UN Working Group on Transitions meeting

Transcription

1 UN Working Group on Transitions meeting Thursday, 19 May 2016, 9: am (NYT) Meeting summary Participants Co-Chairs Co-Chair Co-Chair Agency PBSO UNICEF DPA UNDP OCHA OCHA FAO UNESCO UNESCO UN-HABITAT DPKO/DFS MTPFO MPTFO MPTFO UNEP UNIDO UNWOMEN UNWOMEN UNHCR UNHCR ILO UNAIDS WFP WFP UNOPS Oscar Fernandez-Taranco Izumi Nakamitsu Representatives Henk-Jan Brinkman Hamish Young Stephen Jackson Vanda Santos Brian Grogan Rodolpho Valente Sandra Aviles (via bridge-line) Ricardo de Guimaraes Pinto Boris Falatar (via bridge-line) Filiep Decorte Oliver Ulich Jennifer Topping Henriette Keijzers Philippe Grandet Maaike Jansen Oleg Sepelev (via bridge-line) Tatyana Titenova Emily Kenney Davide Torzilli Christina Jespersen (via bridge-line) Terje Tessem (via bridge-line) Angela Trenton Mbonde Gina Pattugalan Sarah Milner-Barry Isabel Burchard 1

2 UNDP (Coordinator UNWGT Conflict Prevention TT) UN-WB (Partnership Advisor) CEB Secretariat IASC Secretariat Jonas Horner Jago Salmon Kayoko Gotoh Bernard Muinde Kanni Wignaraja Bradley Foerster Anja Bille Baehncke QCPR Kanni Wignaraja () provided an update on the preparations for the 2016 QCPR. Within the UNDG, the ASG Advisory Group (AG) had been tasked to develop key messages from a system-wide perspective for full UNDG endorsement. Currently, the ASG AG was in the process of further drilling down the key messages agreed by the UNDG in February 2016, and a 2 June 2016 ASG AG retreat was being organized to discuss this. It would be important that messages from the UNWGT on issues pertaining to transitions be fed into this UNDG process. In the ongoing ECOSOC dialogues, areas of convergence amongst Member States were starting to emerge. This included an emphasis on the need to dive deeper into cross-pillar integration, and proposals on moving towards one UN framework, with multiyear plans and budgets across rather than in parallel, was gaining traction. More systematic joined up needs and capacity assessments, based on a common tool box and with more focus on risk and vulnerability, seemed broadly supported. There was full agreement of scaling up implementation of the SOPs for DaO, and strong calls for strengthening the RC system through more authority and clear lines of accountability. Under financing, there was agreement on focusing more on pooled funding, and to explore mixing development and humanitarian funding. On the question of whether to blend non-grant with grant funding, the Member States were divided, as they clearly also were on the question on whether and how to use assessed contributions for programmatic activities, but a real discussion had been opened on these issues, which was an important first step. The discussion that followed focused on the need to be strategic around what language would facilitate better coherence across the pillars if included in the QCPR. Compared to last QCPR, there was now agreed language by the Member States going way beyond what existed previously, e.g. in the Security Council and General Assembly resolutions on the review of the peacebuilding architecture adopted on 27 April Yet, this was still a highly political issue amongst the Member States. It was also highlighted that some of the Member States were not consistent in their messaging, and reference was made to a specific example where one of the key supporters of language on bridging the pillars in the negotiations of the peacebuilding architecture resolution, was one of the main opponents when discussed in ECOSOC. As we move forward with the key messages, the need to have a political strategy was thus stressed. It was further highlighted that there was strong language on integration from the C34 (group of troop contributing countries) which could be used as reference point in this regard. 2

