URU, Alm.del - 2011-12 - Bilag 245: Analyse af Danmarks engagement i multilaterale udviklings- og humanitære organisationer

List of contentsExecutive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 4The policy and financial environment ............................................................................................. 4Alignment with Danish development policy priorities .................................................................... 6Recommendations.......................................................................................................................... 8Part 1 - Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 13Challenges facing the multilateral organisations in a changing world .......................................... 14General trends ............................................................................................................................ 14Changing growth patterns and shifts in global decision-making capacity...................................................... 14Trends in the multilateral funding....................................................................................................... 16Specific challenges ..................................................................................................................... 21Conflict-affected and fragile states........................................................................................................ 21Rio+20 with focus on green economy................................................................................................... 23Part 2 – Denmark’s engagement in the multilateral organisations .................................................... 25General Remarks ............................................................................................................................ 25UN Funds and Programmes, WHO, GFATM and UNAIDS ......................................................... 26UNDP ......................................................................................................................................... 27UNICEF ..................................................................................................................................... 30UNFPA....................................................................................................................................... 33UNEP ......................................................................................................................................... 35WHO .......................................................................................................................................... 38The Global Fund ........................................................................................................................ 39UNAIDS..................................................................................................................................... 41The International Financial Institutions ......................................................................................... 42The World Bank ......................................................................................................................... 43The African Development Bank ................................................................................................ 46The Asian Development Bank ................................................................................................... 49The International Fund for Agricultural Development .............................................................. 52The Humanitarian Organisations ................................................................................................... 54OHCA ........................................................................................................................................ 55UNFPA.......................................................................................................................................57UNHCR ...................................................................................................................................... 58UNICEF ..................................................................................................................................... 58UNRWA..................................................................................................................................... 59WFP ........................................................................................................................................... 60

I C R C ....................................................................................................................................... 62OHCHR ...................................................................................................................................... 64Part 3 – Conclusions and recommendations ...................................................................................... 65Alignment with Denmark’s development policy priorities............................................................ 65Adaptation to new framework conditions and new challenges...................................................... 68Recommendations .......................................................................................................................... 69Appendix 1 – List of abbreviations .................................................................................................... 73

The policy and financial environmentOver the past decade,economic growth in developing countries has been considerably higherthan growth in advanced economies,and developing countries now account for 35 per cent of glob-al GDP and 65 per cent of global economic growth. In addition, low-income countries as a group haveachieved per capita annual growth of over 3 per cent over the past decade, reversing the trend of slowor stagnating growth, foreign direct investments and integration in international trade that characterisedthe previous decades. The largest number of developing country citizens ever recorded, have workedtheir way out of poverty, and the efforts to improve people’s access to health care, education and infra-structure have been largely successful.The shift of wealthfrom the current advanced economies to-wards the dynamic economies and eventually the low-income countrieswill continue in the comingdecade.The change in the distribution of economic power also means that global decision-making no longerresides predominantly with the great powers of the 20th century, but is diffused in an international sys-tem withmultiple centres of power.The G20 is now a leading forum for tackling the global financialand economic crisis, with dynamic developing economies playing a central role. The G20 is based onrecognition of the growing importance of developing countries for the global economy. It providesnew opportunities for promoting a global enabling environment, investments and cooperation,which can help more citizens in developing countries work their way out of poverty and enable theirgovernments to finance the delivery of public services. In addition,South-Southinvestments and tradeare becoming ever more important factors for growth in low-income countries.The global diffusion of power challenges the international system of multilateral organisations.Several emerging economies benefited considerably from support received from multilateral organisa-tions earlier on and are now seeking to influence the leading multilateral fora such as the UN SecurityCouncil, the IMF and the World Bank, resulting in amore intensive debate on values and para-digms.The economic dependence of low-income countries on external development assistance willgradually diminishand the presence of bilateral development agencies is likely to be scaled down as aconsequence. The development agenda will increasingly be set by the need to deliver support in con-flict-affected and weak states and by climate and environmentally related challenges. Therefore, an in-ternational institutional machinery will still be required to respond to countries in need of external assis-tance to address security, humanitarian and development challenges.1

Thelegitimacythat multilateral organisations confer on international cooperation is absolutely vitalfor the development and endorsement of the standards, ideas, platforms and frameworks that serve asthe backbone of the international partnership for development. One of the major successes of multilat-eral cooperation during the past decade has been the formulation in the UN of theMillennium De-velopment Goals,which became the compass around which international development cooperationsubsequently was oriented. This success must now be followed up by the formulation of a new set ofpost 2015 goals that keep up the momentum to finish the outstanding work and supplement with goalsfor handling new challenges. In Denmark’s pursuit of arights-based approach to developmenttheUN system is a natural starting point, with its long-standing and globally recognized roles as a normsetter and monitor of progress.Since the end of the Cold War, and despite progress made on aid effectiveness against the Paris andAccra goals,the trend has been towards increasing fragmentation of development assistanceand proliferation of development actorsin many developing countries. The trend is partly driven bya rapid increase in the earmarkingof member state financial contributions to multilateral organisa-tions. This development tends to undermine the absolute advantages of multilateral organisations asactors – i.e. their legitimacy and accountability as well as their ability to provide access to sufficientlyfungible and predictable ODA in response to global needs, also for countries that are not the preferredchoice of bilateral donors.The analysis ofmultilateral financingshows a multilateral system that issqueezed in relation tofunding of core budgetsand subject to anincreasing inflow of funds earmarked for specific ac-tivities and interventions,which in many cases lie outside or at the margin of their mandates. Fur-thermore, earmarked funds do not necessarily fall under the governance and reporting structures of theorganizations and may not be administered according to the principle of partner country ownership. Tomaintain an efficient and effective multilateral system, multilateral organisations should not be asked todeliver in areas outside their core mandate. On the contrary, they should be supported in their effortsto maintain their specific character and specialisation based on their absolute and comparative ad-vantages. This requires adequate funding of their core budgets. At the same time,the multilateral sys-tem’s capacity to act in a coordinated and coherent manner must be enhanced.The analysis of the challenges in relation toconflict-affected and fragile statesindicates a clear needfor a credible, flexible and adequate response from the international community on this main priorityfor Denmark. There is a need to adopt aholistic approach to security, humanitarian needs anddevelopmentand for a concerted effort by the entire international community to build country capaci-ty. The multilateral organisations with theirmandates and legitimacyconstitute the natural startingpoint for coordination of efforts and adaptation to changing country needs. The World DevelopmentReport 2011 on conflict-affected and fragile states has paved the way for more explicit acknowledge-ment among relevant organisations of their respective roles and the need to work together accordingly.To meet Denmark’s and the EU’s ambition for atransition to a green global economymultilateralorganisations must act asstandard-setters, platforms for negotiation and partners of developingcountries.Key priorities for Denmark on the multilateral agenda are: 1. Formulation of sustainabledevelopment goals (SDGs) as a supplement to the MDGs; 2. agreement on a methodological frame-work for the green economy; 3. establishment of amore powerful body in the UNfor providingadvisory support on and monitoring of the countries’ follow-up; and 4. more effective orchestration ofsupport provided by multilateral organisations to developing countries in their efforts to transit to sus-tainable forms of production and consumption. UNEP in particular, but also other UN funds and pro-

Alignment with Danish development policy prioritiesThe review of Denmark’s cooperation with individual organisations generally shows a high degree ofalignment with Danish development priorities. It also indicates that Denmark, with its decentralisedmodel of cooperation, is consistently able to ensure that its priorities are pursued through the organisa-tions whose mandates best cover them. As a supplement to the assessment carried out of each organi-sation’s performance on goals agreed for its partnership with Denmark, departments in the Ministry ofForeign Affairs as well as Danish UN missions abroad have been asked to answer a set of cross-cuttingquestions regarding the consistency between the activities of the institutions and Danish developmentpriorities. The use of these indicators2introduces a substantial element of subjectivity. However, theambition is to strengthen the element of objectivity in future assessments.The diagram on the following page shows the relative position of organisations when rated against thecross-cutting indicators mentioned above and indicators of their institutional efficiency. Data regardinginstitutional efficiency has been drawn from MOPAN and DFID’s multilateral analysis. The diagramalso shows the relative size of Denmark’s contributions to the 17 multilateral organisations examined inthis report, as indicated by the size of the bubble showing both the Denmark’s core budget contribu-tion and total contribution to the organisation.The diagram indicates relatively good alignment betweenthe scale of Danish cooperation with theorganisations and the assessment of the efficiency and relevance of the institutions.It should beunderlined, however, that the diagram does not reflect either the development impact of the organiza-tions on specific goals selected for monitoring progress in their partnership with Denmark or their rel-evance in relation to Denmark’s specific policy priorities. These key dimensions will be strengthened infuture assessments.Overall, the analysis showsgood correspondence between the specific development contribu-tions made by the multilateral organisations and Danish development priorities.The analysisalso indicates good alignmentbetween the relative size of the Denmark’s partnership with theorganisations and the assessment of their efficiency and relevance.

RecommendationsThe analysis contained in this paper covers the financing of multilateral organizations, their role in con-flict-affected and fragile states and in promoting sustainable development as well as at Denmark’s co-operation with individual organisations. The analysis demonstrates a need for a continuedactive en-gagement by Denmark in the work of multilateral organizations.Denmark will work toinfluencethe development of the overall multilateral institutional machinery and the individual organisa-tionsto ensure that these institutions can effectively deliver their part of the international agenda inrelation to stabilisation, humanitarian efforts and development in general, and more specifically on theDanish policy priorities. Denmark will work for a moreefficient, well-coordinated and flexible sys-tem of multilateral organisations,capable of effectively meeting emerging security, development andhumanitarian challenges and of ensuring a better transition between peace-making, stabilisation, hu-manitarian interventions and development, with therequired legitimacy and capacity to respondgloballywherever and whenever necessary.Denmark will seek influence in organisations through its work on the executive boards, its funding pol-icy, bilateral contacts and a sharper focus on secondment of staff in areas of strategic importance toDenmark. The impact of Denmark’s views and priorities will be enhanced through cooperation withlike-minded countries, including within the Nordic+ and the Utstein Group, as well as through the EU.Denmark will work across executive boards and other decisions-making bodies to ensure that mandatesand divisions of labour are respected and built upon to create added value in the overall effort. Thisalso applies to bilateral programmes at country level, where Danish embassies will be expected to helppull organisations in the right direction in accordance with their core mandates. Engaging effectively inthe strategic dialogue in the organisations requires professional involvement and input from the entireDanish Foreign Service, including at times participation from headquarters in important meetings.The overall approach outlined above will be followed while observing the following specific recom-mendations for Denmark’s engagement in the multilateral cooperation.

oEnsure that the remaining trust funds are aligned with core mandates andstreamlined within governance structures and processes, and that the agreedmandates and governance mechanisms are fully respected in those cases whereinstitutions have been asked to administer multi-donor trust funds in the ab-sence of a designated organisation.The modality of Danish multilateral assistance will be decided on following the samephilosophy that guides allocation of bilateral assistance, namely that generalised con-tributions are best suited to strengthening development effectiveness through promo-tion of partner ownership and use of country systems. Denmark’s contributions to mul-tilateral organisations will be provided as core contributions as a default, and deviationsfrom this principle – in the form of earmarking – should be the exception requiring jus-tification in each specific case.Earmarked contributions through multilateral organisations must be focused on deliv-ery of support in conflict-affected and fragile states and generation of global publicgoods (GPG) within climate, health and education, in areas not covered by existing in-stitutions.Denmark will work to ensure that emerging economies contribute to financing multi-lateral organisations in line with their economic standing and that the multilateral or-ganisations attract financing from private funds and serve as facilitators for South-Southand triangular cooperation.

