The Creation of a Composite Gender Entity: System-wide Coherence reform 2008 to present.

By Katie Jagel
16 April 2012

The Creation of a Composite Gender Entity was one of the recommendations of the 2006 High-Level Panel on System-wide Coherence. This article maps the progress of the making of UN Women since 2008. The years 2005-early 2008 are covered in the previous article by Jonas von Freiesleben in Chapter 3 on System-wide Coherence in the Center’s 2008 Edition of Managing Change at the United Nations . This article starts in 2008 and covers the Member State disputes, concept notes and debates, and what the UN Women organization has been up to since its start date in February of 2011.

Introduction
UN Women is a conglomerate organization that initiates, advocates, and raises funds for advancing equal rights policies for women. It aims to self-sufficiently coordinate its own programs, and it is an outgrowth of a recommendation to create an entity with a “stronger voice on women's issues” coming out of the 2006 High Level Panel on SWC. Informal meetings on the subject began in mid-2007 and continued through early 2008, but it would not be until mid-2010 that Member States created this united gender entity, which made it the first SWC cluster to come to a conclusion.

62nd Session: Inception and Preliminary Organization
Co-Chairs, Ambassadors Augustine Mahiga of Tanzania and John Kavanagh of Ireland, headed the 2008 SWC initiative. They planned to head off some of the confusion that existed and uncover gaps in the existing gender architecture through pre-emptive informal meetings with Member States, UN agencies, and independent agencies specializing in gender reform and equality. The formal meetings then began on 16 May 2008 and developed a light blueprint for possible ways to meet structural needs. The plan proposed consolidating three pre-existing UN affiliated gender entities: the UN Division for the Advancements of Women (DAW), the Office of the Special Advisor on Gender Issues (OSAGI), and the UN Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM). This was met with initial resistance from the organizations affected. But, Gender Equality Architecture Reform (GEAR), an NGO involved in the informal meetings and follow up, was one of the main supporters of the merger. As a result of these meetings, Member States requested that Secretary-General (SG) Ban Ki Moon write a non-paper containing his recommendations and deliver it to the Assembly by 9 June 2008.
Many organizations and Member States had reservations surrounding the possible creation of the integrated gender entity. Many including DAW, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the European Union (EU), and Switzerland worried there would be systematic, coherence, and coordination weaknesses. Others such as OSAGI, UNIFEM, and the CANZ Nations Nations (Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) worried that it was not the management of the resources but the issue of available authority that would govern relative successes or failures. In the end most States reiterated their support for the plan but said they would await the SG’s non-paper before taking further action, Kazakhstan being an exception to this, called to expedite the process.

Ban's first concept note on the subject, with significant contribution from Deputy Under-Secretary Asha-Rose Migiro, was received by the General Assembly (GA) on 5 June 2008. The paper had four major sections including: coordination and coherence; authority and positioning; accountability; and resources. His Excellency cited the need for a stronger ground presence and strengthened channels for feedback. The report maintained that the responsibilities of widespread specialists and advisers do not substitute or make up for a designated leader. The report laments the lack of standards and inconsistent support that gender equality has faced in general and advocates the need to include either a measure of standards or the institution of consequences for inconsistencies and lack of accountability. It stressed that funding is inconsistent and unstable and needs to be addressed before a functioning entity could be put on the ground. The paper did not include specific architecture reforms, and so following an informal meeting on 16 June 2008, Member States requested another concept note specifically asking for the range of institutional options and/or institutional reforms to currently existing entities that the SG recommended as potential solutions.
Prior to Member States issuing statements regarding the concept note, both the Co-Chairs and Deputy SG Migiro addressed Member States to reiterate the need for increased coordination between agencies and deepened coherence between normative top down decisions and actions taken on the ground. Member State responses to the first concept note fell into three major categories: those who wanted a new gender entity; those who wanted to reform current architecture; and those who awaited the second concept note before taking a position. The EU, stated that a new entity was necessary to institute proper reforms and address gaps in the current gender architecture, and that further, a high ranking official or director was needed to lead such an entity. stated that a new entity was necessary to institute proper reforms and address gaps in the current gender architecture, and that a high-ranking official or director was needed to lead such an entity. Liberia and Mozambique showed support for the new entity only, without specific comment as to the authority figure. Developing nations led other States against creating a new gender entity: they consistently said that the SWC was putting too much emphasis on gender issues which they conveyed as a developed or Western concern. There was also the fear that the gender issue was being 'de-linked' from the other needed SWC reforms and that those other issues would be left behind. The Joint Committee (JCC) of the Group of 77 (G771) and the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) issued a statement stating that Member States were pursuing an unneeded entity and that a more analytic and reformist approach was needed to address the four major concerns of the concept note. China issued its own statement promoting the strengthening of existing mechanisms, indicating, “There is no evidence to show that a new entity will solve these problems.” India's statement also contained doubts as to the effectiveness of a new entity over the existing ones. CANZ, the Nordic Countries, Brazil, Egypt, Switzerland and others, all stipulated that they would wait for the next note by the SG before taking the next step in decision making.

