@karin_vazquez
The strategic framework of the United Nations Office for South-South Cooperation (UNOSSC) 2014-2017 was approved by the UNDP, UNFPA and UNOPS Executive Board in its first regular session 2014 (27-31 January) - see decisions adopted by UNDP, UNFPA and UNOPS Executive Board at its first regular session 2014.
Overall, the Board was supportive of the work of the UNOSSC and the new strategic framework. The G77 (represented by Bolivia), China, Brazil, and India were vocal in the discussions. Japan also highlighted its continued support to the work of UNOSSC and triangular cooperation - as opposed to other OECD-DAC countries shy representation.
Not surprisingly, though. The UNOSSC has long been seen by the G-77 and China as a "neutral" articulator for SSC in the UN system. But does this mean excluding allegedly "Northern-driven" processes like the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation (GPDEC) from the debate? In the run-up to the GPDEC Ministerial Meeting in Mexico (15-16 April), I would like to have seen GPDEC co-chairs and current members of the Executive Board UK and Indonesia playing a more active role in the discussions last week. Topic for a future post, João Moura...!
In the meantime, here are other highlights of Executive Board discussion last week:
UNDP continues to host UNOSSC
UNDP's own contributions to South-South cooperation lies not in trying to represent, duplicate, overlap or replace the mandate and functions of the UNOSSC given by the UN General Assembly as an independent entity and coordinator for SSC on a global and UN system-wide basis. Rather, UNDP's comparative advantage for support to South-South cooperation is through its own global, regional and country programs within the mandate and areas of focus approved by the Executive Board. The Board praised the establishment of a "Multi-agency Outcome Board" consisting of representatives from ILO, FAO, IFAD, UNIDO, and UNDP to ensure the coherence and coordination of UN support to South-South cooperation during the Strategic Framework period.
Countries are asked to invest more in multilateral forms of SSC
The G77 and China urged member states in a position to do so to contribute more generously to the work of the UNOSSC through its United Nations Fund for South-South Cooperation, as reiterated in General Assembly resolution 60/212 in which it designated the UNFSSC "as the main United Nations trust fund for promoting and supporting South-South and triangular cooperation." The Board also encouraged increased contribution to Southern-led facilities like the IBAS fund, currently managed by UNOSSC.
More effective institutional environment for SSC at the UN and country levels
UNOSSC will contribute to the monitoring of the UNDP global program. UNDP's Regional Bureau for Africa invited UNOSSC to its Advisory Board, and other UNDP's programming units and UN system organizations were encouraged to do the same. At the country level, UNOSSC was encouraged to work with national development cooperation authorities to increase the use of the 3-in-1 South-South support architecture and to strengthen country capacity to manage SSC more systematically.
SSC contribution to the post 2015 agenda
The Brazilian delegation noted that the implementation of the post-2015 agenda will be limited by the effective coordination of the different modalities of
cooperation, and called UNOSSC
to play a greater role on SSC effectiveness and accountability. The discussion on how to promote effective SSC should take place initially with the SSC focal points in the countries (including through ABC-JICA-UNOSSC project ‘Capacity Development in Management of South-South and Triangular Cooperation’), and then taken to the Development Cooperation Forum (DCF) and the High-Level Committee (HLC). Once again, how does this play with UNDP coordination (and co-hosting of the GPDEC Secretariat with the OECD-DCD)? How much can the UNDP support the GPDEC discussion on SSC?
READ ALSO:
Thanks, Karin! Another very interesting post. Sorry for the amount of questions/comments but this is a good opportunity to benefit from an insider's perspective:
ReplyDelete1- "as opposed to other OECD-DAC countries shy representation". Would you say there is something more to this than lack of interest from their part in the UNSSCO processes? If so, what is it?
2- "I would like to have seen GPDEC co-chairs and current members of the Executive Board UK and Indonesia playing a more active role in the discussions last week". Quite interesting, indeed, particularly the lack of pro-activeness from Indonesia's part. It would have bee a good opportunity to better articulation between the organizations, which is not exactly trivial (see next comment).
3- "Once again, how does this play with UNDP coordination (and co-hosting of the GPDEC Secretariat with the OECD-DCD)?". What part of UNDP is actually responsible for co-hosting the GPEDC's Secretariat? What is its relation with UNOSSC? If I remember correctly, the whole (formal) argument for a co-hosted Secretariat was to help to mainstream the developments of the Partnership through the UN system. Though unsaid, perhaps more important was to present the GPEDC as something that was not OECD-led, as well as to gain a foothold within UN amid other (competitive) processes such as the DCF.
Hi João, please keep sending your questions and comments! In my opinion, its is not a "lack of interest", but a a mix of misunderstanding and resistance from both sides - topic for a future post. With regards to mainstreaming SSC through the UN system, it is the GA, through the ECOSOC/DCF, the HLC and UNOSSC who has the mandate. On UNDP, there is no other organization with the same outreach capacity and this is certainly an asset to the GP with regards to monitoring progress since Busan, knowledge management/exchange, etc. Not to mention the potential upstream linkages with the DCF and post-2015 agenda. But, again, there is the misunderstanding/resistance from the different groups of countries with regards to the forum in which negotiations will take place. You may want to have a look at this document that outlines the GP Secretariat arrangements (http://cso-effectiveness.org/IMG/pdf/draft_concept_note_undp_and_oecd_support_to_global_partnership_30march2012.pdf). Fadzai Gwaradzimba (Office-in-Charge of the Bureau for External Relations and Advocacy) is currently representing UNDP/UNDG in the GP Steering Committee.
ReplyDelete