WUNRN
Via International Women's Tribune
Centre - IWTC
UN
GENERAL ASSEMBLY SET TO ADVANCE PROCESS ON NEW UN GENDER ENTITY
September 11, 2008
Mavic Cabrera-Balleza - IWTC
1. MEMBER STATES
EXPECTED TO DECIDE ON NEW GENDER ENTITY PROPOSED AS PART OF UN SYSTEM-WIDE
COHERENCE
At an informal consultation about the
UN’s work on gender equality and women’s empowerment, Member States were asked
to decide next steps, before the end of the 62nd General Assembly session on
September 15, 2008, including the institutional option or combination of
options they wished to pursue with regards to the gender entity. Countries that
spoke at the September 8 consultation indicated an emerging consensus
on moving forward with the last of the four options under consideration –
Option 4/ D, which proposes the creation of a composite entity of the four
existing women-specific agencies, i.e the United Nations Development Fund for
Women, Office of the Special Advisor on Gender Issues, the Division for the
Advancement of Women, and the International Research and Training Institute for
Women.
Even as this option emerged as the most
popular, countries requested the Secretary General to develop the option
further and present a concrete proposal to the 63rd General Assembly
session which opens on September 16, 2008. The framework resolution moving the
System Wide Coherence process forward in the 63rd GA session and
requesting the Secretary General to further develop Option 4/D is expected to
be adopted during this week.
The other three
options being considered as possibilities to strengthen the UN’s work on gender
equality and the empowerment of women are (A) maintaining the status quo
–women-specific agencies operating as they are now; (B) creating an autonomous
fund/programme; and (C) creating a department within the Secretariat. All
options were explored and analyzed in paper that was circulated in the General
Assembly by the UN Deputy Secretary General (DSG) in July 2008 (see section 4 for a fuller explanation).
2.
COUNTRY POSITIONS
France, on behalf of the European Union,
endorsed the co-chairs recommendations and supports the creation of a new
structure, headed by an Under Secretary General. The EU believes that Options D
best addresses gaps and challenges, but further discussions are needed.
On
behalf of the CANZ group (Canada, Australia and New Zealand), Canada stated
that the Composite entity option was more promising and a decision should be
made in the next GA session.
A
number of African and Latin American countries including Kenya, Mozambique and
Rwanda; Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Columbia, Ecuador, Paraguay and Uruguay also
spoke in support of strengthening the gender equality architecture, and some
specifically supported Option D.
3.
NGO POSITIONS
Prior to the September 8
consultation, a number of NGOs have stated their preference for option D
highlighting its combination of the normative with the operational
role and its potential to have a strong presence at the country level. They
however stressed that it should be led by an Under Secretary General to
guarantee representation at the highest decision-making level of the UN. Some
NGOs and women’s groups, including European Women’s Lobby,
OXFAM/novib, WIDE, WOMANKIND and GAD network UK, demanded that in order to set in place a fully operational, programmatic and
efficient women’s agency the new agency must be funded to the minimum of $1
billion USD and lobby for this budget to double to $2 billion in 5
years.
4.
INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS TO STRENGTHEN UN WORK ON GENDER EQUALITY &
EMPOWERMENT OF WOMEN
The four options under consideration were
based on the paper, Institutional Options to Strengthen United Nations Work on Gender
Equality and the Empowerment of Women, prepared by the office of the Deputy
Secretary General. This paper was sent to the President of the General Assembly
on July 23 and circulated to Member States on July 28 in response to the
request of the General Assembly to address the gaps and challenges in the work
of the United Nations system on gender equality. The paper presents four
options:
1/A.
Maintaining the status quo
– This option would not entail any structural change in the UN’s gender
equality architecture.
2/B.
Creating an autonomous fund/programme
– involves the establishment of an autonomous programame that would consolidate
the Office of the Speacil Adviser toe the Secreatray Genereal on Gender Issues,
dvision for the Advancement of Women, UNIFEM, and INSTRAW
3/C.
Creating a department within the Secretariat – In this option, a Department will be created within the
UN Secreatriat to perform the functions including leadership in country-driven
programming, gender mainstreaming and capacity building and provision of
support to UN bodies such as the commission on the Status of Women and the
Economic and Social Council
4/D. Creating a composite entity – requires the creation of a new governing body (or bodies) reporting to the General Assembly. It would be headed by a USG who is a full member of the Secreatry General’s policy committee.
_____________________________________________________________________
UN Gender Equality Architecture Reform (GEAR)
The Deputy Secretary General prepared a paper on Institutional Options to Strengthen United Nations Work on Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women:
http://www.wedo.org/files/DSG%20let%20to%20PGA%2023july08.pdf.