Results-based managementIn its efforts to help enhance the effectiveness of multilateral organisations, Denmarkwill pay particular attention to: 1) establishment of satisfactory systems of financial ac-countability, 2) strengthening of the organisations’ own systems of results-based man-agement, monitoring and evaluation, 3) follow-up on action plans for alignment andharmonisation, and 4) intensification of the efforts on the part of the organisations toinvolve new actors.Denmark will work for an agreement within the UN on a new set of global goals for in-ternational development that takes into account the need to follow through on the un-finished agenda in relation to the Millennium Development Goals after 2015, supple-mented with goals for addressing new challenges, including specific sustainable devel-opment goals.Denmark will work to ensure that the UN strengthens its global norm-setting functionin relation to the formulation and promotion of internationally recognised rights andthat it brings its recognised advantages in relation to pursuing a rights-based approachto development at the country level fully into play.

Conflict-affected and fragile statesDenmark will work to ensure that relevant multilateral organisations more effectivelybring their particular advantages in conflict-affected and fragile countries into playthrough a clearer division of labour and observance of mutual respect for this divisionamong organisations. Among the most important organisations within the humanitari-an and development fields are OCHA, UNDP, UNICEF, OHCHR, the World Bankand the regional development banks. This ambition will also be pursued in the contextof the EU.Denmark will increasingly build on the advantages offered by the multilateral frame-work in post-conflict and fragile states, including in countries such as Afghanistan, So-malia, South Sudan and Zimbabwe.Denmark will work to strengthen the coherence among security, humanitarian and de-velopment efforts – both within and between organisations - and to ensure that effortsto prevent conflicts are intensified. Deeper analysis of the underlying conflict factors,use of joint risk assessment and greater willingness to run a calculated risk are im-portant elements of this agenda.Denmark will support the implementation of the New Deal in Afghanistan, Liberia andSouth Sudan and help ensure that multilateral organisations contribute to the imple-mentation of the New Deal generally. Denmark will also work for an outcome in whichthe UN assumes the key role in the rebuilding of Afghanistan, acting on the recom-mendations of the cross-cutting analysis of the performance of the various UN actors inAfghanistan currently underway.

Sustainability and the green economyDenmark will work to ensure that the multilateral system of organisations intensifies itsefforts to support the transition of the global economy in general, and the economies ofdeveloping countries in particular, to forms of production and consumption that safe-guard the planet’s natural resource and ecosystems. Organisations should supportcountries in their efforts to develop specific responses to the challenges caused by pov-erty, unequal distribution of wealth and intensified consumption of resources and as-sume leadership in providing advice and support to countries making the transition.Denmark will work to ensure that global sustainable development goals (SDGs) areformulated in the context of the UN as part of the transition to a green global economyand as a supplement to the MDGs, and that all the multilateral organisations subse-quently contribute to achieving these goals.

MandatePoverty reduction. MDGs.Strengthening of democracy. Crisisprevention and rebuilding.Environment/ sustainabledevelopmentMobilises resources for children’srights to health, clean water,education, and protection.Humanitarian key actorPromote reproductive health andgender equality. Develop popula-tion programmes to reducepoverty. Leading role in the follow-up of the action plan from theconference on population anddevelopment in 1994Reducing poverty and hunger by50 per cent in 2015 throughcreating increased income in thepoorest rural areas. Professionaladvice to the agricultural sectorand support to increased marketaccess and insight.Save and protect lives. Fighthunger and promote food security.Distribution of food. Developmentmandate which Denmark does notsupportProtection and assistance topersecuted people due to race,religion, nationality, political beliefs,or belonging to a specific group ofsociety. Key role with regard toprotection, administration etc. ofcamps for IDPs.Established to mobilise resourcesto funding of initiatives to supportMDG 6 with regard to fighting aids,tuberculosis and malaria in theareas of the world with the greatestneedsEnsure integrated and holisticapproach to fighting of HIV andaids within the UN family, includingimprovement of the coordination ofUN’s efforts at country level.Partnership of ten multilateralorganisationsContribute to improved health forall, and leading cooperating organfor international health cooperation.Considerable normative role inhealth policy. Obliged to contributeto fulfil the 2015 goals on healthImpartial, neutral and independentprivate organisation. Mission toprotect and assist victims of armedconflicts. In addition strengthen,and dissimate awareness on IHLand universal humanitarianprinciplesPromote and protect human rightsand protest when these areviolated. Through normativedevelopment of human rights,surveillance of compliance andwork to ensure strengthening ofUN’s approachHandling basic needs such aseducation, health social services,and humanitarian assistance toapprox. 4.5 million registeredPalestinian refugees in Lebanon,Syria, Jordan, Gaza, and on theWest BankPoverty reduction throughassistance to sustainable growth.Focus on poor and vulnerablegroups particularly in Africa, createfoundation for economic growth,promote global collective action,and good governanceAssist in poverty reduction andfulfilment of MDG 15 in Asia andPacific by offering professionalsupport, loans, and grants toauthorities and the private sector inentitled Asian member statesContribute to economic and socialdevelopment in Africa throughsupport of good governance anddevelopment of the private sector,infrastructure, and education.Strengthen efforts in fragile statesand increased regional integrationCoordinate and support interna-tional humanitarian efforts. Mobiliseresources to save lives and reducevulnerability in humanitariansituations. Develop humanitarianpolicy in cooperation with partners.Advocate for people in need.Deliver communication on andanalysis on humanitarian challeng-es and needs.Strengthen global cooperation andpolicy development on environ-ment. Primarily normative.Increased emphasis on environ-ment and development. Assist toensure integration of environmentin development

Part 1 - IntroductionIn 2011 it was decided tostrengthen the policy focus and coherencein Denmark's participation inmultilateral development cooperation. The preparation and reporting on cooperation with multilateralorganizations would henceforth be anchored inone annual cycle.The cycle starts each year in Sep-tember with preparation of an analysis of changes in the policy and financial environment in whichmultilateral organizations operate and formulation of strategic orientation for Denmark’s future en-gagement in multilateral cooperation. Against this background, representations and entities in charge ofmultilateral organizations prepare a report on progress made over the past year in cooperation withorganizations receiving more than 35 million DKK in annual contributions from Denmark. In this re-port, suggestions are also made for priorities for Denmark’s engagement in the organization in questionand an assessment is made of its relevance based on a set of cross-cutting indicators.Building on these various contributions,a comprehensive strategic paperis put together and pre-sented to the management of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for discussion on the status and the sug-gested orientation of Denmark’s participation in multilateral development cooperation in the followingyear. The paper is subsequently revised and submitted to the Minister for Development Cooperationfor consideration and approval. The annual cycle replaces the previous briefings of the Board on strate-gies and action plans for individual organizations.This paper consists of three parts.Part 1 contains an assessment of trends and challengesfor mul-tilateral cooperation.Part 2 contains an assessment of progress in the cooperation with individu-al multilateral organizationsin the year under review and suggests priorities for Denmark's engage-ment in the organization in 2012 and beyond.In Part 3 general conclusionsand overall recommen-dations for Denmark’s engagement in multilateral cooperation in the future are provided.The 2011 multilateral analysis reviewed the shifting global patterns of growth and the accompanyinggeopolitical changes as well as their implications for the role of multilateral organizations. The 2012multilateral analysis focuses on a number of more specific dimensions, namelythe funding of multi-lateral organizations and the sustainability agenda as it evolves around the Rio+20 Conferenceas well as the need to ensure a more effective international response to the requirements ofconflict-affected and fragile states.These topics were chosen because of the attention they currentlycommand internationally. They do not constitute the entire policy universe of multilateral cooperationand Danish multilateral missions have been asked to contribute supplementary relevant information intheir submissions on specific organizations.This paper isbased on the current strategy for Denmark’s participation in international devel-opment cooperation entitled “Freedom from Poverty”.The new overall strategy now under prepa-ration will be reflected fully in next year’s multilateral analysis. However, the paper covers two of thegovernment's announced new priorities,namely green growthandstability and security. Therights-based approach to development and food security– the two other priorities of the newstrategy - are also raeas where multilateral organizations have a clear role to play. These dimensions willbe covered in the 2013 analysis. It is also anticipated that Denmark’s contributions to international de-velopment through the EU will be subject to assessment and priority setting in future analyses.

Challenges facing the multilateral organisations in a changing worldGeneral trendsChanging growth patterns and shifts in global decision-making capacityOver the past decade, economic growth in developing countries has been faster than growth in ad-vanced economies, and developing countries currently account for 35 per cent of global GNP and 65per cent of global economic growth. Whilst the success of a number of dynamic developing economiesis the most frequently publicized part of this growth story, low-income countries as a group have alsoexperienced elevated rates of real annual growth of above 3 per cent during the past decade, thusre-versing the trend of slow or stagnating growth, foreign investments3and participation in inter-national trade of previous decades.And the positive development in the economic sphere has beenaccompanied by significant advances on the social front. The largest number of citizens ever recordedhas worked their way out of poverty, and the massive efforts to improve public access to health care,education and infrastructure have largely borne fruit. Despite the current serious economic crisis, thereis no reason to believe that the shift of prosperity from the currently advanced economies towards thedynamic economies and subsequently the low-income countries will not continue in the coming dec-ade. In its wake, competition for access to energy and raw materials will intensify.This fundamental shift in economic power also means that decision-making no longer predominantlyresides with the great powers of the 20th century, but is diffused in an international system withseveralpower centres.The G20 has manifested itself as the leading forum for tackling the global financial andeconomic crisis, with dynamic developing economies playing a central role.The prominence of the G20 also reflects the increasingly interwoven and interdependent nature of theglobal economy. On the one hand the welfare implications for developing countries of decisions takenby the G20 countries’ decisions are increasingly evident. On the other hand economic progress in de-veloping countries contributes as a driver of growth in the global economy with growing strength. Therecognition of this interdependenceprovides a new rationale and implies new opportunities forinternational collaboration to build a global policy and economic environment and strengtheninvestments and development cooperation which wouldhelp more citizens in developing coun-tries work their way out of poverty and enable their governments to finance the delivery of public ser-vices. In addition,South-Southinvestments and trade are becoming increasingly important elementsfor the economic growth in low-income countries.However, the shift in global power and the establishment of new alliances and fora challengethe international system of global governance and multilateral decision-making.Many emergingeconomies have benefited considerably from cooperation with the multilateral organisations them-selves. Not surprisingly they now demand – and acquire – greater influence in leading multilateral forasuch as the UN Security Council, the IMF and the World Bank. This also means thatthe internationaldebate about values and paradigms of development is becoming more intensified.Led by theemerging economies, developing countries oppose attempts by the rich countries to persuade them toaccept higher standards regarding worker protection, environment and climate than advanced countriesthemselves observed during their industrialisation.

