Discurso do Representante Permanente Alterno, Embaixador Norberto Moretti, durante diálogo da Secretária-Geral Adjunta das Nações Unidas, Sra. Amina Mohammed, com o G77+China sobre o financiamento do sistema de coordenadores residentes das Nações Unidas - 7 dezembro de 2023 (texto em inglês)

Statement by the Deputy Permanent Representative of Brazil to the United Nations, Ambassador Norberto Moretti, at the informal meeting between DSG Amina Mohammed and the G77+China Group about the UN Resident Coordinators System Funding
December 7th, 2023

Madam DSG, Excellencies,

Our point of departure in this dialogue is that there are different views in the group on how to address the financial woes of the Resident Coordinator System (RC System). What may seem like a straightforward solution to some is a politically and financially onerous option to others. Solidarity needs to work both ways. As a basic assumption, we need to acknowledge the legitimacy of each other’s stance and difficulties and demonstrate an openness to seek an effective way forward that can bring us together.   

We can certainly relate to the concerns and anxiety of some fellow developing countries, especially from the African Group, regarding the financial challenges of the RC System. The role and presence of the RC System – and the United Nations Development System (UNDS) as a whole for that matter are important in the African continent, but also in Brazil.

Nevertheless, as we contended in the last plenary, it is imperative to proceed with a sense of both responsibility and fairness, given the implications of decisions we may take for States of many developing countries. It is not fair or appropriate to dash to solutions that will impinge on the already constrained fiscal space of developing countries, especially when the cost of such solutions are borne by those who should not bear them. Transferring the burden of paying for international cooperation for development from developed to developing countries is simply wrong.

It would also open a very dangerous Pandora box and put us all on a very slippery slope.  If one accepts to take on financial responsibilities that are not ours in the case of the RC system, why not do the same in all discussions on Financing for Development, including climate finance? It is the negation of the spirit and letter of the Addis Ababa Action Agenda, the 2030 Agenda and the Quadrennial Comprehensive Policy Review (QCPR).

We already have primary responsibility for our own economic and social development, but we also need developed partners to step up to the plate and live up to their share of the bargain, especially in times of crises and development reversals. All this in a time where money keeps flowing very liberally toward, inter alia, ever-increasing military expenses and donors´ own development needs, such as transition to low-emission economies and investments in frontier technologies. Which is entirely legitimate, provided, again, that they live up to their commitments and do not, in practice, contradict their own political discourse vis-à-vis solidarity with developing countries.

The state of affairs in the development cooperation realm also requires a sense of realism. This is not the world we have wished for. It is not reasonable to expect that the RC system alone can be spared from a priority crisis that has been afflicting the entire UNDS.

Therefore, pragmatic efforts should be made to review both the expenditure and revenue sides as highlighted by many during these ongoing consultations. It is imperative that we exercise constraint in terms of further expansion and arguably be strategic and flexible in prioritizing countries and regions where the RC has been making the most difference. It is also recommendable that we set the overall budget of the system at a tenable level and connect expectations about services offer and delivery to a realistic budget. Last year´s record expenditures may provide a basis for that exercise.

Such measures would bolster the case for increased voluntary contributions by developed donor countries as they would reduce the current deficit to a residual amount and lessen the financial burden of bridging it. We may also want to further scrutinize the cost-sharing and levy elements. By the way, we look forward to the briefing on those. Why should we not reward resident coordinators for their effectiveness in spurring measurable efficiency gains across the system, for instance through the cost-sharing mechanism? A 10% reward for example would help keep resident coordinators up and running in pursuit of further efficiency gains, which, for their turn, would free up more money for operational activities for development in the future. We would view it as a positive incentive rather than competition. Moreover, even a negligible increase in the levy could make a huge difference for the coffers of the system. Trends demonstrate earmarked funds are going to keep growing as a share of total revenues and pushing budget levels upwards.

To conclude, I would like to invite you to tackle this issue in a practical and equitable manner. Complex challenges are just not amenable to oversimplifying solutions.

I thank you.