I have the honor to deliver this statement on behalf of the G77 and China.

The Group of 77 and China welcomes this interactive dialogue, and wishes to reiterate its general support to the UN80 initiative and its overarching objective of achieving "a paradigm shift" in how the UN system organizes its work in order to deliver greater impact on the ground for the people we serve.

The Group supports efforts to reduce fragmentation, improve efficiency and strengthen delivery, while stressing that any structural reform must be Member State-led, evidence-based, transparent, and be supported by cost-benefit analyses and comprehensive risk assessments, with adequate time to clearly understand any operational implication.

The Group also wishes to emphasize that any reform proposal should not lead to the dilution of development mandates, nor jeopardize long-standing partnerships with UN development entities at the country-level, and should be guided by programme-country needs and national priorities and respect the different realities of field presences. The decisive test should be whether a reform improves efficiency and support to programme countries without disrupting the implementation of National Cooperation Frameworks and Country Programme Documents, ongoing projects and agreements.

With regard to the proposal to merge UNDP and UNOPS, the Group of 77 and China takes note of the Preliminary assessment of a potential merger between UNDP and UNOPS presented a few days ago, which includes 3 structural merger options and 2 alternatives to structural mergers.

Without prejudging the G77 and China and its Member States position, the Group notes that, in accordance with the reports and data provided, the option of creating a new merged entity appears to carry the highest legal, operational, financial and delivery risks, since it would require the dissolution of both UNDP and UNOPS and the renegotiation of legal, governance, regulatory and policy frameworks, country arrangements and funding agreements. At a time of tightening resources and rising development needs, the opportunity cost of prolonged institutional reconstruction should be carefully weighed, since transition financing and management attention could otherwise be directed to country-level delivery, including for SDG acceleration.

The Group of 77 and China would like to present the following questions:

1. The Group would welcome further clarification on the precise rationale for the proposed merger, including the primary challenge it is intended to address out of the objectives identified in the assessment.

2.Regarding the efficiency case for a merger, given the consolidated UNDP-UNOPS assessment provides two competing cost-recovery savings estimates, the Group would like to ask if the Secretariat could provide transparent and comparable data to Member States through independent verification, including to set out the assumptions behind these savings estimates and how we can prevent cross-subsidisation between the implementation arms.

3.How would it be ensured that any decision preserves UNDP's development mandate and country presence, including the Resident Representative function, nationally owned programming, and the continued implementation of Country Programme Documents, bearing in mind the significant value that UNDP brings to programme countries, as well as the long-standing relationships of trust it has built with national authorities since its establishment in 1965? Likewise, how would the preservation of UNOPS's distinct value as a provider of non-programmatic services be ensured?

4.What concrete gains could only be achieved through a structural merger, and could not be achieved through non structural options that ensure efficiencies through closer cooperation, shared services, data and expertise and joint planning? Furthermore, has the Secretariat assessed whether the projected efficiency gains would outweigh the operational, financial, and partnership risks identified, including in large programme countries where both organizations have substantial and potentially complementary engagements? In addition, could the Secretariat clarify the methodology used to arrive at the 5 per cent duplication estimate and provide country and sector-level evidence supporting this conclusion?

5.The consolidated UNDP-UNOPS assessment assumes that UNOPS' fee-for-service revenue can be added to UNDP's voluntary-funded base, while both the fee model and cost-recovery discipline remain intact. Can the Secretariat set out exactly how a merged entity would reconcile two different financial logics? Can you confirm if a hybrid "two-window" model is what is actually being proposed?

6.Could the Secretariat provide a country-level example showing how the country office setting would (a) handle a programmatic UNDP engagement and a fee-for-service UNOPS-type project simultaneously; (b) how the two cost-recovery rates will be applied; (c) how project selection between the two arms will be decided; and (d) how conflict of interest between advisory and implementation functions will be managed if it arises?

To finish, let me reassure you that the Group of 77 and China is aligned with the vision and ambition of the UN80 initiative, and it looks forward to receiving the information requested to continue to assess the merit of the different options presented in the UNDP and UNOPS joint assessment.