If growth continues in the developing countries as anticipated,the economic dependence of low-income countries on external development assistance will gradually diminish,and traditionaldonor countries will focus more of their energy on forging commercial ties to the new potential part-ners. Such a scenario will likely be accompanied by a decreasing relative demand for the presence ofbilateral donors in emerging countries. At the same time, the need to be able to respond more resolute-ly, flexibly and coherently to the requirements of conflict-affected and fragile states, possibly accentuat-ed by new geopolitical tensions, will command more attention, as will a developmental agenda increas-ingly set by climate and environmentally related challenges. In this scenario there will still be a need foran institutional machinery capable of ensuring that countries which continue to need access to externalassistance to address their security, humanitarian and developmental challenges also receive this assis-tance. Traditional donors will in all likelihood look to the multilateral institutions as those who can en-sure that the ambition behind six decades of international development cooperation is followedthrough, including in countries where they themselves have no strategic interest in being present. Like-wise, in a world characterised by competing ideas and paradigms and influenced by new actors seekingnew platforms, the multilateral organisations are likely to appear as increasingly relevant partners forboth middle-income and low-income countries.Thelegitimacythat the multilateral organisations confer on international cooperation is absolutelyvital for the development and endorsement of the standards, ideas, platforms and frameworks thatserve as the backbone of the international partnership for development and the point of departure formeasuring its developmental impact. To the multilateral system’s absolute advantages in the develop-ment field can be added its advantages in initiating and delivering security and humanitarian interven-tions and in fostering coherence between security, humanitarian efforts and development. While emerg-ing economies have so far not participated strongly in formalised donor cooperation in multilateralfora, they are becoming ever more important commercial partners for low-income countries. The chal-lenge is to enhance the development impact of all efforts by seekingsynergy between private in-vestments from the emerging economies and the private and public transfers from the tradi-tional donors– a challenge that the multilateral organisations are well placed to help tackle.It is in Denmark’s clear interest to help maintain an effective, well-coordinated and flexiblesystem of multilateral organisationscapable of meeting outstanding and emerging challenges of asecurity, development, humanitarian and global public goods nature as well as of ensuring a better tran-sition between peace-making, stabilisation, humanitarian and development efforts, with the requiredlegitimacy and capacity to respond globally where and when needed.Since the end of the Cold War, and notwithstanding progress made on the Paris and Accra goals on aideffectiveness, there has been atrend towards increasing fragmentation of development assistanceand proliferation of actorsengaged in the development cooperation in many developing countries.This trend has partly been driven by anincrease in the earmarkingof multilateral funding, whichtends to undermine the absolute advantages of multilateral organisations as actors – i.e. their legitimacyand accountability as well as their ability to ensure access to funding with the required scope and pre-dictability, including for countries that may not be the preferred partners of bilateral donors. The op-portunities of the organisations to bring their advantages into play require adequate and predictablefinancing of their general budgets and their core mandate - the point of departure for discussions re-garding goals, results and reforms – also with the new actors. Despiteprogress in relation to ensur-ing better coordination in the multilateral system,there is still a long way to go before the cogs inthe multilateral machinery mesh smoothly.

One of the major successes of the multilateral system during the past decade has been the formulationof theUN Millennium Development Goals.Rather than gathering dust on the shelves next to pre-vious UN goals, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) have become the compass around whichnot just the multilateral organisations but the whole of international development cooperation today isoriented. This success must now be followed up by the formulation of a new set of goals that ensurethe continuation of efforts on outstanding challenges and supplement with goals to address new chal-lenges.Trends in the multilateral fundingDespite advances made on the Paris and Accra agendas, the overall picture of development coopera-tion is one characterised by anincreasingly complex architecture,with agrowing diversityof or-ganisations that channel aid and byincreasing fragmentationandearmarkingof development assis-tance. The average number of donors per country grew from three in the 1960s to thirty in the 2000s.Fragmentation and proliferation have gathered pace particularly since the end of the Cold War. In thisperiod the number of countries with more than 40 active donors has risen from zero to 24. More than100 organisations operate in the health sector alone, which hampers the ambition to build their healthsystems based on a holistic approach. The number of multilateral organisations, funds and programmesis now larger than the number of countries they were created to help.At the 4th High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in November - December 2011 in Busan,South Korea, the fragmentation and proliferation of development assistance was acknowledged as is-sues that needed to be addressed. One of the commitments emerging from the forum is that countrieswill work to reverse the proliferation of multilateral funding channels and reach agreement on guide-lines to this effect by the end of 2012. The multilateral organisations have promised to honour theircommitments to harmonise and adapt their contributions to development to the partner countries’ ownsystems in accordance with the Paris and Accra declarations.The total funding of the multilateral organisations’ development programmes topped USD 51 billion or40 per cent of total ODA in 2009, compared to 37 per cent in 2007. However, the international finan-cial crisis is now also influencing the multilateral funding. The DAC’s 2011 report on multilateral assis-tance confirms the tendencies identified in the 2010 report, namely that the general trends in funding ofthe multilateral system observed over the past 20 years are continuing.One significant trend is the fall in the relative share of the core contributionschannelled to themultilateral organisations in relation to total ODA (see the table on next page). If the assistance chan-nelled through the EU is deducted, the assistance to other institutions dropped to 20 per cent in 2009.If the EU is included4, the multilateral contributions rose from USD 26.6 billion in 2000 to USD 36.2billion in 2009 – an average annual increase of 3 per cent compared to an increase of 4 per cent fortotal ODA. In total, the core contributions to the multilateral organisations dropped from 33 per centin 2001 to 28 per cent of total ODA in 2009.

Since 1990, the disbursements of core contributions to the EU have grown from 25 per cent to 37 percent of total multilateral assistance, whilst the proportion going to the UN and the development bankshas shrunk correspondingly. In contrast to the UN funds and programs the level of activity of the mul-tilateral development banks (MDBs) and IFAD in low-income countries depends not only on the in-flow of new grant funds, but also on reflows from countries’ repayment of loans. Growing reflowsfrom past loans have enabled MDBs to increase the level of activity in their soft windows, IDA, AfDF,AsDF and FSO/IDB.The other significant trend in multilateral funding is the growing volume of earmarked fundsplaced at the disposal of the multilateral organisations. Earmarked contributions to multilateral organi-sations constitute the fastest rising form of ODA. Besides core contributions, multilateral organisationsreceive 12 per cent of total ODA, corresponding to USD 15 billion in earmarked funding – an increasefrom USD 13.4 billion in 2008. This is channelled through the multilateral organisations and earmarkedfor use in specific sectors, regions, countries or themes. The diagram next page shows the distributionbetween core contributions and earmarked funds in the financing of different parts of the multilateralsystem, as an average for the years 2007-2009. As can be seen, UN funds and programmes in particularare financed by earmarked funds. Six UN funds and programmes receive more in earmarked funds thanin core contributions. However, the World Bank and other UN agencies also receive substantial contri-butions in earmarked form.

Whilst the core contributions fall fully under the management and governance structures in the organi-sations, including the planning and reporting processes and procedures agreed with the member states,this is not necessarily the case for earmarked funds, which according to DAC fall “under a kaleidoscopeof accountability arrangements that very few ordinary citizens, and not many experts fully compre-hend”.Forpartner countriesearmarked funds can provide advantages in the form of better adaptation totheir own systems compared to alternative bilateral arrangements, and that they gain direct influence inthose cases where governance mechanisms have been established that provide developing countrieswith a stronger voice compared with the executive boards. However, this is not often the case, andtheir influence will typically be limited. Significant disadvantages include lack of clarity regarding thecriteria for allocation, in that the allocation of funds does not necessary follow the principles for alloca-tion of core funds, as well as lack of clarity regarding responsibility for the management of the funds.Earmarking hampers efficient allocation of resources on the national budget, weakens financial disci-pline and carries a higher transaction cost in terms of administrative effort.Forthe organisations,earmarking can increase the volume of funds available. Furthermore, earmark-ing through a trust fund can be the most suitable vehicle for performing specific tasks limited in time,rather than setting up a new organizational entity where no designated organisation exists. The disad-vantages are that earmarking can undermine the organization’s governance structures, tilt the balance inits general activity, and erode its mandate and policies as well as its mechanisms for allocating funds,including performance-based allocation mechanisms. The organisations often see earmarking as a “bi-lateralization” of the multilateral assistance.Forthe donors,the advantages include the possibility to focus on specific sectors, regions and coun-tries as well as to supplement their bilateral efforts, ensure greater visibility and facilitate circumventionof more complicated executive board decision-making structures. The disadvantages can be increasedadministration and cross-subsidisation between core and earmarked contributions. The donors perceiveearmarking as a “multilateralization” of the bilateral assistance.

