Your Excellency, you need more time for— can we allocate More time for the— One more minute? One more minute? Please give us a sec. There you go.

Thank you so much, Ambassadors, to finish the question that I was putting on package 5 and 6, including by providing concrete examples of the practical impact on the UN system country-level presence and on the regional offices, including regional economic commissions. The group would also welcome further information on the concrete differences between the regional collaborative platforms RCPs established as part of the 2018 repositioning and the UNAT proposal to replace them with Regional Platforms of Integration or RPIs. To finish, let me reassure you that the Group of 77 and China is aligned with the vision and ambition of the UNAT initiative to deliver better on the ground. Thank you so much. Thank you for the flexibility. Muchas gracias.

I thank the distinguished representative of Uruguay. I'll now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Brazil. You have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Administrator, Madam Executive Director. Brazil associates itself with the statement delivered by G77 and China, and we welcome this opportunity to engage with the leadership of the UN Development System. We recognize the significant progress achieved since the repositioning of the UN Development System. The Resident Coordinator System is stronger and cooperation frameworks have become the main reference for UN support at country level. There have also been important gains in transparency, independent evaluation, operational efficiency and inter-agency cooperation— coordination. At the same time, we must address a fundamental question that remains unanswered: How can the Resident Coordinator herself or himself ensure effective coordination, national ownership, and alignment with national priorities when funding and governance mechanisms of UN entities are not within the RC purview? Part of the answer must necessarily be that the entities themselves work closely with the ERC and that their programmes comply with such principles. It is also critical that earmarking be reduced to a minimum. The UN Initiative offers a critical opportunity to address fragmentation, reduce duplication, and improve the way the UN development system delivers. Its success should be measured by its contribution to the optimal delivery of development mandates. Reconfiguration of country teams, regional platforms, Expertise on demand mechanisms and knowledge hubs are good. They should strengthen the capacity of the UN to respond to national priorities, but they must not create new layers of complexity. The ultimate test of reform must be impact on people's lives. Real poverty eradication, in all its forms and dimensions, must remain the overriding priority of the UN Development System. Leaving no one behind must guide policy advice, resource allocation, programming choices, and evaluation of results. This is particularly important at a time when many developing countries face debt pressures, fiscal constraints, climate shocks, and persistent inequalities. I thank you.

Doy la gracias, Lince. I thank the distinguished representative of Brazil. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Netherlands, to be followed by the United Kingdom and then Germany.

Thank you, Mr. Vice President. We sincerely thank all UN entity executive heads for your commitment under increasingly difficult circumstances. Declining funding has forced painful choices staff layoffs, skilled-backed programs, and an inability to reach the most vulnerable. We do not take that lightly. Much has, has been achieved since the UNDS repositioning, but significant gaps remain. As heard yesterday, and not for the first time, member states, DCO, and the RC system have a role. So do UN entities in this. We welcomed the DSG's call yesterday to address compliance in the relevant governing bodies. While repeating our own call from yesterday, transparency on entity compliance must be systematically made available to enable those bodies to act accordingly. On the cooperation framework, the cooperation framework must be the genuine central strategic document with joint budgeting and a costed results framework. Entity country programme must not only be derived from and aligned with the cooperation framework, they must be sequenced after it. A pro forma copy-paste is not alignment. Where this is not happening, governing bodies can and should act. On efficiency and consolidation. The data is stark. Only 4 common back offices against a target of 50, and just 33% of premises consolidated. We call for maximum efforts on common back offices, shared premises, and services. The case for every entity maintaining separate back offices can no longer be justified. On the reform checklist, only 68% of UN SDG members have completed and shared the reform checklist with their governing bodies. We call on all entities to do so without further delay. On engagement, the OAS is the principal moment for intergovernmental guidance to the UNDS. We encourage all entities to ensure consistent participation at the appropriate senior level throughout, as a signal of importance they attach to system-wide accountability. In closing, I have one question to the entities represented on the panel: What concrete steps are you taking to contribute to UN functioning as a truly coherent, effective, and efficient system, thereby echoing the questions highlighted by His Excellency, the Permanent Representative of Pakistan? Thank you.

Muchas gracias a la distinguida representante. I thank the distinguished Representative of the Netherlands, and now give the floor to the representative of the UK.

Thank you, Chair. The UK welcomes the commitment to UN AC reform from the panelists. Without strong leadership from agency heads, we risk missing this vital opportunity to make the UN development system fit for the future. There has been heightened attention on the proposed structural mergers, which has detracted from the delivery of other important and ambitious work packages. We continue to support the implementation of these practical reforms, which we view as falling within the remit and authority of the Secretary-General, Deputy Secretary-General, and agency heads to implement. Examples of these include reconfiguring UN country teams to achieve a leaner, context-specific, a more efficient yet impactful footprint, enhancing regional support for streamlined UN country teams through the regional reset, and strengthened expertise-on-demand offer, expanding the use of shared services and common back offices, and refocusing UN country-level work on norms, technical, and policy expertise, and convening power with other development actors. I will make 3 key points. First, while much focus rightly lands on the power with the SG to enact positive changes that will reform the UN development system, responsibility also lies with agency heads to ensure that reforms are fully implemented and truly transformative. Actions must match warm words, including ensuring all agency country-based and regional leaders understand the need for collective efforts to drive forward reforms. Engagement with reforms cannot be tokenistic or half-hearted, and this includes fully delivering against the 2018 reforms. This leads to my second point. The QCPR reaffirmed the RC's central role in ensuring coherence and support supporting national development goals. The RC system is a shared investment, and the cost-sharing arrangement is a critical pillar of the funding model. We welcome the commitment from UN agencies to fund the RC system through the cost-sharing arrangement and must continue to see all relevant entities contribute to the RC system. Agencies should fully back the RC system on the ground and ensure that none of their activities, appointments, or strategies undermine the RC, the in-country leader of the UN. And third, agencies must ensure genuine alignment between cooperation frameworks and agency-specific programmatic priorities, including on key outcomes that reflect the UN Charter, including human rights and gender equality. The SG report stated 84% of cooperation frameworks processes have been adjusted to, have been adjusted to accommodate entity program document timelines rather than driving them. Uh, in the interest of time, we'll publish the full Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom and now give the floor to the representative of Germany.

President, Administrator Dukro, Madam Executive Director Russell, distinguished delegates. We thank you for this important dialogue on the future of the UN Development System. We commend the efforts undertaken by UN entities to advance reform implementation under increasingly difficult financial and political circumstances. We recognize that the decisions required in this context have not been easy. Germany remains deeply committed to the UN development system, and we welcome UN organizations such as UNDP to the city of Bonn to strengthen our cooperation further. We would like to raise two points. First, we welcome increasing efficiency gains through shared practices. Common services and shared back offices are important, but efficiency is not an end in itself. It must strengthen delivery in program countries. Our question is: How are entities tracking whether reported efficiency gains translate into better support in country program— in program countries? Second, We continue to see a gap between formal integration and integrated delivery. Compliance with cooperation frameworks and business operation strategy matters, but the real test is whether these instruments lead to more joint programming, less duplication, and stronger collective results, as Catherine Russell also alluded to in her insightful introduction. Our, our question is: what concrete steps are organizations putting in place to move from parallel implementation towards joint delivery and shared results. Finally, let me reassure you: Germany stands ready to engage constructively in the UNAT reform with one clear objective: a UN development system that is truly greater than the sum of its parts. Thank you.

Hola, gracias al distinguido representante de Alemania. I thank the distinguished representative of Germany. And I now give the floor to Sweden.

Mr. Vice President, Excellencies, we appreciate the presence of the UNDP Administrator and the Executive Director of UNICEF here today, illustrating your commitment to UN coherence. Sweden has consistently called on all UN entities to fully implement Resolution 79226 Resolution 72279, focusing on efficient and effective collective delivery at country level through joint efforts. We have done so in the Executive Boards as well as in our bilateral dialogues with individual entities. Furthermore, we have sent instructions to all of our embassies to engage with the UNAD process through RCs and UN country teams. All of this with one aim: to ensure and promote coherence across all boards and levels. We have highlighted the centrality of the cooperation frameworks as the key engine to drive these reforms, not least the UN country team configuration. The SG report, however, notes that the cooperation frameworks continue to be regarded as secondary to individual entities' programming tools and timelines. We would welcome your candid reflections on how we could make the cooperation framework the strategic tool it was meant to and has to be. We also note that incentive structures continue to reward individual mandate implementation and resource mobilization. How can we move towards an approach where collective engagement and delivery is valued higher than accomplishments that are organization-specific. UNDP has many areas of expertise, but including sustainable development and economics. UNICEF, in addition to child protection expertise, has one of the most successful communications teams in the UN systems. And UN Women, for example, is a bearer of expertise in one of the key mandates, gender equality. We would welcome your reflections on how we could facilitate the unleashing of your respective organizations' expertise for the benefit of the full UN team, including through the RCs. As principals of some of the most norm-setting and operational organizations, we value your input at this stage, and we expect your organizations to be at the forefront of a process leading to increased—

I thank the distinguished representative of Sweden, and I now give the I now give the floor to Nepal on behalf of the LDCs, followed by the EU. Mr.

President, Excellencies, I have the honor to speak on behalf of the group of least developed countries. We thank the Secretary-General and the United Nations system for their continued support to the LDCs and the implementation of the Doha Programme of Action. A blueprint for enabling LDCs to achieve sustainable development, build resilience, and advance towards graduation. Mr. President, LDCs remain the furthest behind, accounting for 14% of the global population, but only 1.3% of global GDP and less than 1% of global merchandise exports. Nearly one-third of people In LDCs continue to live in extreme poverty and the gains achieved over previous decades have been reversed by successive global crises. These realities demand stronger and more coordinated action by the United Nations system. We welcome progress made on the implementation of GA Resolution on QCPR. However, we note with concern that ODA is declining globally, as highlighted in the Secretary-General's report on QCPR, and UN revenues are projected to fall by 21% in nominal terms by 2027. We recognize the progress made in the RC system and the overall positive assessment of the effectiveness of United Nations country teams in LDCs. We also commend the effective leadership of RCs in ensuring that UN country teams provide strategic support aligned with national plans and priorities. With fewer than 5 years left to achieve the SDGs and the upcoming midterm review, implementation of the DPOA must be accelerated through increased resources and stronger partnership. We therefore call for the UN system to enhance coordination, accountability, and monitoring of the implementation efforts. The LDC Group encouraged the UN system to intensify support for implementing the 6 priority areas of the Doha Programme for Action to accelerate progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals. Mr. President, to maximize impact, DPoA priorities should be systematically integrated into UN Sustainable Development Cooperation Frameworks with strengthened coordination, monitoring, and accountability. Across the UN system while ensuring WHO RLS is well-resourced to advance coherent and effective delivery for LDCs. We further underscore the important role of the United Nations system in supporting the implementation of the Doha Programme of Action. To deliver on the ambition of the DPOA, the UN development system must be adequately resourced and equipped to provide coordinated, integrated, and tailored support to to LDCs at country, regional, and global levels. We encourage member states and development partners to support the strengthening of UN operational and analytical capacities for LDCs, including through predictable and sustainable financing for programs that advance productive capacity development, human capacity development, climate resilience, digital transformation, and sustainable graduation. In closing, Mr. President, A well-resourced and effective LDC-focused support mechanism is vital to ensure that—

I thank Nepal and now give the floor to the EU.