It was sent to the President of the General Assembly on July 23 and
circulated to member states on July 28. The options paper was requested
by the General Assembly in June following the last informal session on the gaps
and challenges in the work of the United Nations system on gender
equality. It is meant to present structural options for strengthening
this work, in a non-prescriptive manner. In practice, this restructuring
would particularly affect the four women specific entities: UNIFEM, OSAGI, DAW,
and INSTRAW. The Deputy Secretary General formed a working group to
develop the options paper which included these entities and others.
The paper presents four options:
We consider Options B and D to be the most promising for the reasons
discussed in the attached paper. We are seeking your feedback on the
issues presented. We anticipate that the General Assembly will hold an
informal consultation convened by the co-chairs (Ambassadors of Ireland and
Tanzania) at the end of August or early September with the goal of moving the
process forward with some type of resolution. We do not have details on this
yet.
We are considering whether to endorse one of these options before the
consultation and would very much appreciate your views on them. Please
send your comments to the Google list so we can all have some discussion about
this. We need to hear from you by Monday August 18th.
Best, Charlotte and June
Analysis of the DSG's Institutional Options Paper for GEAR Constituency
Discussion
The following analysis was prepared by several of us based on discussion at a
meeting of most of the NY lobbying group of the Gender Equality Architecture
Reform (GEAR) Campaign last week. The purpose of this paper is to
facilitate discussion among Campaign participants about these options. It is
intended to be read in conjunction with the actual report issued by the DSG on
July 23, 2008, which is also attached. We urge you to read that report
also. GEAR has focused on advocating for a series of principles aimed at
strengthening the UN's work on gender equality throughout this process.
Therefore, this analysis of the DSG's paper is based on a comparison of the
four options outlined in relation to the GEAR principles, and also considers
the purposes of an entity outlined in paras 6 & 7.
GEAR Principles:
Our analysis looks at the four options outlined in the paper:
We consider Options B and D to be the most promising for the reasons
discussed below.
Key Issues Overall
Country Level Operations:
Option B (Autonomous Program/Fund) and option D (Composite model) seem
to have the strongest operational capacity at the country level, which is a top
priority of GEAR. However, we are concerned that the language currently used in
the paper will not guarantee the full realization of the GEAR principle of
universal country presence. This is critical in order to strengthen
the work on gender equality in the UN, not just achieve better coordination.
This process must also be accompanied by strong advocacy for a substantial
increase in resources, especially at the country level. The
language of all the options needs to be stronger and clearer in this regard.
Funding:
"Assessed" funds refers to money that is provided
through UN annual dues from all countries for the regular operations of the
Secretariat and is approved by the General Assembly. (Each country is mandated
to contribute a percentage of the annual budget based on their GDP.) DAW
and OSAGI are currently funded this way. The advantage of these funds is
that they are usually stable and come from all countries by way of the regular
UN budget. The disadvantage is that the GA has maintained a zero growth policy
for many years so it is very hard to grow this source of funding. Some entities
like the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) operate from
assessed funds but also receive substantial voluntary funding, especially for
their field operations.
"Voluntary" funding does not imply unstable, unpredictable small
streams of funds. It is simply the term used by the UN to denote monies
contributed voluntarily rather than as part of UN Dues. All funds and
programsincluding UNDP, UNICEF as well as UNFPA and UNIFEM, are currently funded
this way. Voluntary funding can come from many sources, including
developing countries. These funds can be committed on a multi-year basis
and for core operations and can be very substantial as both UNDP and UNICEF
have budgets of over $3 billion. The advantage of this money is that it has
potential for growth (for example, UNFPA's budget has grown significantly) and
is more flexible, but it is also potentially more susceptible to donor
influence.
Location and Governance: Most UN entities are either
governed as part of the UN Secretariat (under the SG's office which
reports to the GA and other bodies), and commonly known as part of the
normative and policy making branch of the UN such as the Office of the
High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) or OCHA. Or they are a Fund or
Program with a governing Board made up of government representatives,
and commonly called the operational side of the UN, such as UNICEF or UNFPA.
There are many variations on these structures that in fact blend both normative
and operational functions, especially in the area of policy making.
The goal of GEAR has been to create such a blend merging operational and
normative functions explicitly as well as in practice, and the idea of a hybrid
women's entity as originally proposed was to ensure that it can do both.
This might be achieved through a dual reporting mechanism as suggested in the
Nov. 2006 ACABQ paper where the body would report to both the Secretariat and a
renamed UNDP/UNFPA Executive Board; or it could also be done through one body
under the USG who either reports to the Secretary-General (Option D) or as a
fund/program under a governing Board (Option B). But the governance
structure needs to explicitly recognize the dual mandate of combining normative
and operational approaches in some way.
Analysis of the Options:
We do not consider option A - maintaining the status quo, a desirable outcome
of the process for all the reasons that led to the campaign for gender equality
architecture reform in the first place. It does not address the
weaknesses in the UN's gender equality work which are now well-documented and
accepted in this process.
