VZCZCXYZ0000
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUCNDT #0822/01 2592035
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 152035Z SEP 08
FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 4938
INFO RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 3362
RUEHRO/AMEMBASSY ROME 1007

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 000822 
 
DEPT FOR IO; IO/EDA, IO/RHS; S/WE; G/IWI; PRM/POP; PLEASE PASS 
USAID; ROME FOR IFAD 
 
SIPDIS 
SENSITIVE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PHUM SOCI EAID KWMN UN
SUBJECT: UN TO RATIONALIZE ITS WOMEN'S AFFAIRS MECHANISMS 
 
REF: A. PHIPPS-LUM E-MAIL JULY 
 
¶1. (SBU) Summary.  The high-level panel on UN System-Wide Coherence 
underlined, in its 2004 report, the need for reform in the gender 
sector, and the Member States have agreed that the UN's approach to 
gender/women needs to be rationalized and strengthened.  Deputy 
Secretary-General Migiro presented a paper with four options (ref A) 
in July, which is now under discussion.  USUN believes Option D, a 
"composite" entity, comes closest to a viable way forward, although 
more fleshing out, and possibly modification, of the details of this 
option are needed.  Discussions will continue during the 63rd 
General Assembly, with an eye towards making a decision by September 
¶2009.  This cable describes the four options and requests the 
Department's guidance on the preferred outcome described in para 9. 
End summary. 
 
¶2. (U) Currently, the UN has four separate offices to deal with 
aspects of women's or gender issues.  There is poor coordination 
between them, no common line of authority, and no institutional 
links within the UN's organizational structure.  The four UN 
entities are: the UN Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), the 
Division for the Advancement of Women of the Department of Economic 
and Social Affairs (DAW), the Office of the Special Adviser on 
Gender Issues and Advancement of Women, within the Department of 
Economic and Social Affairs (OSAGI), and the International Training 
and Research Institute for the Advancement of Women (INSTRAW), 
located in Santo Domingo.  UNIFEM is governed by the UNDP Executive 
Board, DAW and OSAGI report ultimately to the Secretary-General, and 
INSTRAW has its own Executive Board and donor base.  No common 
authority oversees them. 
 
¶3. (SBU) The four entities, along with others such as UNICEF and 
UNFPA, participate to varying degrees in several Task Forces and 
Working Groups that have been created to try to bring coherence to 
policies and programs emerging from this duplicative structure. 
Nevertheless, the system is marked by competition and lack of 
collaboration.  None of the entities are an effective voice to hold 
other, larger, agencies and offices accountable for mainstreaming 
gender concerns and taking note of women's unique needs in their 
sectoral programs.  Civil society as well as member states have 
actively criticized the inefficiency of the current "gender 
architecture." 
 
¶4. (SBU) The four options presented by D/SYG Migiro are: A) Status 
Quo, B) autonomous fund or programme, C) new Department of the 
Secretariat, and D) "composite" entity with a new governing body. 
Except for Option A, all would be headed by an 
Under-Secretary-General.  The co-chairs of the System-Wide Coherence 
process (the PermReps of Tanzania and Ireland) convened a meeting 
September 8 to discuss the options.  Below we note some pros and 
cons of each option, which are spelled out in more detail in the 
D/SYG's July 23 paper (found on the website of the President of the 
UN General Assembly at http://www.un.org/ga/president/62 
/letters/usgswc280708.pdf) 
 
OPTION A - Status Quo 
 
¶5. (SBU) Key Features:  Retain the existing structures of OSAGI, 
DAW, UNIFEM and INSTRAW.  Enhance funding, coordination, joint 
action and cost-sharing, per WFP, IFAD and FAO as a model. 
Voluntary funding for UNIFEM and INSTRAW; regular budget for OSAGI 
and DAW.  Member state oversight through donor influence and UNGA 
3rd and 5th committee resolutions. 
 
--PROS:  Least costly.  No new high level position created.  Least 
time-consuming to achieve.  Smallest chance of creating a flawed but 
powerful structure. 
--CONS:  Unlikely to strengthen gender programming or women's place 
in society/economy.  Continue to lack a strong voice for women at HQ 
or in the field.  Not sure if WFP/IFAD/FAO coordination model has 
been successful. 
 
--COMMENT:  USMission in Rome, USAID or IO/T may have some 
information on coordination model mentioned above.  NGO community 
will be unsatisfied with this result.  There may be space, however, 
to strengthen and consolidate some of the existing mechanisms 
without moving quite so far as the other options do. 
 