Thank you, Vice President. Excellencies, colleagues, I have the honor to deliver this statement on behalf of the EU and its Member States. Thank you to the Executive Director and the Administrator. As you know, we are strong supporters politically and financially of both UNDP and UNICEF, and we meet at a moment of unprecedented pressure and opportunity. The UNAID initiative is not merely a reform, it is a test of our collective ability to deliver on the promise of the SDGs amid converging crises. It is clear we need faster, smarter, bolder action on the ground, and that implies a buy-in by all actors of the UN system, including the agencies and the membership. As the reports shared in advance of the OAS demonstrate, We need to finish the unfinished business of the reform of the UN Development System of 2018 and adapt it to the current context. We see 3 priorities that need to be pursued. First, strengthening the authority of the Resident Coordinator. The RC system is the gateway to the UN Development System, but we need to strengthen the system's ability to deliver as one, and here the agencies have a role to play. Second, UN Country Team reconfiguration needs to be implemented while ensuring this is supported by the regional reset and expertise on demand. The UNAD Initiative's regional reset builds on 2018 reforms and focuses on sub-regional collaboration, cross-border solutions, and regional financing, all while fostering synergies across UN entities and regional coordination mechanisms. In essence, we need to preposition expertise, simplify access to regional knowledge hubs, and ensure no country is left to navigate crisis alone. Third, equipping UN country teams for the future. The UN80 is our chance to future-proof the UN with predictive analytics, AI-driven solutions, and real-time monitoring, so that we are not just reacting to crisis, but anticipating and preventing them. The EU and its member states are ready to support the UN80 ambitions of the Secretary-General, and we need all actors to commit to those changes, engage in their implementation in the next year, and report back on progress. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the European Union. I'll now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Guatemala, to be followed by Indonesia and then Mexico. Thank you very much, Vice President. Guatemala considers that accountability for the development system should be measured on its ability to deliver coherent, concrete results that are centered around national priorities, reform, has revealed major progress in coordination, coherence, and coordinating presence on the ground. This progress should be maintained and deepened. In this context, the UN80 Initiative should be understood as an opportunity for reducing duplication, simplifying processes, and strengthening the efficiency of the system without weakening the development mandate or its operational efficacy in our countries. Guatemala, the key goal remains the same. All reform should contribute to eradicating poverty and leaving no one behind. This means that we must maintain a focus on the most vulnerable population, strengthen territorial action, and ensure that efficiency measures strengthen the capacity of the system to support sustainable transformational and inclusive change. I thank you. I thank the distinguished representative of Guatemala. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Indonesia.

Thank you, Mr. Vice President, Excellencies, distinguished delegates. We thank the UNDP Administrator and UNICEF Executive Director for their briefings and aligns itself with the statement delivered by Uruguay on behalf of the Group of 77 and China. As the UNEDD process moves forward, reforms must preserve mandates and should remain focused on accelerating the implementation of the 2030 Agenda, particularly for poverty eradication. There are 4 key issues that we would like to highlight. First, UNCT reconfiguration must be driven by host governments' needs, national development plans, and cooperation frameworks. Strengthening coordination should enhance rather than complicate the delivery of development support. We also see value in shared platforms for data, digital solutions, technology, and expertise that can help countries access integrated and practical support while avoiding duplication and unnecessary complexity. Second, the regional reset must reflect regional realities and priorities. Regional platforms should strengthen access to regional expertise, including through the regional commissions, while supporting cross-border challenges. Third, recalibration should strengthened country-level impact. Tailored RCO capacities, data, digital tools, SDG financing, and expertise on demand should help deliver integrated, practical, and measurable support while avoiding duplication. Finally, sustainable financing remains essential. Strengthening cooperation between RCs and UN entities, supported by more predictable and flexible funding, including reduced earmarking, would enhance coherence and collective results at the country level. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Indonesia. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Mexico. Thank you very much, Vice President. In the context of the UN Haiti Initiative and the preparations ahead of the QCPR of Operational Activities for Development, we consider that it is essential for any reform effort to be underpinned by evidence and concrete results. In this regard, we encourage the entities of the system to clearly identify where real duplications currently exist and what steps they will take to correct them without weakening specialized mandates that continue to be essential for countries. Realignment decisions should respond to the impact on the ground and not solely to budgetary considerations. Mexico also supports a more efficient United Nations. However, efficiency must serve sustainable development, poverty eradication, and reducing inequalities. At a time of historic contraction in development cooperation, reform of the system must preserve the redistributive function of multilateralism avoiding adjustments from disproportionately affecting vulnerable populations and countries with less fiscal space. Likewise, we consider that excessively earmarked financing has generated incentives that favor competition between actors. A system that competes internally for resources cannot offer integrated responses to complex challenges. This is why the UN Haiti Reform Initiative must contribute to correcting these incentives, promoting greater financial flexibility and accountability that is based on collective results. In the environmental sphere, Mexico believes that reforms should prioritize the use and strengthening of existing capacities. In this connection, we stress the importance of preserving and strengthening Nairobi's role as a strategic center for multilateral environmental governance. The search for efficiencies should not translate into an erosion of capabilities that have proven their value in supporting implementation of international environmental commitments. Similarly, the discussion on strengthening the development system cannot be disassociated from the broader debate on financing for development. It's essential that we consider issues such as debt sustainability, fiscal space, domestic resource mobilization, and the systemic risks of the international financial architecture. I thank you. Distinguished Representative of Mexico. I now give the floor to the Distinguished Representative of Zambia.

Thank you very much, Chair, and I thank the heads of the institutions for making time to be with us. This platform is very important as we— it gives us opportunity to have dialogue and learning between agencies and member states, so we really appreciate. Also, I think it's important to point out that We're living really in a world of increasing uncertainty and the issue of alignments becomes extremely important. We do want to highlight that in all this, the issue around maintaining development as the key pillar of the UN becomes— remains essential. I also want to point out the issue around poverty reduction is a key issue as well, but of course the country frameworks have to remain flexible enough to respond to shocks. So that's the important characteristic that must be there. I concur with many of the views that have been put forward regarding the concerns regarding declining ODA and the importance of strengthening core financing, especially for delivery on the ground. Also, we concur with many of the issues that have been put forward regarding alignment between the cooperation framework and the development plans. The key intervention we have today relates to preserving what the UN actually is known for, its comparative advantages, and we think that sometimes this gets lost in the discussion, that we want to reform the UN but we must preserve those issues that the UN is known for. As we're going through the reform, we must ensure that we protect that. And the key issue here, I would want to stand on the issue of knowledge, and preserving the knowledge remains an important issue. We all know that with the fragmentation comes with fragmentation— fragmented knowledge, and the UN has vast knowledge over the decades. The question that we have for the heads of the agency relates to how are we curating the knowledge that we have so that we can package it and put it forward. We do acknowledge that the issue of the regional reset and the knowledge hubs presents a great opportunity, but the question is, within your respective institutions, how are we preserving this important comparative advantage in the context of declining ODA? I think it's important that partnerships and the issue of knowledge become much more important, especially for countries that are going through transition. I thank you very much. Gracias, Aliti.

I thank the distinguished representative of Zambia. We have been asked to ensure that statements are delivered at a normal speaking speed to facilitate the work of the interpreters. I'll now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Switzerland, to be followed by Mozambique and then Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Vice President, Excellencies. We thank Administrator de Croo and Executive Director Russell for their interventions. Switzerland attaches great importance to coherence of the UN development system delivering at country level and strong RC leadership, and we expect UN country teams— sorry, and we expect UN entities to support RC leadership in practice. Let me allow to make two remarks in that regard. First, as we already heard by other delegations, the cooperation framework should be the single costed system-wide strategy at country level. Entity-specific country programme documents must be sequenced after and genuinely derived from cooperation frameworks. However, the SG report on the QCPR implementation shows that 84% of cooperation frameworks processes are adjusted to accommodate timelines of agency country programme timelines, resulting in only partial alignment and continued parallel planning processes. Processes. In your view, what are the challenges in ensuring that the entity-specific country programme documents are sequenced after and fully derived from the cooperation frameworks? And how could we as member states help support you in that regard? Second, we support a stronger role for RCs in performance assessments of agencies' representatives. We call on all agencies to more systematically request and integrate RC feedback into their performance assessments of agency representatives with a specific focus on, on their contribution to collective results and delivery of the cooperation framework. In the performance assessments of your representatives, do you have an indicator for joint resource mobilization and/or collaboration and joint work more broadly? I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Switzerland. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Mozambique.

We welcome this opportunity to engage with the UN Development System executive heads and particularly with Executive Director of UNICEF and the Administrator of UNDP. This is particularly important given the role of your agencies, which we consider primus inter pares amongst the development entities in our particular country context. Given your operational footprint, programmatic reach, and strategic contribution to the Cooperation Framework implementation in our countries, and obviously the important dialogue you have with our national entities. We also recognize that the realities here in New York and even in our national capitals can differ from the realities on the ground. It is often easier to agree on alignment at the level of global guidance or national planning than to translate it into the day-to-day operational practice across sectors, provinces, districts, and implementation sites. That is why alignment is for us a serious issue. Moçambique has seen progress. We have seen joint strategic validations by UN agencies presented in a harmonized manner. This is a practical example of the kind of alignment we wish to see more often. As UNAT advances, we see opportunities for agency incentives to evolve. Executive heads have a key role in ensuring that country representatives are assessed not only by agencies specific resource mobilizations, but also by their contribution to collective outcomes. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Mozambique. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Vice President and Excellencies, colleagues. We thank the UNDP Administrator and the UNICEF Executive Director for being here with us today. Canada hears your statements on financing of reforms not coming at the expense of core, and also on ensuring that country presence reflects needs, priorities, and comparative advantage. On that, we have two points and questions really for, for you both. On expertise on demand, we're interested to hear from your entity vantage points what opportunities this mechanism would allow for stronger programming within cooperation frameworks, but also your ability to implement individual entity strategic plans, uh, where you would recommend identifying this expertise, or how I should say, and what concerns you see with this model and how you would recommend it be financed. Secondly, we note with concern in the reports that entities are reportedly deprioritizing the cost sharing and the payment of the coordination levy for the RC system. We ask, how are you ensuring compliance in the levy payment and Would the suggestion to apply the levy to non-humanitarian core funding simplify payment? Finally, what challenges are you experiencing and how can member states help?