The earmarking/core budget contribution issue is not simple.In this respect, it is not possible toidentify which of the factors examined in the previous sections that have been most important in moti-vating the donors to increase earmarking of their multilateral funding. It is likely that a mixture of caus-es have been at play, including also a lack of confidence and inadequate influence in the organisationsas well as a growing pressure on the bilateral organisations’ administrative budgets. And it must be em-phasised that there can be good reasons for earmarking funds for particular purposes, for example inconflict-affected countries, for starting up in emerging areas of activity and as a means of attracting newsources of development funding in situations where the multilateral organisations are unable to mobi-lise adequate resources from their own budgets to tackle challenges which they are otherwise particular-ly qualified to handle.However, the multilateral organisations’ ability to bring their unique and absolute advantages into playrequires a critical mass of institutional capacity and reach in relation to their core mandate, and themaintenance of this critical mass is premised on predictable and adequate funding of their budgets.When budgets continually shrink on account of decreasing core contributions from member states, thecritical mass is reduced. Unchecked growth in earmarked funds can affect the overall balance in theactivities and interventions and undermine governance and management structures.Circumvention of “cumbersome” executive boards by means of earmarking also sows doubt about thewill to pursue multilateral solutions. And earmarking weakens the donor countries’ demands for resultsand performance in the organisations – an ambition that requires focusing attention around the execu-tive boards, management processes and the organisations’ own systems. Yet, amore robust and flexi-ble multilateral system is needed which can fill the gaps expected to be left in the future bybilateral donorswishing to focus on fewer countries and leaving outstanding work to the multilateralorganisations as low-income countries transit to middle-income status during the next 10-15 years.5Robustness and the ability to respond globally and with flexibility is best promoted through the use ofpredictable and untied contributions to the general budgets.The proportion of multilateral assistance of individual donors’ total assistance varies considerably.Denmark lies at the higher end of the scale with approx. 25 per cent channelled to multilateral organisa-tions, excluding the EU. Approx. 28 per cent of DAC’s multilateral assistance is earmarked. With ap-prox. 11 per cent in reported6earmarked assistance, Denmark lies relatively low in DAC’s comparison.At the top end of the scale are Australia, the USA and Norway with more than 50 per cent of theirmultilateral aid earmarked. The Netherlands has approx. 37 per cent, Sweden approx. 35 per cent andthe UK approx. 39 per cent.7As an example of Denmark’s earmarked contributions to multilateral organisations, it can be stated thatDenmark in 2010 contributed to a total of 49 active budget lines in the UNDP, one for core contribu-tions and 48 for earmarked contributions. Another example is Denmark’s contributions to active trustfunds in the World Bank Group in the period 2007-2011, which is presented in the diagram next page.

Education for All Fast Track Initiative…Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust FundTrust Fund to Co-finance the Eighth, Ninth…Nile Basin Initiative Trust FundSupport Facility for the National Program…Municipal Development ProjectDenmark - Donor Funded Staffing ProgramKP/FATA/Balochistan Multi-Donor Trust…Trust Fund for Mainstreaming Disaster…MDTF for Trade Related Assistance in…Trust Fund for the Provision of Junior…Readiness Fund of the Forest Carbon…Water and Sanitation Program-Danish…Trust Fund for Local Government Capacity…Second Emergency Municipal…Trust Fund for Energy Sector Management…Danish Carbon FundMDTF for the Adolescent Girls InitiativeMulti Donor Nordic Trust FundMDTF for Water Partnership ProgramEnergy Sector Management Assistance…State- and Peace- Building MDTFMDTF for Co-financing of Private Sector…Financing for the Consultative Group to…MDTF for Strengthening Public…Integrated Land and Water Management…MDTF for the Public Sector Technical…MDTF for the South-South Experience…Callable Funds for the Standby Recovery…MDTF for Southern Sudan (MDTF - SS)MDTF for the Kosovo Sustainable…Learning for Equality, Access and Peace…MDTF to Support Public Financial…Java Reconstruction Fund (JRF)The MDTF for the Gender Action PlanMDTF for Country Environmental AnalysisAfrican Capacity Building Foundation-…MDTF for Forced DisplacementMDTF to Support Analytical Work within…The Sub-Saharan Africa Transport Policy…Economic Development and Structural…Development Marketplace 2009 Multi-…Africa Stockpile ProgramMulti-Donor Trust Fund for Bangladesh…The Multi Donor Low Income Countries…MDTF for COM+, Alliance of…MDTF for the Secretariat for the…MDTF for Uganda Emergency…Nepal Public Financial Management…MDTF for the Strategic Partnership with…Technical and Administrative Support to…Multi-Donor Trust Fund for Zimbabwe…MDTF for Communities and Small-Scale…MDTF for Migration and Remittances for…Palau - Petroleum MDTFGlobal Environment Facility (GEF)…Special Initiative of the Global…Financing for the Consultative Group to…Water and Sanitation Programme (WSP)…African Capacity Building Foundation…Global Environment Facility (GEF)…MDTF for Aceh and North Sumatra (…Danish Carbon Fund - Prepaid Trust FundMulti-Donor Trust Fund for Justice Sector…

Specific challengesIn the following sections two particular sets of challenges for the multilateral system are examined,namely those related to fostering stability and development in conflict-affected and fragile states andthose associated with supporting developing countries in their transition to a green economy. Thesetwo rapidly emerging issues are expected to strongly affect the work of multilateral organizations andtest their ability to adapt to a changing global agenda. At the Rio+20 Conference to be held in June2012 it is anticipated that new directions will be decided for the transition to a green economy and sus-tainable development.Conflict-affected and fragile statesFragile and conflict-affected states constituteone of the greatest development challenges today.The latest MDG report makes this abundantly clear. Whilst considerable progress has been made bymany developing countries, fragile and conflict-affected states lag far behind economically and have notachieved any of the MDG. Indications are therefore, thatan increasingly larger proportion of totaldevelopment assistance will go to conflict-affected and fragile states.There is a need for innova-tive approaches and genuine change, if peace, stability and development are to gain a strong foothold incountries affected by conflict and fragility. Geographically,the focus is likely to be on Africa, whereseven of the world’s ten most fragile states are situated.Bilateral donors often lack the necessarylegitimacy as well as technical and administrative capacity to operate in conflict-affected and fragilestates, and therefore act primarily through multilateral organisations.The need for a new international approach is documented in a number of pioneering reports such asthe World Bank’s World Development Report 2011, the Report of the Secretary-General on peacebuilding in the immediate aftermath of conflict from 2009, the UN review of civilian capacities from2011, and a number of reports from the conflict network in OECD/DAC, including the monitoring offragile state principles, which unfortunately shows that there is still a long way to go in terms of puttingthe principles into practice.As an innovation, a group of fragile states (G7+) have taken the initiative to engage in discussions re-garding a new international structure. The International Dialogue on Peace Building and State building,comprising G7+ and donors, has launched the“New Deal”– a new international approach to fragilestates – at the High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness held in Busan. Five goals for peace building andstate building have been identified that must be accomplished as a prerequisite for achieving theMDGs. The “New Deal” calls for much greater national ownership and strengthened cooperation be-tween international actors and national actors within the framework of a simple agreement structureunder multilateral leadership – typically provided by the UN.It is difficult to operate in fragile states. Lack of security as well as insufficient legitimacy and accounta-bility of governments that are often politically and economically marginalised contribute to the chal-lenge. Efforts in conflict-affected and fragile states are therefore complex and often very politically sen-sitive. This has led toa state of affairs in which the international community’s engagement infragile states is fragmented and primarily based on short-term interventions.Therefore, the mul-tilateral system needs to work more effectively in fragile states. The multilateral organisations play apivotal role in delivering aid in these countries and in the dialogue with national actors. This is partlydue to their particular legitimacy in situations characterised by precarious security and sensitive politicaland social controversies, and partly because few countries have bilateral missions in fragile states.

The multilateral organisations provide unique platforms for cooperation with new actors, particularlythe emerging economies such as China, India, Brazil, South Africa, which play a major role in manyfragile states. The opportunities for engaging in dialogue with new actors and influencing their policiesas part of the total international engagement in fragile states should be used. Strengthening the linkagebetween peace-making, peace building and state building requiresa sharp division of labour as wellas enhanced cooperation and coordination between the different multilateral actors –the UN,the World Bank, the EU and the regional organisations and development banks. In the WDR11, theWorld Bank recognizes that the UN should play the leading role in the transition phase. The review ofthe UN’s civilian capacities underpins and operationalizes this recommendation. This is an importantstep in the right direction In addition, a greater recognition of the importance of the regional organisa-tions and development banks for ensuring regional stability is needed. It is particularly important thatDenmark works in a targeted way to strengthen the international architecture – also through our influ-ence in the EU.The dialogue on the international architecture has a tendency to become centred at headquarter level. Itis, however, important to hold on to the notion that the key objective is to deliver concrete results forthe people who are affected by instability and poverty on the ground. The success of the efforts to cre-ate a more effective structure should consequently be monitored through theperformance of actorsat the country level.On the one hand, we must become better at feeding lessons learned from coun-try-level activities into the policy dialogue. On the other hand, we must also have the courage to whole-heartedly support policy decisions and provide key multilateral actors with the real means to deliverresults.Peacekeeping is keyin conflict-affected states. Security is a precondition for development, and thelinkage between peace building and state building is two-way.Coordinationbetween the differenttypes of operations is therefore of great importance. The individual UN mission mandates have gradu-ally become more ambitious, and the emphasis now is primarily on integrated operations rather than onconventional peacekeeping buffer missions. Integrated missions require intensive cooperation betweenthe military and civilian components of the mission.A key task in fragile states is to prevent unstable and fragile situations from developing into conflicts.Conflict preventionis supported, among other things, by strategic regional efforts or through the UNand other actors who are working to reduce tensions and strengthen dialogue, mediation and capacitybuilding. The interplay between preventive diplomacy and development intervention is central. Thechallenge in relation to preventive efforts is to make the link between activities and results clear.In the UN review ofcivilian capacitiesparticular attention was paid to constraints associated withrapid deployment of people with the right personal profile in fragile and conflict-affected states. Expe-rience shows that the difference between success and failure in many cases is highly dependent on indi-viduals – particularly those in leading positions. We must focus much more on identifying people withthe right technical, cultural and interpersonal skills through targeted efforts to recruit, train and deployDanish civilian personnel – to the EU, the OSCE, the UN and NATO – and persuade multilateral or-ganisations to do the same. The UN itself identifies a number of inappropriate administrative proce-dures and rules that should be eliminated. In addition, the prospects of intensified South-South cooper-ation bring new opportunities. The UN, and in particular the UNDP, is in a perfect position to con-tribute to building capacity in the South. A stronger effort should also be made to promote more ex-change of staff between organisations – e.g. the World Bank and the UN – partly to facilitate moreflexible and versatile use of human and other resources, and partly to enhance mutual cooperation.

