By Javier Surasky
Dedicated
to Juncal Gilsanz Blanco, who always sought a better world, while never ceasing
to teach us to smile.
The UN 80 Initiative, launched by the Secretary-General as a new United Nations reform process leading up to its 80th anniversary, is aimed at strengthening and improving the organization's capacity to fulfill its mission. However, the process coincides with a strong defunding of the UN by the United States, exacerbated by a financial logic of delayed quota payments by China (its second-largest quota contributor) and member state contributions that arrive at the organization as "earmarked contributions," meaning they are not freely available to the organization but must be used for certain specific topics or directed to certain countries. The result is a projected fund cut of nearly 30% in 2025 compared to available funding in 2023. UN 80, consequently, looks more like a forced cut than a reform toward a new vision of the UN and its work. In this entry, we aim to provide an understanding of how the process unfolds and some of its key elements.
To begin,
let's note that the initiative is guided by a Task Force composed of the
directors of 15 agencies, the Secretary-General, as well as the regional
commissions, and the funds and programs. The work is organized around three
workstreams and seven thematic clusters.
Workstream
1 focuses on
efficiency and improvements, as reported by Guy Ryder, Assistant
Secretary-General for Policy in the Executive Office of the Secretary-General
and the most visible face of the process. It aims to identify concrete measures
to deliver services more effectively and at reduced cost. Among its
first proposals, we find:
- Common Administrative Platforms
that provide executive services in human resources, finance, and
procurement to multiple entities of the system, starting with those
located in New York and Geneva.
- Relocation of Functions,
identifying those that can be performed in lower-cost locations than New
York or Geneva.
- Creation of a consolidated ICT
and travel management structure based on a distribution in regional
centers.
- Reduction of positions by 15 to
20% by 2026, with an emphasis on higher categories (P5 and above),
respecting gender parity and regional distribution.
Workstream
2, perhaps the most complex, focuses on examining the mandates of system
entities, including
the Secretary-General's own office, to enhance their coherence and
effectiveness. To achieve this, a platform has already been created that maps
over 3,900 documents through which UN system entities submit their budgetary
requests based on their respective mandates. This analysis has identified that
approximately 20% of entities cite overlapping mandates, especially in the
development pillar, and that the primary sources of current mandates are the
Pact for the Future and the 2030 Agenda.
The
third workstream focuses on program structure and reconfiguration, aiming to improve efficiency and
prevent duplication of UN implementation structures on the ground. Again, its
central aim is to achieve greater systemic coherence, now at the operational
level.
Under these
three workstreams operate the seven clusters, which are the heart of the
process, as it is there that specific reform proposals must be generated, which
the Secretary-General will then evaluate and eventually transmit to member
states, who are the ones to make decisions about what to do and what not to do.
Cluster
1 is on peace and security. As reported by Jean-Pierre Lacroix, Under-Secretary-General for Peace
Operations, it is coordinated by the heads of the Department of Political and
Peacebuilding Affairs (DPPA), the Department of Peace Operations (DPO), the Office
for Disarmament Affairs (ODA), and the Office of Counter-Terrorism (OCT).
They
identified areas where UN system coordination could be expanded, such as
counter-terrorism, rule of law assistance, and the implementation of the Women,
Peace, and Security agenda. Other areas currently being worked on include human
rights; youth, peace, and security; rights and needs of victims of armed
conflict; disinformation, fake news, and hate speech; and children in armed
conflict. It is considered essential to improve support for field missions and
representatives, although caution was expressed regarding the advisability of
merging existing structures in the absence of clear objectives. For this
cluster, coherence, not institutional unification, must be the goal.
Cluster
2 works on development at the Secretary-General level and is coordinated by the UN Department
of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), the United Nations Conference on Trade
and Development (UNCTAD), the Economic Commission for Africa (ECA), and the
United Nations Environment Program (UNEP).
Ligia
Noronha, Assistant Secretary-General of the UNEP, reports that the cluster have
identified three possible directions for progress, including the
rationalization of results, the creation of joint technical centers in thematic
areas where there are complementary competencies, and the alignment of internal
structures to focus each entity on its field of comparative advantage.
The
third cluster addresses development at the United Nations system level and works under the coordination of
the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the United Nations Office for
Project Services (UNOPS), the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), UN
Women, and Chief Digital Office (CDO).
Haoliang Xu, UNDP Associate Administrator, explained that the work has so far focused on exploring future options for the UN development system in terms of its form, functions, and capacities to drive the SDGs. To this end, they seek to create a shared vision of the future based on an assessment of opportunities in terms of the relevance, effectiveness, coherence, efficiency, impact, and sustainability of the UN development system. Today, they are working on three scenarios, ranging from introducing improvements to the current system through incremental alignment, an integration aimed at reducing fragmentation, or a merger of currently dispersed entities into consolidated units.
This cluster has already
launched a UN system-wide survey and plans to conduct peer reviews of its work.
It maintains that, whatever the outcome, it must take into account the specific
contexts of the countries in which it works to support governments in promoting
sustainable development.