Thank you. I thank the distinguished representative of Canada. We have heard from the last speaker in our list. I will now— that leaves us about 15 minutes. I will now give the floor to the Executive Director, Russell, to respond to some of the questions.

And—

Well, thank you very much. And I want to really thank all of you for the active participation. You've asked many, many questions. I can't pretend that I can answer all of those here, but I would like to go through a couple of the points and see if we can give you some sense of where we stand on these. First, I do very much appreciate the many comments that were made about effective reform, and I have to say again, and I said it in my comments, how critical that is for UNICEF. For us, UNICEF has a very important mission, we believe, a noble mission, honestly, to take care of children around the world, and we are doing our best to do that. There is certainly space for us to do better in terms of how we cooperate with our colleagues across the UN system, but at the end of the day, we take that responsibility seriously, and everything that we talk about has to be not in the sense of reform for the sake of reform, but reform that really makes it better for us to respond to the needs of children and to serve to serve children around the world. So there are just a couple points that I'd like to make. First, UN is— I mean, UNICEF is fully committed to UNAIDI reform, and I think we participate across every one of these sectors and are doing our best to try to add value to all of the work that is being done here. We think it's important to try to build a leaner, more coherent system that delivers better results on the ground. and I have to stress that the decisions that you all will make here in the next several weeks are absolutely critical to whether we will, as a UN system, be able to deliver or not for children. This is not an abstraction. This is a— the real measure of success for us is whether we reach every child faster, more effectively, and at greater scale, particularly in crises and fragile contexts. On the humanitarian reform, let me just say We are trying to contribute practical solutions to the reform agenda, and many of you have heard about the work we're doing with WFP on the integrated humanitarian supply chain, which is already generating some operational efficiencies in complex emergencies. On country presence, UNICEF supports differentiated and context-specific country typologies, and I have to say, Am I cut off? Excellent. Not at all. Not at all. Wow. Okay. That would be good. No. I think that we have a very important principle here that we bring to bear, which is that this is not a one-size-fits-all response. We really need to look at the country and understand what the needs are of the country and figure out what the presence should be. And I can't stress enough that I know that it's harder to do it takes a lot more time, but it's just— it's not that simple. I mean, we spend a lot of time thinking about our country typologies in a more general sense of middle-income countries versus conflict countries or whatever, but even with that, I think you need to go deeper and really think about what each country needs. On funding, I appreciate the comments that have been made on the importance of a balanced funding mix, and core funding— I say this constantly— Alexander mentioned it— absolutely critical to our ability to move fast and flexibly in settings. Just as an example, the recent challenges we're facing in the DRC and Uganda on Ebola, our ability to bring core resources to bear made a huge— did I say Angola? No, Uganda. Did I say Angola? Uganda. Anyway, to really bring resources to to bear quickly, which we have been able to do. And I just want to stress how important the core resources are for us. Earmarked and pooled funding obviously have an important role to play too, but I think the key for donors and governments is to understand— excuse me— that we need to have the blend of those different efforts. On data, I just want to stress how important that is to us. And that goes along with the discussions today on sort of information sharing. We obviously believe that if governments don't know what's happening with children in their countries, we're not going to be able to respond efficiently. We invest a lot in data. We are leading the data effort on UNAID reform. I think the key is that we've got to build up national systems so that they're able to do this as well. But it is— it's an important issue, I think, to really have the best data and the best sharing of resources, which I think— resources around information, knowledge, experience. And I think that we, again, take that seriously. We have, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, set up what we are calling Centers of Excellence that are focused on different issues that that relate to children. Sharing that information is critical. Our view is that the governments ultimately are the ones who are doing the work to support children in their countries. They need the best data and information and research that we have in order to do that, and we take that, that responsibility seriously. So I would say, just to, to sort of sum up, you know, we have our board meeting coming up. We will continue to address, uh, some some of these challenges there and engaging in our Executive Board where we have dedicated sessions on both UNAID and UN Development System reform. Also happy to provide, to the extent that you all have specific questions which several of you have raised today, happy to respond to you in writing if that's useful, and we did track the questions, so we'll follow up.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Executive Director. Administrator de Croo, You have the floor.

Yes, thank you. I think this very, very useful discussion or— I mean, it's a discussion now that you answer— that we're having here and it's quite interesting to see which elements are being brought forward and where the commonality is. And I'm trying to find commonality because that's how we need to move forward. I think we're at the point now where we should start connecting the dots of what is feasible between us. And I know in certain elements there's different points of views, but in many elements there's actually quite some coherence, and that I think is important, is to move it forward. I think first of all, almost every one of you talked about delivery, about impact in the country about how the UNHCR reform should be a reform that helps us in being better on the operational side. Many of you talked about the fact that it should make things less complicated, less administrative, faster, more direct, and we agree 100% with that. A lot of questions on country programme documents, cooperation frameworks, and others. Look, today, the country programme documents, before they go to the Executive Board, they are signed off by the national country, and they are signed off by the Resident Coordinator, which to me is the best guarantee that if we make a CPD, it fits in the Country Framework. And, I mean, the content of those Country Frameworks, I think it's quite clear. I mean, it defines the national development priorities, it defines the theory of change, it defines what is the role of everyone. And the CPDs of course, are made by the different entities, but today it is impossible to make a CPD which is not aligned with the country frameworks. It's impossible to do that today. And sometimes I have the feeling that that existence of those country frameworks is maybe not known enough on how actually— how it really defines what the framework in which you work. Of course, then the CPDs are costed, then they are approved by our Executive Boards. So it is for us a very, very limiting document in which we work, but by definition it is within a country framework. Now, it's important that there is no interruption of operations. Because all of the operational entities that make CPDs, we do that in a process together with national governments and with our Executive Board continuously. It is being tested on whether this fits with the cooperation frameworks or not. But if we would now say, 'No, we first have to stop everything, make a cooperation framework, and then restart everything,' you will have operational consequences. And I think is honestly the last thing that we want. I think here, really, let's look at what functions and let's fix what is not functioning. But really, let's go for different countries and look where you would have CPDs which are not coordinated in the country frameworks, and the RC is the master of it because the RC signs off every CPD before it goes to the executive boards. Second element was on expertise on demand. I think to me expertise on demand, there's two main things that come out of it. First of all is that it guarantees that you always get access to the best expertise that is available. That means that Expertise on Demand guarantees that if a certain organization, certain entity is doing the implementation or doing the programming of a certain type of work, that in a mandatory way it will always call on other agencies that are the expertise agencies. Today, before Expertise on Demand, that was not always the case. I think we have to be clear on that. Before Expertise on Demand, well, often the entity doing the project was the one that had the best political contacts or maybe was best in fighting with elbows. It was not always calling on other entities to have the best expertise which is available. Expertise on Demand guarantees that, and that's the first thing, is guaranteeing you that you get access to the best that the UN has to deliver. The second element is that it changes the dynamic of country presence. I think some of you talked about how many different entities are present in your country. Sometimes it's between 20 and 25, sometimes even 30 agencies that are present. Many of these do work, but not all of them. Some of them are present because they want to make sure that if new projects are being put on the table, that they are present and that they would get access to it. That is a dynamic that you need to break. I think the logic in which we need to go is that you have a few organizations with a broad operational network that are present, but that guarantee that if a certain topic comes on the table, you will call on to the other entity that is not present in the country, but that can use the platforms typically of UNICEF, ours, and, and and others. And so we are really a big believer of expertise on demand. I think it is quite a low-cost way of working, and on one of the biggest careabouts that I hear often is that there is such a broad country presence, I think it is the ideal segue of breaking that cycle of having to be present to get financing, but leading to a high degree of an efficient efficiency. There were some interventions on the need of flexibility. We agree with that. I think that the present that you need to have needs to be adapted to the size of what you are confronted with, but also to the priorities which are being set by the national governments. It needs to be demand-driven, not offer-driven. I am trying to make sure that— I guess everything has been covered. Yes, maybe worth to mention is that, as I said, I think that especially on country team configuration, we are at the element of moving forward, but please let's make sure that the operational capacity that the operational entities have, that these are uninterrupted. Let's fix what needs to be fixed., but please let's keep what functions for the moment. And 5 organizations have made a letter where we specifically address certain things which we think still need to be addressed, and these are— I'm trying to make sure that I mention all 5 of them— UNICEF, WFP, UNDP, UNHCR, and WHO. So it's a coordinated document that those 5 organizations have made in trying to specify certain elements where we want to make sure that our operational capacities are still maintained. In broad lines, there are 4 big elements that we push forward. First of all, if you do If we move forward, you need to make sure that you remain in the G8 resolution. The G8 resolution is very, very clear, the one of 2018 is very, very clear on the coordinating role. Some of you have mentioned the need for more authority in coordination. We agree with that. I think if you want that coordinating role to be successful, from time to time the RC needs to have the capacity to say, well, you know, I'm going to use my authority to make sure that the coordination actually does happen. I think in the majority of the cases today that actually is already the case. I mean, we work extremely well together with the RC system. Can you further improve it? Yes, but I would say that today it is already something where we see definitely benefit. Second element is that there's the interaction between the country frameworks and the CPDs. I think we talked about it. Third element is that if there is need for financing to the reforms, please don't come take our core funding of our programme funding to do it. We really, really need that for our operational side, and we need to make sure that the direct access is something that is still maintained. Thank you.

Very well, thank you very much. Well, let me thank our panelists, both Executive Director Russell and Administrator DeCroix, as well as to all the delegations that have made statements today. We have done very well with the time management, so thank you for that as well. I now briefly pause the meeting to allow the podium to be rearranged for the next panel discussion. Please remain seated. Thank you. We are done. Very well.

It's done? It's still in progress, but I think we can begin.