We do not support option C, creating a department within the Secretariat, as it
does not include sufficient capacity for field operations, which has always
been a GEAR priority. We believe the ability to develop and implement
targeted programmes to advance women's equality and empowerment is crucial to
the new entity's success and effectiveness, especially at the country
level. If the new entity is not structurally empowered to carry out
programmatic work at the field level, it cannot fill the gaps and meet the
challenges that have animated the discussion of creating a new women's
entity. Therefore, we do not consider option C - the creation of a
department within the secretariat, to be a desirable outcome.
We see options B and D as the most viable steps forward. We focus
our analysis below on varying components of these alternatives, adding to the
perspectives in paragraph 22 of the DSG's paper which outlines major
differences among the three options for change.
Option B: Autonomous Program/Fund
Governance: Option B (the fund/programme) would have an Executive Board
made up of governments, like that of UNDP/UNFPA. It would be headed by a
USG who is a full member of the Chief Executives Board.
Country-level presence and programming capacity: Option B as outlined
would carry out targeted or catalytic programming activities through two
mechanisms:
- in countries where the UN is
already present, the entity would work through a senior representative based
within the resident coordinator system; and
- in countries where there is
no UN presence, the entity would work through the national women's machinery
and other UN agencies.
Normative and Policy: In the case of option B (the fund/programme),
the support servicing functions currently carried out by OSAGI and DAW would,
as conceptualized in the paper, remain within the Secretariat. In practice,
this means a continuation of the current split structure of the UN's gender
equality work, with the programmatic work being carried out by the new
fund/programme, and the normative policy development and servicing of the CSW
resting with the Secretariat. If option B is selected, we recommend that
some form of policy and normative work needs to be included and acknowledged as
part of it to minimize such fragmentation, even if the focus is primarily
operational.
Funding: This option would be based on voluntary funding, which is the same
as other UN Programmes like UNICEF and UNFPA. The entity would need a strong
resource mobilization structure to maximize increased resources. As
outlined it would not receive the current assessed funds supporting DAW and
OSAGI which would presumably be utilized for servicing the secretariat in some
way, but this is not spelled out and needs to be addressed.
Concerns/Questions: There is a danger that if this model prevails, it
would continue the fragmentation between the normative elements of gender
equality work and the operational work in the field. Unless this is
addressed, it could contribute to a continued lack of coordination, linkage,
and effectiveness.
Option D: The Composite
Governance: Option D (the composite or hybrid entity) would require
creation of a new governing body (or bodies) reporting to the GA, but the exact
form of this reporting is not clearly developed yet. It would be headed by a
USG who is a full member of the SG's policy committee.
Country-level presence and programming capacity: Option D (the composite)
as we envision it should be able to carry out both targeted or catalytic
programming through similar mechanisms as the fund/programme(Option B) and
normative-policy work, including servicing the CSW as set out in Option C
(Department). The paper needs to be clearer in spelling this out as GEAR
seeks to stregthen both the normative and the programming ability. In
particular, in Para 22 it implies that the field operations of Option D
are the same as Option B and we think they should be. It is important to
clarify and ensure explicitly the composite entity's programming capacity and
reach. Since the field operations are explained in more detail in the Fund
description (paragraph 27), we recommend incorporating that language into the
Composite model in order to be very clear that a strong field presence is
envisioned in this Option.
Normative and Policy: The current gender equality structure provides
support for central UN bodies with regard to their work on women's rights:
OSAGI services and supports the UN Security Council, whereas DAW services and
supports the General Assembly, ECOSOC, and the Commission on the Status of Women.
These functions are spelled out more clearly in Option C, but they could
readily be taken over by a new entity like Option D that has an explicit basis
in the Secretariat.
Funding: The Composite enables funding through both assessed and
voluntary contributions. Its success, however, requires a substantial increase
in voluntary funds. Therefore, it is critical in setting up the entity to
ensure that the voluntary funding counts as development assistance, not as
dues, and that donors begin now to pledge their willingness to provide
substantial new core funds on a multi-year basis to this entity.
Concerns/Questions: Option D holds the greatest promise of
combining normative, policy making, and operational elements and linking
them. But this can only be realized if both the normative and the country
level operations are spelled out more clearly as suggested above. The danger is
that while called the composite model, it could become only a department of the
Secretariat unless this operational capacity is ensured from the
inception.
Final Note on All Options: We must continue to be clear that we are not
just seeking structural coherence for its own sake. The GEAR goal is to
strengthen both the normative/policy work and the operational programming activities
and to enhance the linkages between them. None of this can happen under
any of the options outlined unless there is an increase in the substantial core
funds committed to this work.
================================================================
To contact the list administrator, or to leave the list, send an email to:
wunrn_listserve-request@lists.wunrn.com. Thank you.