The normative sphereplays an immensely important role in relation to conflict-affected and fragilestates – as demonstrated by Responsibility to Protects (R2P) and other initiatives related to protectionof civilians, children and women in conflict situations, as well as peace and security (SR1325). In rela-tion to protection of civilians, prevention is a key element. Closer cooperation between the UN, region-al organisations and states in responding to early signs of ethnic cleansing, war crimes, genocide andcrimes against humanity is crucial for the success of the R2P standard.Rio+20 with focus on green economyThe UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) will be held in Rio de Janeiro in June 2012during the Danish EU Presidency.The two key themes will be the green economy in the contextof sustainable development and poverty eradication as well as the institutional framework forsustainable development.The major challenge is to reach a common global understanding of the fact that the economic, socialand environmental dimensions of development need not be mutually exclusive but can be mutuallyreinforcing. The G-77 countries are sceptical about the green economy, which is viewed as a Westernconcept that may lead to imposition of new conditionality and green trade barriers obstruct them intheir efforts to pursue economic growth and job creation through industrialisation.The G-77countries cliam that the new commitments accompanying the transition to a green economyshould be accompanied by economic compensation in the form of development assistance, capacitybuilding and technology transfers from the Western countries, particularly if they are to be subject tomore stringent standards than the advanced economies were subject to at the time of their own take-off.The countries in the G-77 group, including countries such as China, India and Brazil, have so far stead-fastly maintained the principle of common, but differentiated responsibility (CBDR principle). Accord-ing to this principle countries have different responsibilities according to their level of development.Advanced economies must provide the development aid necessary to allow them to make the transitionto a green economy. Traditional donor countries, on their part, demand that middle-income countriescontribute to the transition. The COP17 reconfirms that the CBDR principle. This will hopefully makeit easier to reach agreements in Rio that also commit the BRICs.EU Member States, and particularly Denmark with inspiration from the work of the Global GreenGrowth Fund (3GF), argue in favour of a model in which growth and sustainability go hand in handand require the involvement of the private sector as a partner in Rio+20.Denmark believes that Rio+20 will focus on scarcity of resources such as water, energy and foods, inaddition to the general issue of preventing irreparable damage to the ecosystems.Denmark therefore also supports the UN Secretary-General’sSustainable Energy for All(SE4ALL)Initiative which proposes a new global goal for sustainable energy comprising three objectives: univer-sal access to electricity, doubling the rate of improvement in energy efficiency globally, and doublingthe share of renewable energy in the global energy mix. All three objectives are to be achieved by 2030.In multilateral organisations, Denmark will work to ensure that all three elements in the current dia-logue about energy – access, improved efficiency and renewable energy – are addressed.The Secretary-General’s energy initiative can be seen as a significant contribution to the debate on set-ting global sustainable development goals (SDGs), which has become an overriding theme in the prepa-23

rations for Rio+20. The Danish Government will work to ensure that Rio+20 makes progress in defin-ing such goals, including as a minimum agreeing on a process to identify and specify SDGs.The Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on Global Sustainability, which has been set up and taskedto provide political recommendations for Rio+20, looks set to publish a report that as one of its mainrecommendations will advise the international community to agree on global sustainable developmentgoals.Some EU Member States have viewed the green economy and the sustainable development goals ascompeting agendas and have therefore not directly addressed the SDG their contributions to Rio+20.Instead they have promoted the idea of a “green economy roadmap” with “specific goals, objectivesand actions at international level…”. However, there seems to be a growing openness towards workingwith sustainable development goals as building blocks for a green economy.The discussion about SDGs is linked to the discussions about the eightMillennium DevelopmentGoals(MDGs). The UN has been cautious to initiate a discussion of what is to follow the MDGs outof fear of shifting political attention away from implementing the outstanding MDGs. The debateabout sustainable development goals, however, is gaining ground, and there is general agreement thatthe present MDG-focus on the social dimensions should be balanced with more attention being paid tothe environmental dimension and the question of tackling the rising resource scarcity.It would not be helpful to separate the discussion ofSustainable Development Goals(SDGs) fromthe discussion of the MDGs, even though the SDGs are universal goals for all countries whereas theMDGs have until now been viewed as goals applying primarily to the developing countries. The twoprocesses must be interlinked. One option is to anchor the SDGs in the MDGs, with the MDGs as thecore in a new set of goals to which a sustainable development dimension is added.Severaldifferent models for a better structure of the institutional framework for sustainable de-velopmentare being discussed, including a reform of ECOSOC and CSD (the closure of CSD has alsobeen proposed); the creation of a sustainable development council and a strengthening of the UNEP,including its potential upgrading into a specialised agency, as favoured also by the EU.Denmark has generally underscored that form must follow function. In addition, Denmark will focuson how better multilateral implementation at country level can be achieved.With respect tofinancing,the World Bank in particular has worked on developing models of financingand governance structure for climate and sustainable development, with the climate funds and theGreen Fund as the most significant examples.Finally, there remains a considerable challenge in relation to ensuringbetter coordinationof the ef-forts between different multilateral actors such as UN organisations, the World Bank, the IMF andregional organisations. Denmark will engage in work aimed at improving coordination of these efforts.

Part 2–Denmark’sengagementin the multilateral organisationsGeneral RemarksSince 2005, the responsibility for the daily management of Denmark's relations with most multilateralorganizations has beendecentralizedto the UN missions in Geneva and New York as well as the em-bassies in Rome and Washington, whereas responsibility for relations with regional development bankshas been vested in the regional departments in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In 2010, cooperationwith UNRWA was decentralized to the representative office in Ramallah. The role of responsible unitscovers the entire spectrum from defining the objectives for cooperation over strategic planning, im-plementation and financial management to monitoring and evaluation of cooperation and assessmentof the results achieved.In their management of Denmark’s relations with multilateral organizations representations and unitsare guided by the strategic orientation and monitoring framework as set out inorganizational strate-gies and associated annual action plansdeveloped and updated for each organization receivingmore than DKK 35 million a year. The progress achieved by individual organizations is monitored onthe basis of a number of agreed indicators, which reflect their contribution to delivering concrete de-velopment or humanitarian outcomes, their effectiveness as part of the international institutional ma-chinery, their internal institutional efficiency as well as their relevance in relation to Denmark’s devel-opmentpriorities. Strategies are developed for a 3-5 year period and as far as possiblesynchronisedwith the organisations' own strategic cycle.When the common practice of developing organiza-tional strategies was established in 2003, strategies were required for all organizations receiving DKK20 million or more a year. In 2011 the threshold was raised to DKK 35 million. Strategies and actionplans may still be drawn up for organizations that receive less than DKK 35 million annually, if theseare considered to have particular strategic importance for Denmark.The preparation of new organizational strategies builds on the recommendations made in Denmark’sannual multilateral review and on the outcome of the annual strategic consultations held in the organi-zations themselves. The draft strategy is discussed and commented on in the Programme Committee.A key mechanism for monitoring multilateral organizations is theMOPAN"Multilateral OrganizationPerformance Assessment Network," a network Denmark helped create in 2002 and which today con-sists of 16 like-minded donor countries united around the common goal to jointly assess the perfor-mance of major multilateral organizations. Within the framework of MOPAN an analytical model hasbeen developed in which the efficiency of individual organizations is measured based on a number ofagreed indicators covering such parameters as the administrative system, command and control sys-tems, as well as partnership behavior. This is the basis for deciding whether conditions are in place forthe organization to deliver development impact.MOPAN relies on perception analysis based on subjective views and not on objective criteria. Howev-er, in 2012 MOPAN will expand the analysis to include performance of goals at the aggregate level andin partner countries as well as their relevance to the development agenda. The ambition of MOPAN isto replace member states’ individual assessment of the multilateral organizations. This is already thecase on Denmark’s part. The plan is to annually analyze 6 multilateral organizations in 8-10 differentcountries. This allows for a 3-5 year cycle comprising 20-25 of the main organizations.

Up till now Denmark’s monitoring of multilateral organizations has consisted in submissions from re-sponsible representations and units on the performance of individual organizations measured againstthe relevant strategy and annual action plans. These reports - mainly retrospective in nature and fo-cused on individual organizations – have not provided a basis for obtaining a coherent picture of Den-mark’s multilateral effort. Below,a comprehensive account of the performance of the 17 multilat-eral organizations receiving a minimum of DKK 35 million a year and drawn up by responsiblerepresentations and units on the basis of a common methodologyis submitted for the first time.The figures for the Danish multilateral contributions cover 2010, since the figures for 2011 were notavailable at the time of reporting.In addition to monitoring the performance of organizations against agreed targets contained in the or-ganizational strategies,a table with seven cross-cutting indicatorshas been introduced with the aimof enabling staff to provide a quick overall assessment of the relevance, effectiveness and efficiency ofthe 17 organizations. The tables are inserted in the sections on individual organizations. The ratings aremarked as green for "very satisfactory", yellow for "fairly satisfactory", and red for "not satisfactory".This is not an assessment based on objective criteria for the organizations' actual performance in termsof contributing new ideas, achieving specific development results or raising the institutional efficiency.Rather, it isa first step towards strengthening the comparative, performance-based element ofthe assessments underlying the Danish policy for engagement in multilateral organizations.Itmakes it possible to form an idea across organizations about their relative performance on indicatorscommon to all of them. It also helps to create a sharper policy focus for a more forward looking andstrategic-oriented process. The ambition is tostrengthen the performance assessment through theselection of indicators and targets that as far as possible allow for comparative assessmentsindividual organizations.The annual multilateral review and strategic orientation as well as the formulation of organizationalstrategies will build on the systems of management for and measuring of results already in place in theorganizations. Meta-analyses based on comparison of different assessments and evaluations are alsovaluable tools and will be used in this process. Denmark cooperates with like-minded countries on mul-tilateral issues, including under the auspices of the Utstein Group and Nordic +8.

tions imposed by their mandates or their performance-based system for allocating resources.The UN organizations' ability to bring these advantages into play depends critically on the internationalcommunity’s support of their mandates and programs - including with sufficient financial contributionsto enable them to maintain a critical mass of administrative and technical capacity to pursue their coremandates. The escalatingearmarkingof multilateral funding over the last ten years has made it in-creasingly difficult for many organizations to focus their efforts on their core mandate - a developmentthat calls for a reaction from responsible donors.Dynamic developing economies increasingly engage in multilateral organizations,including ascontributors. This widening of active membership further underscores the need to protect the organi-zations' specific strengths and ability to provide relevant multilateral solutions within their mandates. Areversal of this trend requires greater discipline from both member states and the organizations them-selves based on respect for mandates and governance structures. It also requires a change of attitudeaway from one that encourages organizations to offer their assistance in an ever widening field of inter-ventions.The classic conflict concerningresource allocation between middle-income countries and lowincome countriespersists. In the UN it revolves around the issue of the presence and support offeredby funds and programs to middle-income countries, still home to more than half of the world's abso-lute poor. The Arab Spring fanned the flames of this debate, and middle-income countries have usedthis opportunity to emphasize their need for external assistance to help remedy their lack of administra-tive capacity and the general inequality in society.Implementation of the comprehensive reform complex - Delivering as One (DaO) – is key to ensuringthat the various organizations will deliver a better coordinated and orchestrated contribution to devel-opment in the future. The negotiation of the four-year policy review (QCPR), which sets the frame-work for UN’s operational activities, is an important milestone in the strategic dialogue and prioritysetting with the organizations. Here, Denmark will exercise its influence, including aligning its own or-ganizational strategies to the QCPR cycle.