Should we begin? Colleagues, I now invite the Council. To resume its consideration on Agenda Item 7, Operational Activities of the United Nations for International Development Cooperation, and to hold the Dialogue on UN Development System Funding. Funding remains one of the defining challenges facing the United Nations Development System at a time of rising global needs and growing fiscal pressures. Recent funding trends point not only to reduced overall resources but also, also to persistent structural issues in how the system is funded. As you Member States continue to call for a more coherent, a more integrated and effective development system, This session provides an opportunity to reflect on whether current funding arrangements and institutional incentives are aligned with those ambitions. This discussion We'll examine how the Funding Compact can be further operationalized at country level, and how funding approaches and system-wide collaboration can help strengthen collective delivery in an increasing constrained global financing environment. The ECOSOC will now hold a panel discussion on, and I quote, "Dialogue on UN Development System Funding," and I am pleased to welcome our distinguished panelists. First, Mr. Jens Wendel, the Secretary-General's Special Adviser on Reform. Second, Mr. Oscar Fernández Taranco, Assistant Secretary-General for Development Coordination at the DCU, and Miss Elena Panova, United Nations Resident Coordinator in Egypt, and Mr. Pakodir Burhanov, Resident Coordinator in Lao People's Democratic Republic, as well as our lead discussion, Her Excellency Merit Field Bratested, Permanent Representative of Norway. I first give the floor to Mr. Jens Wender. You have the floor, sir.

Thank you very much, Mr. President, distinguished delegates. Many figures have been discussed yesterday and also this morning. I'll just leave you with a few. In 2024, the United Nations system has $68 billion. We estimate for 2027 that the United Nations systems will have nominally around $50 billion, but if you control for inflation, the real figure is probably $48 billion. That's a drop of 29%, but it's still a significant amount of money, and if we do manage those money better and build on them, maybe we can get somewhere. Enough for the figures. From where I sit, to reverse this trend for both core funding and pool financing, We need to frame that discussion in a broader discussion on how United Nations can reposition its grant finance business model in a way that helps reverse the widening implementation gap in the sustainable development. Only if we frame it this way, we can reverse the trend. Here, the funding review that we are working on the— in UNHCR can contribute in that position, but it cannot do so alone.. It sits along other UNHCR initiatives, including the Country Configuration, the Regional Reset, Expertise on Demand, and several structural reform proposals on the table. And our strategy to reverse the situation should be brought into UN-based both goals and development strategies going forward. However, in short term, even if we are unable to attract significantly more resources, we can still reduce fragmentation. Institutional fragmentation, funding fragmentation, and mandate fragmentation. By doing so, we can devote a greater share of available resources to results rather than managing complexity. With this broader setting in mind, let me now turn to funding. One of the clearest conclusions emerging for the work is that we as the United Nations must accept that we operate within a mixed funding model, and we need to optimize our work within that model. That model is overwhelmingly dominated by earmarked funding, and again, I will go out on a limb and say a good figure for 2027 is probably 10% core, 3% pool financing, and the rest earmarked, 87%. At the same time, earmarked funding comes from a large and diverse group of contributors, whereas core and pooled funding are provided by a much smaller group of partners. Many of these partners are in the room today. So where do we go from there in this mix? If we want to reverse the decline in core and pooled funding, I think we should highlight 3 priorities. Priority number 1 relates to the fact that donors, very legitimately, seek visibility over how resources are used and what results they achieve. For both core and development pool financing, donors often wait a year or two to hear about how their money actually relates to results. We should move towards a model where financial allocations, expenditures, and results can be viewed in near real time and linked directly to activities and outcomes on the ground.. This would allow donors and UN entities to engage more in a more active dialogue, both on performance but also course correction. In short, we need to move from retrospective transparency to real-time results transparency. Second, our analysis suggests that while donors often use the word visibility, they do not all mean the same thing. Some want to see results at the country level, others prefer aggregated system-wide results. At best, the UN today produces one type of result— report for results, but the UN needs to accommodate those different needs and see how we will allow— and that will allow donors to maybe give more to core and pooled. Thirdly, we are a fragmented system, so for getting the donor visibility right, we need to build on achieved sound transparency standards that we were introducing 20 years ago, and now undertake similar efforts to establish agreed standards for results and impact reporting so that performance becomes comparable across funding instruments and entities, something mentioned today by the distinguished delegate from Croatia, who I do not believe is in the room— oh no, sorry, you are. Second priority, we have We have discussed quality of core and pool funding, and I think the quality discussion is, of course, important. However, I think it's time we introduce a new quality, you can say, category, and that is quality for earmarking. And if 80% of our funding, it stands to reason that all earmarking is not the same. Some could probably be better than others. Some forms of earmarking which are multi-year draw upon existing agency capacities, align with established pipelines of work, and accept standard reporting. They are easier to manage and more impactful than funding that is short-term, that is customized, administratively intensive, and disconnected from broader programs. What happens is if you accept that there is high-quality earmarking and lower-quality earmarking, it is important because the lower-quality earmarking is more expensive to manage and probably, as also mentioned, it may not have the same kind of development impact. The difficulty we have today is that earmarking today is priced the the same. So low-quality earmarking and high-quality earmarking is priced the same. And that begs the question, who pays for the management of low-quality earmarking? And that, in my view, is part of the conversation that undermines the case for CORE, because the implicit answer is that this is CORE that pays for this. If I am correct, this is very damaging for the case for CORE. For that reason, one of the ideas emerging from the review is that both donors and agencies We should gradually move away from low-quality earmarking arrangements and toward a funding mix that combines core funding, pooled funding, and high-quality earmarking. The third and last priority is: we need to strengthen and rationalize pooled financing. In particular, on the development side, we believe adjustments are needed. The first way to do this is we need to strengthen the overall architecture In the pooled funding landscape, instruments such as CERF, the Peace Building Fund, they have clear institutional identities and recognized system-wide roles. We need a development pooled funding anchor, and that suggests a repositioning of the Joint SGD Fund so it would be the third part of a triumvirate of system-wide pooled funding arrangements that would anchor the joint UN actions where needed and when needed. Secondly, we need to address fragmentation. Today we probably have more than 150 pooled funding instruments on the development side and this has led to an unmanaged proliferation that lacks institutional anchoring. We therefore need to examine options to scale, to close, or to merge development funds and pooled funds and see even if we can have some of these funds with joint secretariats. The objective is not necessarily fewer funds; the objective is that funds are strategically aligned, clearly differentiated, and recognized as a system-wide instrument rather than a standalone fundraising vehicle. And finally, we should build stronger transparency. Most of the development pool funding instruments, they are managed by the MPCFO office. They have a very good platform for financial transparency. However, they do not have a platform that allows us full cycle management so we can get financing and results onto the same platform, and I think this is going to be very important. So with those concrete priorities as an input to the panel discussion, I'd like to hand over the floor.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. Jens Wendt. Thank you, Mr. Jens Wendel. I now give the floor to Mr. Oscar Fernández-Taranco.

You have the floor, sir. Merci, Monsieur le Président. Thank you, Chair. Colleagues, so the Funding Compact, as we all know, has helped actually establish the common framework for improving the quality, predictability, transparency, and effectiveness of of the financing of the UN development system. It has also stimulated dialogues at the country level, and we've had more than 90 recorded in the different reports that have been submitted for your attention, and they have also been complemented with dialogues that have been taking place in the executive— in the governing bodies and in this ECOSOC OAS and QCPR process. These discussions have actually helped establish beginnings of a more monitoring of the mutual accountabilities, but certainly more transparency and better understanding of the funding trends of the sort that Jens just described, maintaining a certain attention to the importance of this balanced and sustainable funding base and mix. As we do the review of the Funding Compact, I think it's also important to recognize where Member States have been performing. I know that there's quite been a lot of the underperformance on the side of the member states as compared to those undertaken by the UN system, but again, based on the contributions that we've seen over the past 2 years, we have countries like Finland and Qatar who have not only met but also exceeded the targets of providing at least 30% of voluntary development contributions as core funding. We also have countries that have exceeded the target of 30% contribution to pooled funds. These are Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, and Finland. And we've also had countries that met or exceeded the targets of providing 15% to the thematic funding. Countries like Denmark, Liechtenstein, and Luxembourg, and the UK are countries to prove that this can happen, that we can have movement among member states for this more concerted, transparent, accountable mechanisms of performing against a funding compact that is a voluntary construct, but that took quite a lot of negotiations within the UN and among the member states. Looking ahead, the central question is not whether we need more reporting on the funding compact indicators, it's more like how do we use all this reporting and all this data data and all these dialogues that we have been having in order to address the challenges of the multilateral system funding. And here, the analysis taken by the colleagues in the Working Stream 18 of the UNAT Work Packages suggests that the pro— the challenge is no longer more reporting and more data, it's more the quality of the dialogue, it's how these issues are discussed in the governing boards, and how we have a global review process, because currently all these mechanisms are very fragmented, do not lend themselves to learn any lessons across different processes, and are not suit, really, for the purpose of identifying challenges and translating the findings into operational policy directives for our colleagues performing support at the country level. So in essence, the next phase of the Funding Compact should focus on strengthening the quality and the strategic intent of the dialogues to have more accountability and more follow-up and transparency. And here, 4 key actions going forward. First, the need to have within an annual— sorry, high-level review of the Funding Compact. Within the confines of this ECOSOC OAS session, today we're only according 90 minutes— to something that is mission-critical in terms of transparency, predictability, and understanding where the funding and what the impact of different funding sources has to align and to ensure coherence of the UN offer at the country level. The second is the need for a political dialogue that needs to be complemented by stronger management follow-up, and here I'm referring more to the UN Development that we need within the UN development system, the principles, some of which were here just before in the previous session, but we have some 34 of them, how we have these discussions within the UN SDG principles level, and then how we have at the ASG level a formalized ASG group on the funding compact follow-up. We have this established in an informal base, but I think we need to formalize that. The third action would be that we need to strengthen the linkages across all these different dialogues—the country, the governing board discussions, ECOSOC reviews—and again, have a clarity on what types of lessons we are taking and how they are being operationalized at the country level. And then, of course, something that comes out very clear in the two reports of the SG and the DSG—we need much more emphasis on learning, transparency, recognition recognition, and much clearer communication of results, and further and more easy-to-understand data systems across the different entities that do work on this issue. The last point here is that we have established a shared direction of travel within the UN and among member states. What we need now, of course, is a much more strategic dialogue, a more predictable place to to have these dialogues and to be able to translate this to the field. The last point, Mr. President, is that the Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation has undertaken a review of the Funding Compact and the dialogues and what it has achieved. This was part of the Funding Compact Agreement of 2024, and I understand that results are going to be shared with the member states in the coming weeks. Merci beaucoup, Monsieur le Président.