Cluster
4, focusing on humanitarian aid, is operating under increased pressure due to the current context. The International
Organization for Migration (IOM), the Office of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), the World Food Program (WFP), UNICEF,
and the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
lead it.
Carl Skau,
Deputy Executive Director and Chief Operating Officer of the WFP, noted that
the humanitarian area is already under severe strain due to funding deficits.
Hence, efficiency and speed are its imperatives. The cluster works on
simplifying and rationalizing the humanitarian action program cycle, expanding
common services, integrating humanitarian supply chains, strengthening
coherence and coordination in field action, increasing synergies with
humanitarian diplomacy, and improving the effectiveness of humanitarian action.
Its main goal is to break down silos within humanitarian institutions and
strengthen relationships with resident coordinators and other local,
governmental, and non-governmental actors.
Cluster
5 is dedicated to human rights. The OHCHR and its Head of Office coordinate this effort.
Assistant
Secretary-General for Human Rights Ilze Brands Kehris explained that an
approach prioritizing the integration of multiple actors has been adopted.
These actors have been asked to submit proposals to increase the efficiency,
effectiveness, coordination, and capacity for action of the UN in human rights.
Its first steps aim to improve the functioning of the UN human rights ecosystem
by rationalizing mandates, reducing duplicated tasks, and increasing synergies
between the Human Rights Council and treaty bodies. The possibility of
introducing sunset clauses in human rights treaties that create oversight
bodies is being investigated. These clauses would establish a deadline for the
validity of the created body or an event after which the body would automatically
deactivate (e.g. if the General Assembly decides to grant its mandate to
another entity).
Sunset
clauses could contribute to the review and updating of mandates and
institutions, as well as the elimination of programs or agencies that have not
been effective in achieving their objectives. Work is also underway to enhance
the effectiveness of coordination within the United Nations system's human
rights activities following the decision adopted by member states in the Pact
for the Future.
This effort
explores the opportunity to establish a permanent inter-agency UN human rights
group, aiming to strengthen mandate coordination and increase accountability.
It has already been identified that coordination of actions is possible on
topics such as sexual violence in conflicts, children in armed conflict,
genocide, the responsibility to protect, and the promotion of the rule of law.
This cluster also aims to ensure a greater presence of human rights issues in
the UN's development, peace, and security pillars, fostering cohesion and
coherence at an aggregate level and increasing their impact.
Cluster
6 on training and research is co-led by the United Nations University (UNU) and the United Nations
Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR).
Tshilidzi Marwala, Rector of UNU, explained that the ultimate goal of this group's work is to strengthen the UN's research and learning ecosystem. They have adopted an approach defined as "concentric circles": a first inner circle focuses on entities dedicated to research and formal training formally recognized within the UN system. At the same time, an outer one includes specialized agencies of the system and secretariat departments with research and training functions. Among their first conclusions, it has been identified that existing mandates in the area are complementary and not overlapping, oriented towards different audiences and specific needs.
Although convergences
are determined on certain topics, such as digital transformation, gender
equity, and climate leadership, there is potential to increase inter-agency
collaboration. Given this, three options are being debated: renewing the
ecosystem by improving coordination and preserving institutional identities,
creating a two-pillar model based on two integrating entities (one for training
and one for research), or moving towards a complete merger led by a single
United Nations institution for knowledge creation.
Finally, Cluster
7 is for specialized agencies of the UN system and is coordinated by the International
Telecommunications Office (ITU) and the International labour Organization (ILO).
Doreen Bogdan-Martin, ITU Secretary-General, emphasized that despite having independent officials and budgets from the UN, specialized agencies understand that the UN 80 process needs to address all levels of the system's work and notes that the technical, normative, and operational experience of these agencies can be leveraged to improve efficiency, review mandates, and seek to increase the overall impact of the UN. Their first recommendation is to prioritize the impact of possible reforms over their mere capacity to save resources, for which they propose developing a standardized methodology for quantifying efficiency through the capture of measurable monetary impacts (such as cost avoidance) and cost reductions, ensuring transparency and comparability at the system level.
They also suggest creating economies of scale through the joint use of artificial intelligence, ICT, and shared services, mentioning that significant efficiency improvements could be achieved if this were to happen, for example, by utilizing common AI to provide assisted translation and interpretation services in UN centers shared by different agencies. Similarly, they emphasize that a better tool and practice in data distribution and use would be beneficial for all parties.
The group
continues to work on identifying potential mandate overlaps. It highlights the
opportunity to position Geneva as a global center for science, technology, and
innovation, given its existing infrastructure and technical and human
resources.
The three
workstreams and seven clusters will share their conclusions with the
Secretary-General, who will present his report to member states at the end of
July 2025. A revised program budget proposal for 2026 will be presented in
September, and a revised program budget proposal for 2027 will be presented in
the boreal spring of 2026.