With representation in more than 160 countries, UNDP is a key multilateral player. With its broad poli-cy and executive mandate, including in democratic governance and sustainable development, UNDPcan serve as a lead and convener in relation to the overall development efforts made in the relevantfields by multilateral as well as bilateral agencies. As a global centre of knowledge, UNDP also plays acentral role in collecting, processing, and dissemination of results from research and practical experi-ence from development cooperation.In 2010, the Danish core contribution was DKK 320 million. In addition, DKK 12.5 million is givenannually to UNDP’s trust fund for fragile and conflict affected states. Further funding to the tune ofDKK 276.2 million was provided to UNDP country offices by Danish bilateral embassies in 2010.The latest Danish assessments of UNDP concluded thatUNDP has delivered satisfactorilyin thepriority areas for the DK-UNDP cooperation (the five areas are: 1. System Wide Coherence / Deliver-ing as One, 2. governance, 3. Conflict affected and fragile states, 4. the Millennium Development27

Goals, and 5. sustainable development and climate change). However, there are still examples of unfo-cused UNDP activities, typically when UNDP is acting as the"provider of last resort "-i.e. outside ofUNDP's main area of competence and without the appropriate competencies on the ground. A morestrategic focus on governance work - especially in fragile states and on sustainable development - isrequired to make UNDP 'the partner by choice - not by default’.UNDP is under pressurebecause of dwindling funding of its core budget, increasingly intense com-petition for resources with other actors such as the World Bank and a growing demand for document-ing results. UNDP has seen a dramatic change in the funding of the organization, where the share ofearmarked funds has increased from 1/3 to 2/3 over the past decade. This development challenges theorganization's ability to deliver on its strategic plan, including on its coordination role.This calls for an active and strategically focused UNDP which acts as a relevant partner for new andtraditional players, an outcome that underlines the need for organizational reform.Astronger strategicfocus will constitute an important objective for the adoption of the new strategic plan for 2014-2017.However, efforts to sharpen UNDP’s focus are challenged by developing countries reluctant to see amore focused UNDP and by donor countries continuing to undermine this effort by earmarking theirfunding, despite concerns expressed over the implications.As part of the preparation of a new strategic plan in 2013 (covering the years 2014 to 2017) intensivediscussions concerning UNDP's comparative advantages, weaknesses and ability to deliver results areon-going.UNDP plays a crucial role not only because of its broad mandate and global presence, but also in rela-tion to internal UN coordination on development which take place in the so calledUN DevelopmentGroup(UNDG), counting all 32 UN agencies, funds and programs, etc.UNDP's global presence needs to be supported by relevant partnerships with both low- and middle-income countries and by new and traditional donors. For this to happen, UNDP must be able to adjustto the fact that emerging countries often reject the traditional donor-recipient relationship by support-ing partnerships centered on South-South cooperation. UNDP enters an increasing number of strategicpartnerships with emerging economies (e.g. Mexico and Brazil), most often with the aim of provisionof technical assistance. Similarly, UNDP is focusing increasingly on the potential for South-South co-operation and triangular cooperation in countries such as South Sudan, where UNDP orchestrates ca-pacity building of the Southern Sudanese administration in collaboration with mentors from Ethiopia,Kenya and Djibouti.From a Danish perspective, UNDP must continue to focus its efforts on low income countries andconflict-affected and fragile states, while its programs in middle-income countries should be financedby the host countries themselves. A model for middle-income countries whereby the country director isfinanced by UNDP while the program is financed by the country is likely to contribute to enhancingthe quality of the organization’s work. Emerging economies should contribute to financing interven-tions, for instance in conflict-affected and fragile states in their neighbourhood where they have a self-interest in stability.As a global knowledge-based organization UNDP also contributes significantly to development think-ing as for instance with its agenda-setting annual Human Development Report. And UNDP is expectedto play a leading role in the formulation of the "post-2015 goals” with the anticipated strengthening of

An interim organizational strategy is being developed to orientDenmark’s cooperation with UNDP in the period leading up tothe launch of the new and synchronized strategic plans for thefunds and programs in 2014. From a Danish perspective, UND-P's comparative advantages can be summarized under the head-ing "Governance for Sustainable Development". Within govern-ance, UNDP has comparative advantages in terms of supporting1) the development of legitimate and effective institutions andprocesses especially in conflict-affected and fragile states, and 2)the sustainability agenda.Denmark will work to ensure that UNDP uses its comparativeadvantages in supporting political governance, incl. parliamentsand civil society and media as well as the justice sector, and thatit assumes a leading role in aid coordination in these areas when-ever called upon to do that. In providing support to public sectorreform in general UNDP should work in partnership with theIMF, the World Bank, bilateral donors, civil society organizationsand others.

UNDP should particularly concentrate on supportingconflict-affected and fragile states,whereUNDP and the UN system in general, have comparative advantages in terms of political legitimacy, itscoordinating role and ability to combine peace building, peacekeeping, humanitarian efforts and devel-opment. Here, UNDP will typically be present before, during, and after the crisis and should be thepreferred institution taking the lead in an orderly transition from humanitarian relief towards recoveryand development-oriented assistance, ensuring a strong and unified UN response and that action iscoordinated with new players as they enter the stage. Denmark will focus on assessing UNDP's per-formance in countries such as Afghanistan, Burma, Somalia, South Sudan and Zimbabwe, including itsability to coordinate and catalyse efforts by the international community and integrate financial contri-butions and technical assistance from third parties in larger, strategically oriented pools. Denmark willwork to ensure that UNDP's institutional capacity to act in conflict-affected and fragile states isstrengthened through reforms as well as adequate and reliable funding and consider seconding staff atboth junior and senior levels.Denmark will work for engagement of UNDP in the sustainable development agenda and in the devel-opment of a broadly accepted methodological basis for green economy and sustainable development.In addition, UNDP should use its leverage and close relationship with national governments to pressfor progress on the environmental front, particularly in middle-income countries. UNDP serves as thefocal point for coordination of support to institution-building, planning, legislation, data-collection andprocessing in the environmental field with inputs from UNEP, MDBs and bilateral donors. Also, sus-tainable energy must figure higher on UNDP's own internal agenda, with a focus on upstream activitiesand not on electricity supply.Funding strategy:With its high and stable contributions to core funding Denmark is considered atrustworthy and loyal partner, and Denmark will work actively with the aim of raising contributions to

the core budget through the QCPR negotiations and in the Executive Board in dialogue with the or-ganization and in cooperation with like-minded countries. Sustainable, long-term funding must be putin place consistent with the visions for UNDP and the need to maintain sufficient critical mass to fulfilthe Strategic Plan and UNDP's coordinating role. In those cases where earmarking can be justified be-cause there is no institutional alternative for handling the resources and no alternative steering mecha-nism has been agreed with partners, funds held in trust should fall squarely under the organization'soverall management structures and be delivered strategically, coherently and aligned with partner coun-tries’ national systems. Tackling the funding question is burdensome and time-consuming and fast re-sults cannot be expected. Maintaining Denmark's strong influence on the organization will require largeDanish core contributions and willingness to second staff as appropriate.Active involvement in the UNDP Executive Board:In recent years Denmark has been activelyengaged in the Executive Board, both as President in 2007-2008, but also by continuously engaging instrategically important decision-making processes as for instance the new strategic plan, and Denmarkhas successfully brought important issues (such as the response in South Sudan) on the agenda. Den-mark will work for its priorities based on this position of strength.Strategic Dialogue:Denmark will continue its close, effective and informal dialogue with UNDP,maintain a prominent role in the donor community and continue choosing topics to which Denmarkpays particular attention as the basis for the strategic dialogue with the organization. Specifically, Den-mark will take advantage of its position relative to the discussions on funds and programs’ interventionsin fragile states, including in the Danish priority countries Afghanistan, Somalia and South Sudan,through selective and committed participation in the work of the Executive Board, hosting of im-portant meetings and close cooperation with relevant bilateral embassies.UNICEF

UNICEF is a key multilateral player due to its’ clear and strong mandate, decentralized model andglobal presence with programs in 156 countries. The twin humanitarian and development mandate ofthe organization provides it with a comparative advantage in relation to providing a consistent and sta-ble response at the intersection of humanitarian and development interventions. UNICEF's work isbased on a cross-cutting normative mandate - guided by the 1989 Convention on the rights of theChild, and on its reporting and monitoring in relation to the mandates of the UN Secretary General'sspecial representatives on sexual violence, children in armed conflicts and violence against children.The Danish core contribution to UNICEF in 2010 was DKK 155 million (reduced from DKK 180million in 2009). In addition a contribution of DKK 20 million was made to UNICEF's humanitarianwork as part of the humanitarian partnership agreement for 2010-15. Furthermore, Denmark contrib-uted earmarked funds to a number of specific projects and countries. In total, DKK 298.2 million waschannelled to UNICEF in 2010 by Denmark. Among the official donors Denmark was UNICEF'sseventh largest core budget contributor in 2010, and ranked as the tenth largest donor overall.In general, UNICEF's work and focus is well aligned with Danish development priorities, and the or-ganization has achieved asatisfactory level of performancein terms of accomplishing the prioritygoals set out in the current action plan. In general terms, the organization maintains a well-run opera-tion, which adapts and manages to stay relevant to the overall development agenda.