Thank you, Mr. Oscar Fernández Taranco. Now, let's hear from people on the ground. I give the floor to Ms. Elena Panova, Resident Coordinator in Egypt.

Thank you very much, Mr. President, Excellencies, distinguished representatives. Dear colleagues, thank you very much for this opportunity, and allow me to start by presenting the overall UN Development Funding picture in Egypt. Our current cooperation framework amounts to approximately $1.2 billion over 5 years. Yet, like many countries, we remain heavily dependent on earmarked funding. Out of the $580 million that have been delivered over the last 3 years, only 9% was in core funding. The rest is mainly earmarked, soft earmarked, joint programs, and a little bit, less than 4%, in thematic pool funds. What have we learned at country level? It is becoming very, very clear that when there is a strong government leadership, the UN country team is empowered to respond strategically, deliver better together, and the donors are encouraged to invest in integrated joint programming. Let me illustrate this with two brief examples. The first is Hayekarima, or the decent life, the largest government rural development program on the African continent, aiming to improve the lives of around 60 million people through investments in infrastructure, social services, and livelihoods. Given the strategic importance of this transformational government effort, as a Resident Coordinator, I mobilized the UN Country Team to support this initiative in a more coordinated and also coherent manner, reducing fragmentations and small projects here and there. Currently, 15 UN agencies are working across more than 80% of the targeted villages under this program. By bringing together UN contributions under one collective effort, the UN managed to build trust as a reliable partner to the government on this transformational effort, and also demonstrated visible results on the ground. This, in turn, has helped to mobilize more than $400 million in soft, earmarked contributions from various donors. The biggest one donor being in this, you know, $400 million is the European Union with $55 million for a joint program where 6 UN agencies come together. The lesson is very clear: joint funding works when it is anchored in national priorities and also backed by visible results. Our next step is to expand the partnership base through using the grant funding that we have as a blended finance instrument to leverage private sector financing in the villages and also ensure sustainability and scale of this huge development investment. Second example, this is our support to migrants, refugees, and host communities. Egypt hosts more than 10 million migrants and refugees, making this one of the country's most important national priority. As a resident coordinator, together with Ministry of Foreign Affairs, we launched a joint program for migrants, refugees, and host communities, factoring in the non-camp policy of Egypt, where migrants and refugees live together in the same host communities. With the technical leadership of UNHCR and IOM, they came together to work, you know, together on this program. We managed to bring and to rally all the UN agencies that contribute to the domain of migrants and refugees in one. With an initial contribution of around €20 million of soft earmarked funding from the EU, the joint program has already supported education for more than 300 thousand migrants and refugee students, healthcare services to over 200,000 migrants and refugees, and protection services for approximately 150,000 vulnerable migrants and refugees. This joint effort has attracted further additional funding from Canada and Italy, which we are now negotiating. So let me conclude, dear excellencies, with where I started. The experience from Egypt is very straightforward. First, the country is asking for scale, coherence, and alignment, and the donors are willing to follow when there is a national ownership and strong government capacity to lead. Second, this leads to high expectation of the UN country team under the leadership of the Resident Coordinator to deliver transformational results at scale and also to work together. And third, and very important, we must move beyond Funding, and look really into the financing. As the ODA comes under increasing pressure, innovative approaches such as blended finance, debt swaps, government cost sharing, and other catalytic instruments will become increasingly important when they are firmly anchored into the national priorities and the country reality. Thank you, Mr. President.

Now I will give the floor to Mr. Bahodir Burhanov, Resident Coordinator in Laos People's Democratic Republic. You have the floor, sir. Thank you.

Mr. President, I'm pleased to contribute to this session from my country of posting, Laos PDR, a lower-middle-income country that is Southeast Asia's only landlocked state and one that is expected to graduate from LDC status this year. Laos has been disproportionately affected by ODA funding cuts. It is among most heavily impacted countries in Asia and the Pacific, with near 30% reduction in country-level funding to the UN system between 2024 and 2026. The most at-risk areas affected by these cuts are health, nutrition, and food security, all crucial sectors where SDG financing gap has ironically been widest. But volumes are only part of the picture. Quality is just as important. There are deeper structural changes at play, demanding changes in the UN entity business models, a necessary shift away from fragmented, narrowly defined, project-driven activities to a complementary mix of funds that supports integrated SDG solutions and long-term development outcomes. Funding cuts sent shockwaves through the system in Lao PDR. But rather than reinforcing divisions and competition, the challenge brought the UN Country Team together. Impetus for joined-up work has increased, and the Country Team is finding new ways of working together through higher-quality joint programmes aligned with SDG transitions. For our forthcoming Cooperation Framework, the new outputs are designed as strategic areas of collaboration and hubs of joint programming. This would effectively place a premium on multidisciplinary programs from the get-go rather than an afterthought. We're also making headway with pooled funding model. Our first thematic pooled fund on green and climate finance helps governments address policy gaps to unlock much-needed sustainable finance. Joint Programme on Reproductive, Maternal and Child Health has been a service offering over the years and expanded to include subnational capacities and sustainability of investments. The Minister of Health calls it the brain of the public health system. Our newest joint program on food systems follows an SDG transition pathway to deliver financing for an integrated climate food systems action at scale, leveraging $43 million. In the next 2 years. These joint initiatives will enable a meaningful start to our new cooperation framework in 2027. The role of host country governments in the Funding Compact is absolutely crucial. The Government of Lao PDR has encouraged UN and funding partners to achieve a more effective funding mix, one that recognizes the centrality of the cooperation framework championing national priorities, —the one that blends different sources of finance for sustained impact, and one that understands the pitfalls of fragmentations and benefits of integration. Our first country dialogue on funding compact in Lao PDR was in fact co-led by the government, whose message was loud and clear: we want a better quality funding for the UN-Lao PDR cooperation framework. While all of this sounds very positive, the funding compact would only will only deliver on its promise when funding decisions begin to recognize the UN system working together in a more integrated and impactful manner. In my country context, this remains work in progress. In fact, most of the recent funding for joint-up work came from global funding instruments, while in-country bilateral resources often remain fragmented. This is a challenge. While the Country Team is keen on a country-pooled fund to accompany our next cooperation framework, we must still extensively assess the feasibility of its future capitalization. Funding partners therefore have a huge role to play in making informed funding choices, discouraging competitive behaviors, and promoting collaboration. The Funding Compact is called a compact for a reason, because it takes two to tango. While there has been good progress on transparency of bilateral funding decisions, sector-specific projects remain a dominant programming method on the ground. As the UN Country Team, we understand that the Funding Compact commitments can and should be more than the sum of individual parts. We also recognize that no single funding modality can meet all needs. Core, pooled, thematic, and earmarked funding fulfill different but complementary purposes. Vertical and multi-partner funds increasingly require convening role, coordination, and quality assurance of resident coordinators' offices. Country teams are increasingly expected to make a strong case for these global funding instruments, and experiences in Laos have shown that a more inclusive RC-led design process not only increases the chances of securing funds in alignment with national priorities, but also creates a collaborative dynamic and ultimately reduces tension within the country team. So this is not an administrative overhead, this is really a very important value addition that reform has created. Finally, core funding is crucial to ensuring essential carrying capacity of UN entities at country level. As Resident Coordinator, I have engaged with heads of agencies UNCT to allocate their finite core resources to neglected priorities and to create, create a momentum for larger investments. With shrinking core resource base, essential capacities diminish, and so does the ability to innovate and importantly collaborate. In that vein, our recent annual results report for LAO PDR highlighted the role of core contributions to UN results on the ground. And beyond reporting results and funding trends, these annual reports increasingly showcase how UN country teams deliver on the Funding Compact commitments to transparency, efficiency, and value for money. I thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Buchanow. I now give the floor to our colleague, Her Excellency Merete Fjeldbattersvild, Permanent Representative of Norway.

Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you to the panel for sharing their very interesting interventions, including very concrete experience, suggestions, and proposals. So, a perspective from Norway is that if we are serious about a more effective, coherent UN Development System, then increased pooled and core funding is not a technical adjustment. It is the central driver for reform. And today we face a paradox. While we collectively recognize that fragmented earmarked funding undermines the UN's ability to deliver as one, the trend is unfortunately moving in the opposite direction. It is therefore important to understand why earmarking continues to grow. Earmarking is driven by the demand for visible, attributable results, the need for flexibility to respond to shifting political priorities in donor countries and in host countries, and perceptions of lower risk and lower administrative costs in the earmarked projects. So Norway is among the top donors in the UN, but we also have red marks in our scorecard when it comes to the quality of our funding. And we are ready to change this path, but we need some tools to be able to do so. Firstly, we need stronger incentives for quality funding. This means clear evidence that core and pooled funding deliver better, more strategic results, and doing so in a way that meets donors' and host countries' legitimate expectations for transparency and accountability. Secondly, and related, we must improve how we measure and report on core funding. A common high-quality reporting standard, as I think has also been discussed already, can help address one of the main drivers for earmarking: the perception that results are harder to document. We must show credible, comparable results to our parliaments and to our taxpayers. Payers that provide the money. Thirdly, we need to see reduced fragmentation at country level. A true move toward one plan, one fund, one UN can make pooled funding more attractive as well. And fourthly, we must make the cost of earmarking visible, and you spoke, Jens, about the high and low —quality in earmarking. But earmarking carries coordination costs, reduces efficiency, and can dilute impact. So quantifying these trade-offs, I think, is essential for informed decision-making by donors. Fifth and finally, leadership and critical mass matters. So when major contributors shift, funding patterns, others may follow. Countries like Norway, where a significant share of our development cooperation is channeled through the UN, we have both the opportunity and the responsibility to help drive this change, and we are ready to do so. Give us the tools, and we are fully on board that financing is not just one part of UNHCR reform, it is the key that unlocks all other aspirations. So thank you, and looking forward to other comments.

Thank you, Ambassador Brattestad. I now open the floor to our colleagues to participate in an interactive Discussion, participants are invited to press the microphone button to indicate their request to intervene. I would like to remind our colleagues that to give all those wishing to speak the opportunity to take the floor, 3 minutes will apply for statements on behalf of groups and only 2 minutes for national statements.

Wow.

We have half an hour for member state and then maybe 10 to 15 minutes for the answers from our leaders here. Yeah. Let's begin. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the European Union. You have the floor, sir. Next, Mozambique and Egypt.