Reactions
from Member Countries
Several
countries took the floor to react to both Guy Ryder's presentation and those of
the clusters. As an example of the reactions, we can mention the following:
- Iraq (on
behalf of the G77 and China): The primary concern is budget and staff reductions, with a request for
information on how proposed cut levels were determined. They worry that a
"one-size-fits-all" approach could lead to imbalances in geographical
and gender representation, particularly affecting areas where the UN has
comparative advantages compared to those where it does not.
- Canada
(on behalf of 80 countries, including several from Latin America and the
Caribbean): Insists
on applying a "gender lens" throughout the reform process, an issue
that cannot be sacrificed for efficiency.
- Sweden
(on behalf of the Nordic countries): Calls for budgetary and staff reductions to be
strategic and performance-based rather than merely general cuts while retaining
emerging talent.
- The
European Union (on its own behalf and that of its member states and candidate
countries):
Highlights the need for an inclusive process that can offer innovative
solutions and leverage data from UN entities to strengthen coordination.
- Germany: Stresses that UN 80 should not be a
"mere cutback" but must ensure the UN's resilience for decades to
come, building on the outcomes of the Pact for the Future. They request that
the Secretary-General's report include data-driven recommendations for mandate
review but also recall that member states are ultimately responsible for
decisions.
- Brazil: States that the reform should not
solely be an exercise in cuts but primarily about improving impact.
- Chile: Also expresses concern that budget
and personnel reductions might be applied uniformly, explicitly mentioning the
need to protect ECLAC given its contributions to the region. They call for UN
80 to be a process where all voices are heard.
- China: Affirms that the reform must
strengthen the UN and not be a calculated response to demands from individual
countries or the decision of its main contributor not to pay its dues. Instead,
it should prioritize the concerns of developing countries and improve their
representation.
- The Republic
of Korea:
Emphasizes the importance of member state ownership in mandate review and a
human resources management system that is geographically equitable, respects
gender parity, and safeguards the interests of young professionals.
- United
States: Focuses its
attention on strengthening the UN's role in maintaining international peace and
security and requests concrete proposals from the Secretary-General to
eliminate overlaps, increase the efficiency and impact of the UN's work, and
also achieve savings.
- France: States that the current UN
structure is "inflated" and that its missions must strengthen their
impact and visibility.
- Mexico: Considers the review and
rationalization of mandates as the "foundation of the reform" and
emphasizes that member states must guide it. They explicitly oppose relocation
processes carried out hastily and without due analysis.
- Nicaragua: Defends the need to ensure regional
representation when eliminating jobs and that programs aimed at development and
technical cooperation should not be affected.
- United
Kingdom: Maintains
that the reform should be based on three pillars: impact, coherence, and
cost-effectiveness.
- Russia: Calls for "genuine
consultations" among member states to determine the underlying logic of
the reform and to present resolutions to the General Assembly.
- Switzerland Expresses concern about the
"cumulative effect" of budget and personnel cut decisions on the UN
ecosystem in Geneva and on staff motivation, noting that fragmentation is a
risky process. They insist on positioning Geneva as the key city for the UN's
humanitarian and human rights work.
This
overview helps identify some common and conflicting elements in the positions
of member states:
Among the
common elements, we find:
- The need for reform should go beyond mere cutbacks.
- The leadership of member states in decisions regarding mandate modification.
- The promotion of transparency and inclusivity in the process, though with different emphases.
- The essential value of increasing the UN's impacts on the ground.
- Achieving improvements in efficiency and effectiveness while seeking to reduce expenses and increase savings, recognizing that personnel costs are a significant part of spending, but without agreement on how to address the issue.
- The defense of equitable gender representation and, with less emphasis, of regional representation.
Among the
conflicting positions, we locate:
- Approach
and Scope of Cuts:
While the G77+China expresses concern about the uniform application of budget
and personnel reductions, the United States, United Kingdom, France, and Sweden
are more open to making these cuts.
- Protection
of Specific Areas and Representation: China emphasizes the protection of development
and technical cooperation programs, as well as improving the representation of
developing countries. Chile highlights concerns about the impact on ECLAC
(whose headquarters are in Santiago, Chile), and Switzerland expresses concern
about the situation in Geneva.
- Secretary-General's
Proposals: Germany,
the United States, the Kingdom, and Sweden request a report that includes bold
and concrete proposals. Russia, on the other hand, requests clarity on the
reform's vision first, as a means to analyze possible proposals and to consult
in this regard within the General Assembly.
On the
other hand, when reviewing the working methods of each cluster in which the
process is organized to generate proposals, we see that they follow different
logic and working methods. While this may address the specificities of each
area, it risks the possibility of achieving coherent results that can dialogue
with one another or provide optimal data and information to the
Secretary-General for the preparation of his June report.
Finally,
the process aims to envision a stronger and more effective United Nations,
focusing on achievements that extend beyond cuts and projecting them into the
future, which does not seem possible within a process that, despite the
discourse, remains closed to real and significant participation by
non-governmental actors.
Too many
doubts, very short deadlines, and a colossal challenge, or the expected
effects of not making timely decisions and assuming that problems will solve
themselves—a shared diplomatic failure that, as rarely before, has moved to
the center of global governance.