------------------------------------ 
OPTION 2 - Autonomous Fund/Programme 
------------------------------------ 
 
¶6. (SBU) Key Features:  Create a new Fund/Programme on the level of 
UNDP, UNHCR, UNFPA, UNICEF, WFP, etc.  Create a new Executive Board. 
 Headed by a Head of Agency at U/SYG level.  All voluntary funding. 
Basically, enhancing UNIFEM while abolishing OSAGI and DAW. 
 
--PROS: Strong presence in the field.  Capable of operational 
 
activities.  Can have impact on women's lives.  No regular budget 
cost.  Builds upon the part of the gender structure the USG likes 
most (UNIFEM). 
--CONS:  Costly; unclear if sufficient donor funding would exist to 
give new entity a worldwide presence in the field.  No support for 
Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) meetings.  Influence on 
other Funds/Programs (UNDP, UNICEF, etc) is unclear; others might 
drop operational programming to help women in face of new entity's 
responsibility for women.  Coordination with UNFPA and its women's 
programs is undefined. 
 
--COMMENT:  An existing part of the Secretariat (DESA) would need to 
be assigned to "service" CSW.  Several developing countries have 
already expressed their interest in this option. 
 
---------------------------------------- 
OPTION 3 - New Department of Secretariat 
---------------------------------------- 
 
¶7. (SBU) Key Features:  Create a new Department, on the level of 
DPA, DPKO, OCHA.  Headed by a U/SYG who reports to the SYG.  Regular 
budget funding.  Basically, enhances and combines DAW and OSAGI, 
while abolishing UNIFEM. 
 
--PROS: none. 
--CONS:  Costliest option.  Expands Secretariat, contrary to UN 
reform goals.  Weak in the field; no capability to run operational 
programs. 
 
--COMMENT:  This is the least attractive of the options to the US 
and others.  Not a single Member State expressed any interest in 
pursuing this option.  This is partially a reflection of the 
unimpressive work done by OSAGI and DAW, as well as a desire that 
emphasis be on results in the field, rather than on enlarging the 
Secretariat at headquarters. 
 
--------------------------- 
OPTION 4 - Composite Entity 
--------------------------- 
 
¶8. (SBU) Key Features:  Create a new Intergovernmental governing 
body, reporting either to GA or ECOSOC.  Headed by a U/SYG.  Combine 
operational and policy/normative responsibilities in one entity. 
Funding partially from regular budget, partially from voluntary 
contributions.  Some presence in the field.  Similar to Status Quo, 
but with new layer of oversight and formal coordination. 
 
--PROS: Avoids sole reliance on regular budget.  Field-based focus. 
Policy function does not disappear.  Strong voice for women within 
the system.  Common authority would preside over both field 
operations and policy.  Head of entity would be part of Chief 
Executives Board (CEB) on an equal par with heads of UNDP, UNICEF, 
etc. 
--CONS:  Creation of new Intergovernmental governing body could be 
difficult, controversial and result in diminished USG influence. 
Functioning of new Intergovernmental body will be costly.  Field 
presence could be weak, if voluntary contributions are insufficient. 
 
 
--COMMENT:  There is no precedent for such a structure and details 
are still unclear.  In establishing a new governing body, we would 
need to take steps to avoid reliving the process of creating the 
Human Rights Council (HRC) and the Peacebuilding Council (PBC). 
There are some indications that the new governing body might simply 
build upon the existing Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), 
which could be an acceptable approach.  The "composite" option 
coincides with USG position of wanting to avoid putting the budget 
of the new entity on the regular budget.  Several countries, 
including Europeans and some developing countries, have indicated 
they are leaning towards support for Option D. 
 
------- 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
¶9. (SBU) None of the options are optimal.  A middle way might be 
thought of as a "Status Quo Plus" that would retain the parts of the 
existing structure that work, merge redundant parts of the 
structure, and retain the goal of having all parts of the UN system 
make gender one of their concerns in their work (i.e., "mainstream" 
gender).  This could possibly be done by 1) merging OSAGI and DAW 
and assigning a strong, energetic, authoritative head for the new 
gender/women's office within the Secretariat (thus eliminating 
duplication), 2) retaining UNIFEM, which does excellent, but 
limited, work in the field, while seeking to enlarge its voluntary 
funding and field operations; 3) avoiding creation of a new 
intergovernmental or governing body.  INSTRAW could either be 
retained, or turned into a branch of UNIFEM, to continue to function 
 
as a think tank and research unit (thus avoiding resistance from the 
Latin Americans, who strongly support this small office based in the 
Dominican Republic).  If the USG adamantly opposed the creation of a 
new U/SYG post, we could explore whether giving ultimate authority 
for gender to the Deputy Secretary-General would provide sufficient 
accountability and authority within the UN system and whether the 
D/SYG would have time to firmly lead the existing coordination 
structures. 
 
Khalilzad