Like other UN agencies UNICEF ischallenged by the global financial situation.In 2010,UNICEF's income from core budget contributions was reduced by 9 per cent, accounting for only ap-proximately 26 per cent of UNICEF's total income (compared to 33 per cent in 2009). The remaining74 per cent was comprised of thematically earmarked funds, humanitarian contributions and fundsearmarked for use in specific projects. The declining level of core budget funding poses a challenge toUNICEF, as it complicates the fulfilment of its overall mandate, including the humanitarian emergencyresponse, the normative element, and the strategic plan.This context calls for a visible UNICEF, able to deliver within its mandate and its strategic plan and todemonstrate rapid and easily measurable results. UNICEF has traditionally performed well in theseareas and the organization is very conscious of defining clear limits and remaining within the givenmandate. Denmark will work for an increase in the core funding of UNICEF as a means of enhancingfinancial predictability for the organization. Denmark will also advocate for more support toUNICEF’s longer term and normative upstream efforts - not an easy task, given the opposite signalscoming from many other donors.UNICEF hasa broad and diversified donor base,and a third of the organization’s budget comesfrom private funds. Compounded by the general trends to earmark multilateral funding, this has madeit difficult for the organization to disengage from delivery of stable, visible, and well-tested interven-tions, where there are clear results and lower risk of damaging the reputation of the organization. Forthe same reason, UNICEF is very careful when selecting partners for collaboration. Not surprisingly,UNICEF has gained a reputation for being quite conservative and sometimes inflexible compared toother partners in terms of coordination and division of tasks at country level.UNICEF is ahighly experienced and robust development actorwith a very well-tested businessmodel. The opportunity to demonstrate tangible and meaningful results helps UNICEF attract wide-spread support from the donors. UNICEF has a strong stake in the fulfilment of the MDGs, especiallyin relation to halving hunger, access to primary education, girls' access to education, reducing child andmaternal mortality, access to clean drinking water and sanitation, and a strengthened global partnershipfor development. UNICEF is one of the key sources for data collection at the household level.

A bridging strategy has been developed for UNICEF covering the period 2012-2013 leading up to theimplementation of the new generation of strategic plans for funds and programs in 2014. UNICEF'scurrent strategic plan 2005-2013 focuses on the most vulnerable groups as a means of more effectivelyaddressing the MDGs – a dimension highlighted with the introduction of a new equity-based focus in2010. The health sector and particularly the reduction of infant mortality is central to UNICEF’s pro-gram and Denmark will work to ensure that this orientation emerges as a key element of the new stra-tegic plan. The current MDGs have a clear focus on the social sectors and the thrust of UNICEF'sprogram is therefore well aligned with the MDG. For the same reason, the organization has been reluc-tant to accept the idea new and additional sustainable development goals. Denmark will encourageUNICEF to continue to engage constructively in the discussion of the international development goalsand to make its considerable expertise and extensive data available in this process.UNICEF is present with active program in manyconflict-affected and fragile states.Denmark willwork to ensure that UNICEF continues to prioritize and allocate a considerable part of its core re-sources to interventions in these states, including through provisions in UNICEF's new strategic planfor 2014-17. UNICEF's twin mandates provided it with an obvious advantage for engaging in fragilesituations, including in peace-building. Especially in the softer and at times overlooked elements of this

agenda - such as education - UNICEF has potential to play an even stronger role than today. However,this requires that UNICEF becomes better at integrating its work within broader UN efforts in fragilestates -something which Denmark will encourage the organization to do. Furthermore, Denmark willpay particular attention to UNICEF's efforts in priority countries such as Afghanistan, Burma, Somalia,Sudan and Zimbabwe. UNICEF has kept a low profile as regards the environment agenda - an areawhich at first glance does not appear to have a clear link to the organization's mandate. UNICEF iscurrently working to identify the organization's role in the Rio +20 agenda. Denmark will work to en-sure that UNICEF continues to strengthen its rights-based approach to development, while recogniz-ing that UNICEF can also play a prominent role in strengthening people’s resilience to shocks. Finally,UNICEF is an important actor as regards education of children and young people to understand cli-mate changes.Cross cutting multilateral indicators

Funding strategy:With its relatively high level of core budgetfunding (although reduced in 2010) Denmark is considered atrustworthy and loyal partner - especially in difficult times, wherethe proportion of core budget funding generally is under pres-sure. Denmark will work actively to strengthen the overall con-tributions to the core budget through the QCPR process and inthe Executive Board in its bilateral dialogue with the organiza-tion and in cooperation with like-minded countries. Denmarkwill work for a stable and long-term funding framework, con-sistent with UNICEF’s vision, and including contributions to thecore budget sufficiently large to maintain the critical mass re-quired to achieve the priorities of the strategic plan and deliveron the normative aspect of UNICEF's mandate. This is a chal-lenge, since donors with increased focus on results and visibilityof their own contributions push the organization further towardsthe easy and quickly measurable initiatives and away from themore demanding upstream efforts.

In those cases where earmarking can be justified because there is no institutional alternative for han-dling resources, funds held in trust should fall squarely under the organization's overall managementstructures and be delivered strategically, coherently and aligned with partner countries’ national systems.Tackling the funding question is burdensome and time-consuming and fast results cannot be expected.Denmark has engaged very actively in the work of the Executive Board. Denmark resigned from theBoard in 2012, but re-joins in 2013. Denmark has been successful in bringing important issues on tothe Board's agenda in cooperation with other donor countries. This includes initiatives related to fragilestates, and UNICEF's humanitarian responses.Strategic Dialogue:Denmark will continue its close, well-functioning and informal dialogue withUNICEF, and retain its prominent role in the donor community, supplemented by annual consulta-tions with UNICEF which takes stock and discusses future strategic priorities for cooperation. Den-mark will pick additional topics for the strategic dialogue with the organization, such as the role offunds and programs in fragile states in general and specifically in Afghanistan, Somalia and South Su-dan. Here, Denmark has succeeded in influencing UNICEF through a targeted and committed effort inthe Executive Board, by working closely with the relevant bilateral embassies and through commission-ing of consultancy reports on the subject. The fact that UNICEF's Supply Division is located in Co-

penhagen provides special opportunities, also concerning the more specialized functions covered by theSupply Division (including product innovation).UNFPAUNFPA’s current and expected future role.UNFPA's mandate and strategic orientation include population and development, reproductive healthand rights, and gender equality. The UN’s rights-based population policy agenda was established basedon the program of action of the International Population Conference (ICPD PoA) in Cairo in 1994 (in2010 extended indefinitely). UNFPA was given aleaner and more strategic focusas a result of themid-term review in 2011, and reproductive health and rights now figure even more prominently in itsprogram, in accordance with the Danish priorities. Denmark is in the process of developing an interimstrategy for the collaboration with UNFPA for 2011-2013, building on the mid-term evaluation andother inputs.In 2010, the Danish core contribution to UNFPA was DKK 205 million. In addition, DKK 15 millionis allocated annually through the humanitarian Partnership Agreement 2010-2015. In 2010, Denmarkcontributed a further DKK 5million to UNFPA's response to the earthquake in Haiti. Altogether, Dan-ish development assistance corresponding to DKK 421 million was channelled through UNFPA in2010, including funds allocated by bilateral embassies. This made Denmark UNFPA's fifth largest over-all donor in 2010.UNFPA's work and efforts are in line with the overall Danish development priorities. In 2010 the or-ganizationperformed satisfactorilyin relation to targets in priority areas agreed with Denmark.Like many other multilateral organizations UNICEF is under pressure due to a generally constrainedfunding environment and the fact that the organization has a politically sensitive mandate, makingfundraising a special challenge.The more stringent demands for documentation of results comingfrom the donor community may provide an incentive for diverting the organization’s attention andoperations away from important interventions in the areas of information, education and behaviouralchange where results are more difficult to document. A robust and predictable funding model is im-portant for UNFPA. It enhances its ability to deliver in relation to the strategic plan, including the Dan-ish priority area of SRHR. Through successful information campaigns UNFPA has raised awarenessabout maternal mortality - the MDG furthest from being achieved.There is a need for an active UNFPA who can generate the necessary political and financial support forits mandate without compromising core elements such as SRHR. The mid-term evaluation paints apicture of an organization capable of doing that.The main challenge will be the preparation of anew strategic plan for 2014-2017with the negotia-tions of the quadrennial comprehensive policy review (QCPR) as an important milestone. Also, thepreparations for the twenty-year review of the adoption of the ICPD Programme of Action in 2014, isa key strategic event which may feed into the formulation of new post-2015 objectives.There isno consensus among UN member states on key elements of UNFPA's mandate andwork,such as SRHR, gender equality, and women's empowerment. The organization manoeuvres in ahighly sensitive political environment with regards to these issues, which has high priority for Denmark,and it will be necessary to mobilize like-minded support to secure reaffirmation of the ICPD agenda in2014. Denmark has taken several initiatives with this aim, which it also pursues in relevant negotiations33

in the annual sessions of the Population Development Commission and the Commission for the Statusof Women, as well as in General Assembly Resolutions and - statements. The EU is generally divided inthese matters with the Nordic countries and Holland on one side, and Poland and Malta on the other.The disagreement is so profound that the European Union often has to refrain from negotiating collec-tively.Denmark is involved in a longer-term coordinating effort in response to the well-orchestrated attackson the ICPD. During the fall, Denmark established a multi-regional ICPD network, in collaborationwith Brazil and UNFPA, with the aim jointly defending the ICPD agenda. The Danish UN Mission inNY also participates in a working group together with UNFPA's Executive Director with a view toestablish a High Level Task Force (HLTF) for the ICPD, consisting of about 25 prominent persons.HLTF is expected to be instrumental in relation to mobilizing and creating political support for theICPD up to 2014. It is a Danish priority to be represented in that group due to the expected strategicimportance of the HLTF.UNFPA hasasserted itself strongly on the Rio +20 issues,where the organization views itself as abridge between the population- and sustainability agenda. Denmark supports this view - an agenda forsustainable development, which does not include a population dimension, will fail - and Denmark is inclose dialogue with UNFPA to sort out how these elements are best incorporated into the Rio agenda.The study on UNFPA, UNDP and UNICEF's work in fragile states funded by Denmark demonstratedthat UNFPA wasnot very visible in the UN efforts in fragile states.The study also identified chal-lenges in terms of ensuring a proper coordination of the interventions of the various funds and pro-grams. On the basis of this study and the considerable interest voiced by Denmark and other donors,UNFPA has developed a strategy for the organization's work in fragile states through extensive consul-tations within the organization.Priorities for Denmark's future cooperation with UNFPA.Denmark will actively pursue a reconfirmation of the ICPDagenda in 2014 and Denmark wishes to see a UNFPAwhich focuses on this agenda and engages freely on issuesof SRHR and gender equality. Denmark will support UN-FPA's efforts to position the population dimension at thecenter of work on sustainable development, including inrelation to Rio +20, and the ambition to formulate astronger strategy for the organization's work in conflict-affected and fragile states.Crosscutting multilateral indicatorsIs the organization innovative and agenda-setting within its mandate?UNFPAX

tion and a stable high level of the Danish contributions could provide enhanced Danish influence inboth New York and at country level. Similarly, strategic seconding of staff can both support the closepartnership with UNFPA and a prioritized strategic dialogue.Active involvement in UNFPA's Executive Board:Denmark will continue its activist line from thetime of its presidency of the Board in 2007-2008 as well as its ongoing involvement in key decisionmaking such as the preparation of the new strategic plan and the negotiations on UNFPA's mid-termreview (MTR, 2011). Denmark will continue the successful cooperation with other Nordic countriesand the Netherlands, and build on previous successes in bringing important issues, such as the work offunds and programs in fragile states, on the Board's agenda.Strategic Dialogue:Denmark has a close, effective and informal dialogue with UNFPA and a promi-nent place in the donor community. SRHR plays a key role in Denmark's dialogue with the organisa-tion, and Denmark has an important position in relation to the discussion of funds and programs’ workin fragile states, including Danish priority countries (Afghanistan, Somalia and South Sudan) in NewYork. Denmark will strive to maintain this role, achieved through a focused and committed effort inthe board's work, working closely with the relevant bilateral partners on the subject.