The co-Chairs, submitted a report on 21 July 2008 addressing the concerns of the JCC and others. They stated specifically that the gender issue was not becoming de-linked, and that the decision making process should proceed along with the other four SWC issues to end up with a single “packed decision” on all of the SWC clusters. The second concept note called the “Options Paper”, followed shortly thereafter from the Deputy SG on 23 July 2008. Both GEAR and OSAGI gave significant contributions for the creation of the paper. The Options Paper put fourth four different options: Option A was a 'Status Quo' control where no structural changes would be made to any current institutional framework. Option B was the 'Autonomous Fund/Programme option' which would combine four current gender-entities to form one autonomous program outside of the UN System, but receive some UN support. Option C, titled 'Department', proposed creating a new department within the UN, to be headed by an Under-Secretary-General (USG) as a part of the UN Secretariat. It would be responsible for creating a gender-specific angle that would be incorporated into UN peace support missions. The last Option, D, called the 'Composite Entity', would combine all normative and operational work under one single entity acting as a policy driver for all gender equality issues. A UN appointed USG would head the organization. The last option, the Composite Entity, appealed to the majority of Member States, who then asked the SG for a third note outlining details for a Composite Entity, with specificity given to how a new entity would be funded.

63rd Session: The Composite Entity
A general mandate for such a 'Composite Entity' had already been created in the form of Resolution 62/227 in late 2007, but the SG’s third paper with specifics on the institutional details did not come out until 5 March 2009. Rachel Mayanja, appointed the SG's Special Adviser on Gender Issues in 2004, drafted the paper, entitled, “Options for Strengthening Institutional Arrangements on Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women”. UN women's agencies, relevant non-governmental organizations, and Member States collaborated over a period of months to create the concept paper. The paper provided loose blueprints in the following four areas: governance, functions, staffing and funding options. Two informal meetings followed in March and April 2009, headed by the 2009 Co-Chairs of the SWC, Ambassadors Kaire Mbuende of Namibia and Juan Antonia Yáñez-Barnuevo of Spain, and attended by Member States and representatives from the UN system's gender entities at the time. The “Expert Group Meeting” on institutional architecture took place on 15 April 2009. In these meetings, Ms. Mayanja stressed that efficient funding structures, more so than just necessary amounts of funds, were contingent upon Member States. It was also stated that the new mandate should combine, and not duplicate entities to avoid overlap and waste. Thus, the document recommended streamlining resources and not dividing them amongst groups, rendering them less effective. Lastly, the document recommended that nation states themselves allot resources, enhancing UN ground presence.
The vast majority of Member States were now in support of the Composite Option, but there was disagreement in regard to when action was required. The EU, the Nordic Group, CANZ, Ireland, and Mexico, wanted to act relatively quickly on the gender issue alone, taking a concrete step forward. Others, including the G77, NAM, China, Indian, and Japan, showed intense reservations on breaking with the integrated SWC process without first insuring results in the other cluster areas. Even though there was a consensus for the Composite Entity, the JCC and G77 said they would refuse to make decisions for a gender authority before the SG issued papers on Governance and Funding, which were of “greater interest”.

The SG issued the papers on Governance and Funding in late April, and gender architecture discussions continued in June 2009 with new staffing information provided by the Secretariat. The paper recommended that the Composite Entity combine several pre-existing gender entities including OSAGI, DAW, and UNIFEM along with the International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (INSTRAW). They strongly suggested setting a deadline for the creation of the Composite Entity before the closing of the 63rd Session. The new entity would be expected to contribute to enhanced research capacities and act as an information hub for state actors, the UN, civil society groups, and women's groups. A majority of States, including the JCC, CANZ nations, the US, and Russia, said that more work was required on strengthening the architecture, and that research should continue even after the birth of the organization.

The Composite Entity Option finally received its creating mandate from Resolution A/RES/63/311on the last day of the 63rd Session, 14 September 2009. The Resolution called for combining the existing entities OSAGI, DAW, UNIFEM and INSTRAW and their mandates, to be led by an USG appointed “in consultation with Member States, on the basis of equitable geographical representation and gender balance”, who would sit on the UN Chief Executives Board (CEB). At this point too much disagreement remained to form the actual organization immediately; consequently, Res. 311 requested the 64th GA create, “a comprehensive proposal specifying [...] the mission statement of the composite entity, the organizational arrangements, including an organizational chart, funding and the executive board to oversee its operational activities in order to commence intergovernmental negotiations.”