Thank you, Vice President. Excellencies, colleagues, I have the honour to deliver this statement on behalf of the European Union and its Member States. Thank you to all panellists. To Mr. Van Dol and Mr. Taranko, and it was also very helpful to hear directly from the ground. So thank you for the interventions. We meet today at a defining moment for the United Nations Development System. The challenges before us demand urgent collective action, yet the UN's ability to deliver is under threat. As we heard, funding is declining and the gap between ambition and available resources is widening. The EU and its member states remain the largest donor to the UN Development System. In 2025 alone, the EU and its member states contributed over €10 billion to support the UN's work, from humanitarian aid to long-term development, from health to education, from climate action to peacebuilding. We do this because we believe in the UN and its development system, which is in the focus of our discussion today. We believe that in order to respond to the competitive geopolitical context and the tightening funding environment that we have heard of, we need to rebuild trust and focus on coherence and results. First, trust. Donors must see that their contributions are used efficiently, transparently, and effectively. The UN must demonstrate that every contribution to the UN Development System delivers tangible impact for the people who need it most. That means reducing bureaucracy, cutting duplication, and ensuring accountability at every level. Second, coherence. We must shift the balance towards more predictable funding that allows the UN Development System to act as one system, not a collection of competing agencies. Third, and crucially, results. The UN Development System does not need more reports, more meetings, or more processes. It needs action so that it can deliver with more impact on the ground for the people we serve. The Funding Compact was a step in the right direction, yet its implementation remains uneven. We must accelerate progress, ensuring that Resident Coordinators have the authority and resources to lead integrated responses,, and that UN country teams are held accountable for delivering on the Sustainable Development Goals. The EU will continue to invest in the UN development system, and we stand ready to support reforms coming from the UN80 process. At the same time, we expect stepping up from the system functioning as one, with strong resident coordinators at the forefront, of a more coherent, efficient, and results-oriented development architecture. Thank you.

Thank you. Mozambique. Thank you, Chair.

We welcome this dialogue on financing of the UN Development System and we concur with the panellists that even in a context of diminishing resources, it is still possible to reduce fragmentation, and devote a greater share of resources to results rather than managing complexity. For us, the cooperation framework should become not only a planning instrument but also a financing framework. One plan, one funding, and one UN, indeed, as aptly said by the representative of Norway. We believe that the Funding Compact requires both political dialogue and strong management follow-up. This space provides political— a political platform, but it should be complemented by a follow-up. That's why we support the idea of an annual high-level review of the Funding Compact within this segment. I would like to give my remaining 1 minute to the next speaker. Thank you.

Thank you. Egypt.

And I would like to thank the presenters and most notably, of course, Ms. Elena Panova, the Resident Coordinator in Egypt, for her very accurate, succinct, and targeted intervention, which actually I would have not been able to say it better. So thank you, Ms. Panova. I would like also to highlight the very important intervention made by my colleague Ambassador Mirette from Norway, because actually this is the kind of of input that this discussion really needs, coming from one of the leading donors to the United Nations system, such as Norway. President, programme countries often face a situation where available resources are concentrated in donor-selected thematic areas, while other nationally identified priorities remain underfunded. Greater flexibility in funding is therefore essential to preserve national ownership and ensure that UN support remains responsive to country contexts. This is exactly what we captured from Ms. Panova's intervention: scale, coherence, alignment. Donors are willing to go along, especially when with strong government capacity to lead. And I think each of these components of that particular phrase need to be unpacked and discussed in order to reach scale, coherence, and alignment, and how funding can drive those three elements together, and how government capacity and government leadership and anchoring in national priorities could can actually be a channel to reach that objective. I would stop here, Mr. President, and refer to the dialogue that Egypt, together with DCO and other colleagues, are currently engaged in, and we have our session 3 on demonstrating value, impact, and results, which will address a number of issues that were highlighted during the presentation.

Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Egypt.

Algeria, 2 minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair and distinguished panellists. The question before us today is not merely technical. It is fundamentally a question of political will. Without predictable without timely, flexible and high-quality funding, the system cannot respond to national priorities or deliver lasting results where needs are greatest. Algeria reaffirms that development financing is the backbone of an effective UN Development System. In this regard, Algeria would like to highlight the following points. First, the challenge is not only the amount of funding,, but also its impact. So shifting toward less earmarking, longer-term financing, and more coherent channels will strengthen planning and unlock the UN system potential to deliver integrated results. Second, Algeria reaffirms its unwavering support of the Funding Compact, with commitments that are visible, measurable, and accountable at country level. Third, dialogue is critical between governments, UN country teams, RCs and partners to ensure that resources are generally aligned with nationally-owned development priorities and cooperation framework results. Fourth, Algeria also supports greater use of pooled funds and multi-partner trust funds., as these innovative instruments encourage coordination, efficiency and collective action. And fifth and finally, Algeria calls on UN members, especially donors, to fully honour their commitments to the UN system. This is essential to meet national development priorities, preserve balance with the system and uphold the UN's fundamental role in maintaining peace and security in a difficult and unpredictable world.

I thank you. Thank you, Algeria. Netherlands.

Thank you very much for these presentations. I think it's an excellent example of some of the level of detail we sometimes need in better understanding these work packages. So thank you very much for that. I only have 3 questions. First of all, could you say a little bit more about the timeline for the work that you're doing? Can we expect a report, or what are some of the outcomes look like? And second, on the costing of earmarking, I think that's a very important element that we better understand what it actually costs also to make the case internally to our colleagues that sometimes make these funding decisions on the actual costs associated with the level of earmarking. So, will we eventually see, like, some specific pricing of the different versions of earmarking so that we have a clearer understanding of the true costs? And then third and finally, regarding the proposals on mergers and consolidations of some of these pooled funds that you've mentioned, What role— where, again, question about the timeline, but also the role for member states. What would your concrete ask be to us in order to support this? Thank you very much. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. Excellencies, we would like to thank the distinguished speakers and panelists for their inputs to the central aspect of UNDS funding. Switzerland remains committed to the Funding Compact and we welcome enhanced measures in support of the Funding Compact. Communications is one. The scorecard we received was a useful mirror and we took it as an encouragement to to work harder towards complying, and we hope to be mentioned by ASG Taranco Fernández in the years to come too. But more is needed to be done. So we support measures to make core and pooled funding more attractive, for example, by designing a coherent pooled funding architecture and by improved results and impact reporting. We support strengthening oversight and accountability on funding, for example, by exploring options of a high-level funding mechanism and strengthening the role of executive boards. We also support ensuring tightly earmarked funding is priced adequately and by default strictly and transparency— transparently in alignment with UN STCFs. The latter should go without saying. However, in reality it does not. So in your opinion, what is needed to ensure that funding is accepted exclusively if it is in line with the UN STCF's priorities? What needs to be changed in the system to achieve this? And can digital real-time tools play a role to support achieving this objective?

Thank you. I'm about to close the list of speakers. Guatemala, Ireland, Germany, United Kingdom, Mexico, Pakistan, and the last, Canada. Okay. The floor is to Guatemala.

Gracias, Señor Ministro. Thank you very much, Vice President. Guatemala thinks that the financing of the development system should not be measured only for its volume, but also for its quality, predictability, and capacity to mobilize resources and support national priorities. We are concerned by the —fall in core funding and the persistence of highly earmarked funding because both trends reduce the flexibility of the system and weaken the coherence of responses on the ground. For this reason, we reiterate the importance of advancing and implementation of the Funding Compact and strengthening mechanisms that facilitate integrated responses, multi-stakeholder responses, and better coordination with international financial institutions. That in middle-income countries such as Guatemala, the RC system is crucial to connect actors, support funding, and support local actors. I thank you. Ireland?

Thank you, Vice President, and each of the briefers this morning. Ireland aligns with the statement delivered by the EU and adds the following couple of comments: In any conversation on funding, it's important to consider both quality and quantity. This is a lens applied by the Funding Compact, which we all, member states and UN system alike, ascribed, and to which we should continue to base our behaviour. As donors, we have a responsibility to ensure that our funding supports focused action, is aligned with country framework documents, and benefits those furthest behind, rather than isolated pockets spots of excellence or our own national flags. This means core funding and pooled funding, as we've heard from others, and these are modalities that Ireland is increasingly leaning into. We know that flexible funding provides essential predictability and enables better prioritisation. It can also provide a stable foundation for a funding mix that allows leveraging of additional, ideally lightly earmarked funding, to achieve those targeted incomes— where outcomes— where, where appropriate. And we've heard a lot this morning about what more we can do, maybe to highlight a couple of things we've heard. When making the case for core and pooled, we should rely on and invest in the data derived from evaluation offices and the system-wide approach applied by the SWEO, as well as the really valuable insights we get from partners like the Dijkhammer School Foundation, which have been mentioned, but also MOPAN and others. Enhanced accountability and transparency has been focused on a lot, and those are really vital also to, to tracking effectiveness. Demonstrating those outcomes, and also fostering trust amongst donors, UN entities, and those host countries. Finally, effective country-level funding dialogues, which meaningfully involve the ORC and also engage other relevant partners such as MDBs and IFIs as appropriate, are really critical to ensuring that common goals are backed by coherent efforts and fully in line with country priorities. Thank you.

Now the floor is for Germany. Germany, you have the floor.

Can you hear me? Yeah, okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Germany aligns itself with the statement delivered on behalf of the European Union, and we would like to add a few points in our national capacity. The Secretary-General's report on funding of the UN Development System sets out the challenge clearly. Funding is still too fragmented, too tightly earmarked, and too short-term. This limits strategic planning, reinforces competition between entities, and makes coherent delivery at country level more difficult. Germany is one of the largest voluntary contributors to the UN development system. This reflects our strong confidence in the multilateral system and in the value of collective action. We would welcome continued efforts by all member states to strengthen the funding base of the UN development system. We would like to raise two points. First, we need a more balanced funding mix. A business-as-usual model based on tightly earmarked funding and small-scale projects is not sufficient for the level of ambition we have collectively set. We would be interested to hear what steps UN entities are taking to reduce incentives for fragmented fundraising. Second, Pooled funding should be used more strategically. Germany supports the increase of pooled funding. This does not necessarily mean more pooled funds, since the proliferation of funds and the fragmentation of the funding landscape can also be part of the problem. The governance of pooled funds must be coherent, transparent, and fit for purpose. We need a better understanding of which types of pooled funds works best in different development, crisis, and— transition settings. Could you elaborate on how the UN system intends to improve the coordination and governance of development-related pooled funds? How can these funds be better aligned with cooperation priorities and collective results?