3 It was agreed that the draft UNWGT messages pertaining to transition issues, which would be fully in line with and reinforcing the agreed UNDG messages, should be further revised following the outcome of the World Humanitarian Summit. World Humanitarian Summit Several participants stressed, that as soon as the World Humanitarian Summit (WHS) was over, there was a need to quickly start unpacking the commitments and bring it to the country level. OCHA made reference to a commitment to action being agreed by eight entities (OCHA, UNHCR, WFP, FAO, WHO, UNDP, UNICEF and WB) on new ways of working in moving from delivering aid to ending need, which would be announced at the WHS. There were many misperceptions that this new way of working was about folding humanitarian action under development, and it was important to ensure clear messages that this was not the case. There were several calls for broadening the focus from the humanitarian-development nexus to include all the pillars of the system and broaden the actors engaged. The unpacking of the commitments after the WHS, which among others would include how to do better joint analysis and how to increase the focus on prevention, should bring in relevant actors across the system. Reference was also made to The Peace Promise, an initiative by PBSO, which likewise set out a number of commitments on new ways of working, but with a strong focus on the importance of prevention. About 20 UN and non-un entities had signed up to it, and more were expected to sign up ahead of the WHS. The document would be circulated to the full UNWGT following the meeting. It was expected that the UNWGT would have a role in providing substance to some of the commitments coming out of WHS, and it would be important to reconvene in June 2016, in one form or the other, to take this forward. UNDP proposed a joint IASC/UNWGT meeting/workshop to jointly discuss the peacehumanitarian-development nexus, after the WHS to ensure synergies and coherence. This suggestion was also presented during the IASC Task team on the humanitarian development nexus and was welcomed. Co-chair Izumi Nakamitsu provided an update on The Grand Bargain. This initiative originated from the SG s High-Level Panel Report on Humanitarian Financing, and was part of the input for WHS. It had been a quite unique multi-stakeholder process, with 15 top donors and 15 key recipients, where agreement had been reached on 10 commitment areas, namely: greater transparency; more support for local and national responders; increased use of cash transfers; reduced management costs; improved needs assessments; better inclusion of affected populations; increased multiyear planning and funding; reduced donor earmarking; harmonized reporting; and enhanced humanitarian-development collaboration. The last area on the humanitarian-development nexus, which had been led by UNDP and Denmark, had been one of the most difficult areas, with pushback in particular from a couple of the Member States. 3

4 While the original ambitions of The Grand Bargain had been much higher than what had been agreed in the end, mainly due to difficulties on the donor side, it was still seen as a useful step towards something new. And while it was not ground breaking, it was still seen as breaking ground in a number of areas, and the way it would be implemented would be key. The final version would be circulated to the full UNWGT. UN-WB Partnership Co-chair Oscar Fernandez-Taranco emphasized the active engagement of the WB in the preparations for the WHS. It was expected that the WB would make several announcements at the WHS on how it is strengthening its engagement in fragile and conflict-affected states, and the role of the UN-WB partnership therein. He further stressed the various references to areas where the UN-WB partnership should be strengthened, most recently in the peacebuilding architecture resolutions. There were three strands of work in particular for the partnership going forward, namely: data and evidence, risk assessments and analysis; joint engagement at country level; and innovative financing instruments. These areas were highlighted in the partnership note circulated to the UNWGT ahead of the meeting, which further introduced the proposal of focusing on progress in five settings, of which the specifics were still to be determined. While there is an existing partnership structure with its UN-WB Strategic Partnership Framework and UN- WB partnership Trust Fund, there was a need to re-assess the governance structure. This should ensure strategic high-level interaction with a sufficiently inclusive representation reflecting all pillars, and bring the conversation with the WB together in one place rather than engaging through different streams. Then there could always be different work-streams underneath the high-level structure. Jennifer Topping (MPTF Office) presented the mapping of UN financing instruments for fragility and protracted crises and some key messages drawn from the mapping (both circulated ahead of the meeting). This was feeding into joint mappings with the WB and OECD ahead of the WHS. It was less about volume and mainly focusing on the instruments the UN brings to this space, and amongst the key message was the notion of the multiple financing instruments, and based thereon how to get to the best architecture to deal with a specific context. This led to another important point being raised, namely that the UN can become a very small actor when fragmented in a given country. The more we come together across the pillars, the stronger we are and the more we have to offer in influencing the forward-looking conversation with the governments and other international actors and donors. The financing platform with WB engagement being discussed ahead of WHS was also briefly raised, as an initiative to follow closely, and it was still not clear if it would mainly be about optimizing what already exist or inventing something new. 4

5 Finally, a new study on sustaining peace and prevention, which the WB was interested to undertake in close collaboration with the UN, was discussed. The study was intended to update the analysis of the 2011 WDR framing and was expected to look at issues such as how to do better prevention through development and how to unpack the notion of the primacy of politics. A page concept note was being developed for later this year, with a view to have a full report ready for the Annual Meetings of the Bank in October Discussions were currently ongoing on how the UN can best participate. In response to a request from the World Bank for one temporary UN focal point, it was suggested that Jago Salmon, the UN-WB partnership adviser, would be the focal point until the governance structure is in place. UNDP manifested strong support to this process and is willing to dedicate human and financial resources to this process. Action Points - Update the draft UNWGT Elaboration of Key Messages pertaining to transition issues for the 2016 QCPR following the World Humanitarian Summit [PBSO to facilitate] - Circulate The Peace Promise [PBSO] and The Grand Bargain [UNDP] - Organize a joint IASC/UNWGT meeting/workshop to discuss the peace-humanitariandevelopment nexus, in follow up to the World Humanitarian Summit to build synergies and bring coherence to this agenda [UNDP, OCHA, PBSO, ] - Jago Salmon, the UN-WB partnership adviser, to be focal point for UN-WB study on prevention until the governance structure is in place. 5