64th Session: Architecture and Modalities; Creation
At an informal meeting hosted by UNIFEM in early October 2009, it was decided that 90% of staffing and funding should come from the UN organizations that combined to form the new entity, and that the new USG should come from outside the combined pre-existing organizations; “aware of the challenges and failures of the past but uninhibited or burdened by old allegiances”. It asked that the USG be appointed after funding was decided on by the UNESCO's budgetary committee, a goal set for March 2010.

Discussions by Member States on institutional architecture for the proposed entity resumed in mid-February 2010 following a a concept note issued on 6 January 2010. The report loosely outlines a mission statement, organizational arrangements, provisions for funding, and options for an Executive Board to oversee operational activities, as well as an organizational chart showing a proposed structure. In an attempt to answer some of the governance questions, the report recommends that the entity be a subsidiary organ of the GA, with an USG who would report to the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), and with "an Executive Board [that] will oversee its operational activities”; it added specifically that the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) “will play a crucial role in guiding its work.”

      Some states, led by the EU, pressed for accelerated action and an earlier appointment of a USG which could help in the transition process. Gambian and Russian delegations had reservations in regards to the universality of the entity and subsequent collaboration with the CSW. The JCC and the G77 called for more intense and detailed discussions on funding, organizational arrangements, and intergovernmental regulation as it pertained to the new entity.
       By mid-April to early May 2010 the GA was reviewing a draft proposal on the five SWC initiatives. Member States discussed six gender topics: the functions of the new entity; governance; funding architecture; consolidation of existing organizations and the transition period; the USG; and lastly, a name for the entity. Firstly, in the 'Functions' discussions, the JCC proposed that UNIFEM, as the largest existing body, should take on a leading role in operational and transition issues. Canada stated that the entity must be flexible, efficient, and effective with an 'on the ground' presence. The EU, Canada, Russia and Denmark all specified that the new organization must provide normative support to intergovernmental bodies, while carrying out operational actions productively. Second, under 'Governance', there was a divergence as to who should be the executive authority. Some groups like the JCC called for an Executive Board that would report to ESOCOC. Canada, Denmark and Switzerland argued that the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) should act as the governing authority. While most States brushed over 'Funding Architecture' the JCC made a statement that there needed to be further discussion, pressing for drawing up a comprehensive framework. Fourth, 'Consolidating Existing Organizations and Transition Period', was looked at by most groups and member states as key to the creation of the new entity. There would need to be open, clear and efficient information channels between the intergovernmental, normative level and the active ground-presence for coherent decision-making. Fifth, appointment of the USG was still an area of contention. The JCC maintained their position that the USG should be appointed after the creation of the entity, not before. The JCC's statement also recommended a 4-year term for the USG, held first by someone from a Southern nation, and then to follow a geographical rotation. In response, the EU, Canada, Denmark and Russia stated that the nomination of a USG was a key step in the actual creation of the entity and the appointment was needed for the transition. Lastly, there was disagreement in regard to the naming of the entity; with the JCC calling for Member States to name the entity and with states like Tanzania calling for the Secretary General to name the entity.

65th Session: Settling In
       Although Member States seemed very far away from it at their meetings, the GA finally created UN Women “The United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and Empowerment of Women” in July 2010 within Resolution A/RES/64/289. This put a conclusion to treating SWC issues as an integrated unit. Michelle Bachelet was appointed the new USG for UN Women in September of 2010. UN Women became a functioning entity in early February of 2011.The three main roles of UN Women, as stipulated on their website are first, “to support inter-governmental bodies, such as the CSW, in their formulation of policies, global standards and norms”, second, “to help Member States to implement these standards, standing ready to provide suitable technical and financial support to those countries that request it, and to forge effective partnerships with civil society” and lastly, “to hold the UN system accountable for its own commitments on gender equality, including regular monitoring of system-wide progress.” The Resolution also provided for a multi-tiered intergovernmental governance structure: “the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council and the Commission on the Status of Women shall constitute the multi-tiered intergovernmental governance structure for the normative support functions and shall provide normative policy guidance to the Entity.”

66th Session: The 56th Commission
The one-year anniversary of UN Women was celebrated on 2 February 2012. Just one day earlier, on 1 February 2012 it was announced that UN Women, UNDP, and the EU, would partner in the first joint program piloting a model for EU/UN collaboration on Women, Peace and Security.
UN Women hosted the 56th CSW in February and March of 2012. The main themes were; empowerment of rural women and their role in poverty and hunger eradication; development and current challenges; and financing for gender equality and the empowerment of women. The Commission was largely successful with at least seven draft resolutions adopted by the GA coming out of the two-week event. Although both these ventures have been successful the organization is struggling with fundraising issues.