I thank you. Thank you. United Kingdom.

Thank you, Chair. The UK welcomes the commitment to UNAT reform from the panelists. I'm so sorry, this is the problem with reading out your previous statement. Bear with me. Um, my apologies. So, thank you, Chair, and to the panelists at this session for their valuable insight. Uh, the UK is a proud champion of multilateralism, and we ensure that our funding for development efforts reflects this. Indeed, as a result of our most recent Overseas Development Assistance allocations, We're increasing the share of program ODA that will be spent through multilateral organizations, including the UN, and we really welcome discussing this important topic at this critical time. The Secretary-General's report illustrates the array of challenges facing the funding of the UN development system while making clear the urgency with which action must be taken to address these issues. We support efforts to make the Funding Compact implementation more widespread and welcome the focus in this session on enhancing country-level funding dialogues to make Funding Compact commitments more visible and actionable at country level. From in-depth discussions with our global network of posts, we know that level and quality of engagement on the Funding Compact and its commitments at the country level is varied, and this has a direct implication on the funding decisions made by our teams in country. To this end, we welcome the focus on funding mechanisms in UN AT Work Package 18. Making core and pooled funding more attractive and effective is pivotal in turning the Funding Compact commitments into reality. The suggestion within the SG's report on ensuring more structured discussions between UN country teams, governments, and donors on how cooperation framework priorities are financed is therefore much welcomed. The link to the financing of cooperation frameworks is key, so we're also looking forward to seeing the work on a more strategic approach on development pooled funds moving forward. The commitment by the SG for UNAT to address persistent perceptions of pooled funding carrying high support costs is another positive step, and we hope to see efforts to create a UN system-wide cost recovery policy alongside improved data and communication delivered. In closing, the UK remains committed to the UN Funding Compact, and we're working hard to ensure our funding supports the work done by the UNDS in the most efficient, effective, and coherent way possible. Thank you, and thanks for bearing with me. Cheers.

Thank you. Now Mexico.

Muchas gracias. Thank you very much, Vice President. For Mexico, fiscal efficiency is a necessary condition for strengthening the system. But it is no substitute for the need for flexible, predictable financing that is aligned with national priorities. Experience has shown that financial fragmentation is one of the main causes of operational fragmentation. And this is why efforts promoted under the framework of the UNAT reform initiative and the commitments made through the funding compact must advance in a coherent and mutually reinforcing manner. Mexico also wishes to underscore that today the capacity of states in the United Nations to deliver transformative results is profoundly impacted by much broader factors such as debt sustainability, fiscal space, domestic and public resource mobilization, the engagement of the private sector, international trade, and systemic risks associated with the international financial architecture. In this connection, we believe that it is relevant to strengthen links between the discussions in this segment and the broader financing for development processes, especially in light of the Seville commitment, the forthcoming Financing for Sustainable Development Report 2026, and the recent exchange exchanges held under the framework of the Group of Friends of Monterrey. We'd also like to emphasize that financing must be evaluated not only by its volume but also by its quality. For Mexico, pooled funds and joint programs are not an end in and of themselves. Their value lies in their ability to strengthen cooperation frameworks, reduce fragmentation, and support system coordination and effectively address country-defined priorities. We therefore believe it is appropriate to promote a gradual transition from rigidly earmarked financing schemes to more flexible and higher quality modalities, including core resources, thematic funds, pooled funds, and smart earmarking mechanisms that preserve transparency, visibility, and accountability. I thank you.

Pakistan. Mr. Vice President, we appreciate the contribution by all the panelists today and would also express appreciation for the intervention by the distinguished Permanent Representative of Norway, which we think represents the kind of frank dialogue needed. We are equally concerned, as are other speakers, with the decline in core funding and rise in earmarking. We believe the system cannot effectively respond respond to national priorities if funds are simply unavailable or are tightly earmarked. On core funding, we saw that one issue highlighted was that donors seek more visibility on how resources are used, as well as the proposal made that financial allocations, results, and resources should be viewed near real time. We agree with that proposal. In fact, we think even program countries would benefit from having this live visibility, which we often do not. So what challenges do the distinguished panelists see in the implementation of that proposal? We also note with interest the proposal of putting a cost to earmarked funding. We also think we need better and more visible data on how much these earmarked funds are actually aligned with strategic priorities and needs identified in countries' cooperation frameworks, as also highlighted in the Funding Compact. On the proposal to have a more strategic dialogue on progress and implementation of the Funding Compact here in New York. We would appreciate further details on the thinking behind such a strategic dialogue. We are also open to the use of pooled funds or their further consolidation, but we just want to ensure that the final modality is cost-effective on the whole. And, and could we also get more information on how proposals in this regard would proceed? We also agree with the need to move away from a fragmented project model to projects more scale and more joint programme, and we think that the funding streams need to reflect that.

I thank you. Thank you. Canada. Merci, Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Vice President. Thank you to all the panellists for their remarks today, and in particular for the Resident Coordinators for joining us. Canada will make a short intervention on strengthening and rationalizing of the pooled funds. We appreciated the comparison to the CERF, and in particular the specification of its clear roles and identities, though we also note it has a more specific and narrow scope. So with regards to the wider development system, we're interested in hearing how lessons are being applied from humanitarian systems over to the development ones, and the challenges that exist, in particular considering the development system has a much larger and increasing, in some ways, size of the tent. And then also linking to the panel earlier today and hearing the concerns of entity that reforms should not draw away funds from core funding and from programming resources. We're curious to hear more on plans to support the financing of these reforms, including reforms to the funding mechanisms. We wonder whether efficiency gains could be reinvested in supporting and advancing system-wide reforms. Finally, a thank you to ASG Fernando Fernández Teránco for his points on what's needed to encourage more strategic dialogue. And for the structured engagement on linking development system results, data, and action, and also the light update on the funding compact review. We wonder if more can be shared on next steps to— key timelines, pardon me— and what's needed from member states. Thank you.

Thank you. Last speaker, Argentina.

Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the panelists and delegations for this very rich interactive dialogue. It is important to understand the viewpoints of recipients and donors and the role that can be played by the UN system. When it comes to financing, I have a very precise question. If I understood correctly in Mr. Wendell's remarks— and I thank him for giving us such precise information— if I understood correctly, there are more than 150 common financing funds. Could he give us some more details on the diagnosis as to the amount of funds and what vision or ideas he might have to improve efficiency and reduce fragmentation. Thank you. Thank you, Argentina.

You were the last speaker. I'd like to thank all of the speakers who took part in this interactive dialogue, which was very rich. And as you were all very disciplined when it comes to time, I would like to take the floor now for 1 minute to ask I have a question to those from Egypt and Laos because we have spoken a great deal about core funding and the financing pact, the POLI system, earmarked funding. So I would like to know what is happening on the ground and what kind of relationship do you have with representatives of the major agencies who— which have the capacity to manage these development funds. I'd like you to be honest with member states and for you to tell us about your difficulties, the difficulties you've had in managing the issue of funding on the ground together with the major agencies especially UNDP. Thank you for responding to me frankly on this issue. Let me now give the floor to our distinguished speakers. You have the floor, sir. Thank you very much, Mr.

President. We haven't had time to coordinate among the panel how we will respond, so we hope we will add up correctly, but let me lead. First of all, I think it's quite clear also to us that it is the dialogue at the political level together with a more technical dialogue even as the Permanent Representative for Norway said, you know, give us some tools. It is this dialogue between the political side and the tools that eventually will get us out of where we are. So when we address some of the issues also today, I think the political dialogue is this, but also I think Oscar will address this a little bit more. So in the political dialogue, I think it's necessary that we broaden the dialogue to do two things, and that is we listen to what was also coming out of Egypt, and that is that funding this shift between— or this tension between funding and financing for development is a space we need to continue to work within, and I think it is covered very well since Sivilia in our dialogue, but we need to move that., and this requires that the United Nations grant-based funding model needs to be adjusted. Today we really only have one model, that is, give us money, we create a project, and we pass them on. Sometimes we package them in project— in programmes, but this is it. To get expertise on demand to work, especially in the normative area, we may need to complement the business model on a fee-for-service model— so some agencies, they can provide policy services that is high quality against a fee without having all the paraphernalia of a project and all these things. And that speaks to the distinguished delegates from Mexico's point. It is the quality of the intervention, not the volume that sits behind it, that may determine the true value of the United Nations. So in short, I predict we may need to start discussing something as concrete as an additional business model. I cannot cover everything, but let us— on pooled financing, the principle on pooled financing is we— and to Canada, to Germany, et cetera, we can learn something from where the— how the humanitarian is doing it. And this is because humanitarian are doing a couple of things correctly. Their pooled financing landscape is more concentrated and more strategically aligned. They have both country, they have surf, and then they even have some regional. But they have a clear institutional identity and they are de facto governed by OCHA and the, and the Quint. On the development side, we don't have anything equivalent and that gap is too big. At the same time, you're correct to point out, Canada mentioned that of course the waterfront is much broader on the development side, therefore we need a much broader front. But to the distinguished delegate from Argentina, 150 is pooled funds and joint programmes. There's a huge tail. If I gave you a list, I can show you 20, 30 pooled funds that sit in the $10 to $100 million bracket, maybe above, but I can show you probably 100 million interventions that disburse a few millions a year, and it's that tail we need to work with. Because that's where the inefficiency may sit. And what I need from member states, what we need from member states is you have seen in other sense when we immediately recall the fragmentation institutionally, mandate-wise or funding, we run into the political economy of fragmentation, and that is somebody who sits on a very important pool of funds that is not very big, they will feel hurt by my statement now and they will attack immediately that I am questioning the importance of their pool fund. I am not questioning the importance of a particular fund, but it stands to reason that we take a look, and it is that where I need member state support so we can have a dialogue around it. At the end of the day, member states determine which funds should go forward and how they get financed. It's not a technical matter. I think that the cost of earmarking predominantly— this is Dinghoes Delegat from Netherlands— I think what we need to do at the governance level is to agree to the principles first, but I have outlined the principles. The farther away from the core competency of an agency, the more expensive. The shorter, the more expensive. The one-off versus many times. This is a lesson I learned because I was the acting executive director of UNOPS for 11 months at a time of real crisis, and UNOPS, as you know, has no core funding, and still it turns over, at my time, $3.5 billion. So we need to cost earmarking correctly, and we heard also from the crew and others We need to find a way of financing the transition in a time where we have no money. So there's an implicit tactic in this, that is, we're pricing what is not correct. We will try with the pooled funding maybe to merge and create some energies— synergies around this, and then I made the point that if we can institutional defragment, if we can funding defragment and mandate by the resolution work done there, thank you very much to the work you've done here—if we can defragment, we get more value out of coordination money than we have today. So we can print money in a way if we can make some efforts here. So there's an element of tactics in what we are discussing. And then to the distinguished delegate from Switzerland, yes, the issue around real-time funding is something you need to take through the boards, but it sits in a tradition that there has been, at least from my experience, there's been an emphasis on accountability and audited statements instead of saying we are ready to accept more real-time, less accurate, and then also some agencies because of the funding crisis, what they do is they, within the same year, they move cash around. So if you have too much transparency, they can see that they're moving cash around. So there's some reluctance, but if we do it in a dialogue, we all agree what it is, then I think we can make significant progress in this, and there we can learn something from the humanitarian again. I think that should also answer your questions on the real-time barriers. The barriers are political, they're traditional, and they need to go through the boards, and there will be some concerns, and they are legitimate.. But again, if we have this dialogue and technical at the same time, we can work through them. Then I think I have answered the questions that I had on my list. I'd like to close by saying that in terms of timeline, the packages, funding review, expertise on demand, country cooperation framework, and regional reset, they are very closely integrated. Our intent is, as the Secretary-General has announced, we will issue some papers, some of them will be background papers and some of them will be SG reports where we are seeking member states' approval or member state consultations. And as has been outlined by the Secretary-General, we'll start publishing by the end of June, but I think they will come over the summer, etc. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Now— Merci, Monsieur le Président.

So, very— Monsieur Fernandes Taranco. Merci. And in the interest of time, so the tools, the tools, I think this is a huge and important moment to clarify the tools.— and as it was said, I think funding is the critical connector of everything we're discussing in UNAT, but there are many additional work streams that should kick in, in particular as how we do interoperable results reporting at the outcome level of what these funds and different streams result in, how aligned, how misaligned, how relevant they are to the cooperation framework, when they come in, if they come in too late. I mean, all these things require a system system-wide approach, which we don't have. Today, you, all donors, have huge transaction costs because every entity you provide money to comes with a report, and it's a report at the project level. It's not even at the outcome level and its linkage to national priorities and SDG acceleration. So one thing we absolutely need to come out with, UNAT, is a better communication, clear narrative standardized approaches, better data, stronger system-wide platforms. They don't exist today and they are needed. It's— this is mission critical right now so that we can communicate among each other in the UN to begin with. What are we learning from each other? But like you said, to the taxpayers that pay the bills and want to know where the money is going. Dialogue, I think Jens covered it very well, and increasingly dialogue with the IFIs, that has been the missing part, but extremely important is how your embassies at the local level— and here I'm speaking particularly to donors, because the message on the funding compact is very much still the headquarters issues here in New York. This has to go from your capitals to your embassies so that we have at the country level an informed and strategic dialogue. Rationalizing the concept of portfolio management— this is something we are trying to learn from the humanitarian. I mean, the way OCHA and the humanitarian country pooled funds are managed have a clear brand, have a clear standard, have very interoperable mechanisms, so the country— the humanitarian pooled fund looks very much the same instrument across all humanitarian response mechanisms. Not so for the development pooled funds. They're very dispersed, different governance structures, different steering committees, different overheads being charged for different things, so we need to rationalize, we need to professionalize, and we need to learn from the humanitarians on the portfolio management and clearly have clarity on what the role of the Resident Coordinator, member states, and especially the government. Pooled funds to support the priorities of the cooperation framework—this is an absolute must, because what the pooled fund does is it complements what is also required. It complements the core funding and the flexible funding, but it addresses the way that the UN needs to come together in an integrated, complementary way to deliver on the SDGs. No one agency can do this, and so food systems, health systems, digital requires collaborative action that only a pooled fund can do, and frankly, there is something to be said about how we will fund finance, the expertise on demand. This is the dialogue that needs to happen to align around national priority, but to have the member states and key donors in that dialogue to the question that the crew was raising this morning. There are systems, but they need to be capitalized. Finally, on country-level pooled funds, we don't have that many. There's only some 20 out there for the development, and they're all undercapitalized. One huge exception Aside from the conflict countries, Papua New Guinea, the most incredible example of what can go right in the UN-member state relationship. As a result of the Funding Compact Dialogue, a pooled fund was established and two of the top donors to that particular country decided to put all the funding in a pooled funding mechanism, and that has driven total alignment—total, I say here—of all the agencies present there. To national priorities, and we have a very well-functioning pooled fund that is the model. It's the model we should be aspiring to, gives the visibility to donors, clarity on what's happening, and predictability, which is what drives fragmentation too, the lack of predictability and accountability. And then last but not least, I mean, we need to learn how to communicate better. I mean, OCHA does an amazing job at communicating. We just need to really you know, follow the leaders on this. We used to say it was UNICEF. I think on pooled funds we can give credit to OCHA. Thank you, Monsieur Bessigaud.

Now you have the floor, Madame. 3 minutes.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you for your encouragement to to be, you know, very frank in also reflecting on the entire discussion. Three points. As a development practitioner with, you know, more than 30 years of experience, one thing that is important for me is that funding usually follows the programming. So you need to start with a very solid program that is anchored in the national priorities.— and I'm very serious about it. The times, at least I'm talking Egypt, when the UN agencies can go, can try to solve a complex problem with a single mandate, when they will go and discuss with the donors, agree on the program, and then go and present it to the government, something which the government wants, gone. That is what, you know, I tell my, you know, my UN country team. We need to start by working on a solid program, and if indeed it is anchored at the government priorities, then the funding and the financing will follow. And the visibility for the donors will come, of course, from the UN, but most importantly, It will come from the host government, because this is where the visibility is needed, that their contributions are recognized as contributions that feed into the development of the respective country. You asked me, Mr. Chair, how do I work with the big agencies? In Egypt, it's— I will be also Frank, it's not that difficult. Why? It's not that difficult if, as resident coordinator, you provide the space for the agencies to lead technically where their expertise is. If I take migrants and refugees, and I said it very clearly, it's UNHCR and IOM that lead together technically, and then as a resident coordinator, you bring the rest of the UN agencies that work in this domain under the technical leadership of the UNHCR and IOM. Currently, we are working on social protection. The government has asked us to do a cooperation— a social protection framework which brings social assistance with social insurance. Who leads here? You know, the government reached the resident coordinator, identified the technical leads. In this case, it was very clear, it's UNICEF, ILO, and the World Bank, and they're the ones that lead technically with the support of the resident coordinator, ensuring that the rest of the team also, you know, is pulled and is rallied under this huge development impact. UNDP leads on financing for development very clearly. It's the agency that has the capacity to bring the rest of the agencies with the support of the resident coordinator, connecting the dots, ensuring that they all come in a coherent manner. So this is how you work with them. You give them the space to lead, so you lead by giving them the space to lead. Last thing, I just want to express gratitude to all the excellencies and member states that took the floor. It feels very encouraging, but as Oscar was saying, this discussion needs to land at country level. It's very important, and if they are development partners that want to lead on that domain, how we can make it work at country level. As Resident Coordinators, I think, you know, we are the right partners to convene this type of dialogues under the leadership of the government. Thank you once again, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Madame Panucci. Thank you, Ms. Panova. Mr. Bulhanov, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President. As someone who was in a partnership role some 18, 20 years ago when the original batch of joint programming pooled fund rules have been created, I see that some of the questions that existed at the inception of this modality seem to continue to linger, principally this notion of loss of control when a funding partner, a bilateral funding partner, contributes to a pooled funding instrument. I think the original concern was more on the legal side of the equation in terms of, you know, loss of the legal custody of the funds when eventually someone who implements activities on the ground may not be in a direct legal relationship with the funder. Then this perception that reporting is inherently more complex and the development change is harder to document. And thirdly, perception of loss of visibility when an individual member state contributes to a pooled fund. Allow me to illustrate how we've addressed these issues through the experience of our first pooled fund in Lao PDR. It's on green and climate finance. It's not a country pooled fund, it's more of a thematic instrument that brought together the work of 4 agencies to unlock development finance for the country. This particular initiative was RC-brokered, and I think there was a reason for it. It doesn't always have to be this way, but it was a frontier issue at the time, and we really wanted to bring together the knowledge of the four agencies who eventually became the participating UN organizations. So that's FAO, UNDP, UNEP, and UN-Habitat. So the inclusive framework enabled more UN agencies to contribute to the implementation. As resident coordinator, I also curated the governance and implementation arrangements for this particular initiative to make sure that funding partners have a seat on the steering committee and that their reporting and visibility expectations are fully met. We also engaged government— obviously, government at vice-ministerial level is the co-chair of the program steering committee. And very importantly, we engaged Multi-Partner Trust Fund Office. That has brought, if I may say so, a level of sophistication, structure, and punctuality to the entire process. I think they have marvelous product and the platform where all of the work can be showcased. We've had two reporting cycles since the project went— the program went live. I think the substantive and financial reporting was on time, duly acknowledged the contributions of all agencies, and ultimately, I hope, benefited the funding partners. I think the original partner was Luxembourg, and I really hope when we go back to member states and rally against a country-pooled fund that is aligned to the three pillars of our New Cooperation Framework, Luxembourg will be one of the speakers to actually say, you know, we actually have a much more cogent and streamlined process of engaging with the UN system rather than dealing with 4 individual agency reporting mechanisms that are not very well coordinated. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Burhanov. It's the end. I would like to thank our panelists for sharing valuable insight. Thank also to the delegation for their active participation. We have thus concluded our program of work for this morning. But there are two side events who are taking place at 1:15 today. The first side event entitled "From Innovation to Impact: Human Rights-Based Approaches for Transformative and Equitable SDGs Delivery. It will take place in Conference Room 11 and is organized by the UN Interagency Network on Human Rights, Leaving No One Behind, and Sustainable Development. The second side event— don't leave yet— the second side event entitled Delivering Solutions for Internally Displaced Persons: A Test Case for UN Development System Coherence and Reform. It will take place in Conference Room 7 and is organized by UNDP and the UN Global Solutions Hub on Internal Displacement. I encourage you all to attend this discussion. The ECOSOC The Council will reconvene today, this afternoon, at 3 PM, in this chamber to continue with its programme of work. The meeting is adjourned. Thank you, Mr. President.