UNEPUNEP’s current and expected future roleUNEP is a relatively small organization with an annual budget in 2010 of USD 206.6 million supple-mented by funding for specific non-programmed tasks. UNEP's financial base is modest and unstableas the organization is almost entirely funded by voluntary contributions partly to UNEP's EnvironmentFund and partly by earmarked contributions to different programs. Denmark’s contribution to UNEPin 2010 was DKK 82.9 million (hereof 62.9 million earmarked) and in 2011 DKK 76.4 million (DKK51.4 million earmarked). Overall, Denmark is the third largest donor, and number ten in terms of corebudget contributions.Previous criticism of the organization’s work on results-based management and evaluation has beennoted and UNEP now generally appears asa stronger and more efficient organizationalthoughthere is still room for improvement. UNEP’s program relates to the challenges ahead and the organiza-tion will have an important role in relation to the world's transition to a green economy.UNEP is the UN system's focal institution for environment, and its core functions are analytic, norma-tive, coordinating and consultative. UNEP's vision is to be the leading global environmental authoritywhich sets the global environmental agenda, promotes a coherent approach to the environmental di-mension of sustainable development within the UN system and is the authoritative voice of the globalenvironment. UNEP operates in a complex institutional system of over 50 multilateral environmentalagreements and approx. 40 multilateral organizations with fragmented and overlapping mandates relat-ed to the environment.UNEP's strategy for the period 2010-2013 focuses on six areas: 1. Climate change, 2. disasters and en-vironmental interventions in post-conflict situations, 3. ecosystem management, 4. international envi-ronmental governance, 5. harmful substances and hazardous waste, and 6. resource efficiency, includingsustainable consumption and production.

UNEP is responsible for the coordination of environmental efforts in the UN crisis response capabil-ity, and the organization is actively working to integrate environmental considerations into humanitari-an and peacekeeping operations. It provides support at country level to address environmental impactsof disasters and conflicts in close cooperation with national authorities and international organizations,including the joint UNEP-OCHA environmental unit and the Initiative for Environment and Security.With the 2010-2013 strategy UNEP has taken an important step towards becominga more stream-lined organizationthat does away with silo-thinking, duplication and which works strategically andmeasures its performance against agreed indicators. The new workflow has periodically led to a lack ofclarity in relation to responsibility, problems with reporting, communications, etc., and the organizationmay still occur cumbersome and bureaucratic internally in some areas. It is also necessary for UNEP toimprove its budget reporting. Denmark has highlighted these outstanding tasks to UNEP, and has alsocommissioned a consultancy report on the issue. The report identifies challenges, but also praisesUNEP for significant improvements in its results-based work. Previous criticism of UNEP's evaluationwork has led to efforts to improve its performance. Preliminary results from, among others, MOPANand OIOS evaluations are in general positive.Historically, it has been difficult for UNEP to attract the attention of UN’s funds and program andspecialized organizations and to establish effective working relationships with these entities. Denmarkworks for the implementation of a model for UNEP's "strategic presence" at country level (One UN)to enable it to strengthen cooperation with other multilateral organizations and other partners. In re-cent years UNEP has strengthened its regional presence in accordance with the geographic prioritiesestablished in the work program.The organization, naturally, is keenly interested in theupgrading of UNEP, possibly into a desig-nated environmental organization with global membership(UNEO), an issue featuring high onthe agenda for the Rio+20 conference. A consequence of such a decision might be a stronger role forUNEP at the country level. In relation to this, Denmark and the Nordic countries have pointed outthat they do not envisage UNEP provided with an "implementing arm" because of the risk of furtherfragmentation of global environmental governance. It is important that UNEP maintains its compara-tive advantage as a normative and catalytic organization, while exploiting the potential of cooperationwith other UN organizations, especially UNDP.9With considerable political attention paid to sustainable development globally as a result of frequentnatural disasters, climate change and continued environmental degradation, and an impending Rio+20Conference, UNEP'srelevance is clear.UNEP has a central role in the Rio+20 preparations, includ-ing in developing a paradigm for green economy and in convincing sceptic developing countries thatgreen economy need not lead to green conditionality.The Rio+20 conference is important for UNEP as it will focus on sustainable development and greeneconomy as well as on reform of the international institutional framework for sustainable development.The EU prioritizes the establishment of a designated environmental organization in the UN, based onUNEP and a revised and strengthened version of its mandate. It is therefore likely that UNEP after9

Rio+20 will have a stronger position, be it as a designated organization or not. In any event, UNEPmust continue to make its significant normative contributions to international environmental coopera-tion, also in relation to the analytical work needed prior to the possible adoption of sustainable devel-opment goals.For the program period 2010-11, allocations under the Environment Fund amounted to USD 166 mil-lion, while financial contributions added up to almost USD 163 million. 82 per cent of all contributionsto the Environment Fund came from Europe. UNEP should work to ensure greater predictability ofcontributions and to expand the number of its donors in order to move away from beeing overly de-pendent on a small group of donors. The donors and UNEP also need to address the imbalance be-tween general and earmarked contributions with the latter currently constituting more than half of theUNEP budget (USD 180 million in overall contributions and USD 228 million in earmarked contribu-tions for 2010-2011). A stronger UNEP with broader international support and a stronger global im-pact will not come about as a result of further earmarking, but requires stable and transparent corebudget contributions to fund the negotiated mandate.Denmark has reached agreements with UNEP to support theorganisation's strategic priorities in energy and water, and Den-mark has accumulated a valuable resource of knowledge in theseareas. Without jeopardizing these advances, Denmark will workfor an increase in the core budget funding of UNEP, includingthrough a better balance in its own contributions.Priorities for Denmark’s future cooperation with UNEPThe current organizational strategy for UNEP covers the period2009-2013.In UNEP Denmark prioritizes: 1. Development, 2.implementation of a robustresults-based management and moni-toring system, 3. "strategicpresence" including through strength-ening UNEP'sregionaloffices,4. a strengthenedfinancial basefor UNEP, and 5. seconding Danish experts at P5 level andabove in positions of strategic importancetoDenmark.Fur-thermore, Denmark supportsUNEP's ability tohelpstates tostrengthen their capacity to take climate change into account intheir national development strategies and to integrated ecosystemmanagement and UNEP’s efforts to enhance environmentalgovernance nationally,regionallyand globally.Cross cutting multilateral indicatorsIs the organisation innovative and agendasetting within its mandate?To what extent is the organisation relevantand approachable to Danish developmentpriorities?Does the organisation have satisfactorysystems for economic responsibility –including risk management and anti-corruption?Does the organisation provide their mem-bers and interested parties with a satisfac-tory level of information on results andchallenges?Does the organisation comply with theobligations in the Paris Declaration and theAccra action plan?Does the organisation participate activelyand constructively in the reform efforts inthe international development system?Does the organisation actively attempt toinclude new development actors in itswork?XUNEPX

important coordinating role to ensure that all UN organizations and other actors incorporate sustaina-ble development into their work.WHOWHO’s current and expected future roleWHO is the leading global organization on health and development? It has a potentially very relevantrole in achieving the health-related MDG's, through its norm and standard-setting function and its ad-vice to developing countries on building health systems. Denmark contributes with DKK 40 millionannually and ranked as number 19 in terms of contributions in 2010.A thorough reform of the WHO has been needed for a long time. The purpose is to streamline andadapt the organization to the current and emerging global health challenges. The agenda of WHO isgreatlyaffected by the on-going reform processes.Director-General Dr Margaret Chan haslaunched a comprehensive process which also seeks to address two of the biggest challenges: 1) Defin-ing the core functions of WHO in the global and complex health architecture. 2) Linking funds andpriorities. The MOPAN survey of WHO (published January 2011) acknowledges that the WHO inrecent years has strengthened its focus on results-based management and that progress is registered insome areas.WHO's role in relation to other partners in the global health architecture is also part of the reform dis-cussions. Thus, there is a need for a clearer division of labour amongst the most important health or-ganizations. WHO wants to play a role as a global platform for health but has found it difficult to posi-tion itself. Recently, however, WHO has managed to define a role for itself related to non-communicable diseases, which are attracting growing international attention.75 per cent of WHO’s voluntary contributions are currently earmarked for specific programthat are not necessarily in line with agreed priorities.This is obviously a major challenge for theorganization in the implementation of the agreed medium-term plan, where some areas are constantlyunder-funded, including Danish priority areas such as maternal and child health. As one of a few coun-tries Denmark in 2010 decided to make its voluntary contribution as a contribution to WHO’s generalbudget motivated by aid effectiveness considerations and a desire to support the Director-General'sreform program and create more flexibility.Since 2005 WHO has been a cluster leader on health in relation to humanitarian crises. The EU willpropose a review of this role. A restructuring of WHO’s work in this area is currently underway withthe aim of securing an enhanced role for its regional offices amongst other things. The EU will followthis closely. In general the WHO is not particularly transparent about activities and resources allocationand use at the regional level.WHO will play a role in the discussions on global sustainability goal in particular with respect tostrengthening the health aspects in relation to urbanization, climate change, migration, and food securi-ty as well as non-communicable diseases and the associated future health burden for developing coun-tries.Monitoring of the annual action plan indicates preliminary progress concerning the targets set for 2011,including in the areas of fighting communicable diseases, maternal and child health, sexual and repro-ductive health, as well as WHO’s lead of partnerships within the UN and in the countries.

Priorities for Denmark’s future cooperation with WHOWHO will remain a key partner for Denmark and is expected toplay an important role in improving health in developing coun-tries. This will require a successful reform outcome which leadstoincrease focus and efficiency at all levels within the or-ganization.In a member-driven organization where specificreform issues will be subject to inter-governmental negotiations,this will probably be a long and difficult process.Denmark will work actively to create continued momentum inthe reform process. With a fully flexible contribution to WHO,Denmark has a special interest in influencing priorities and fund-ing to ensure that Danish funds are used to promote the areaswhere the WHO is believed to provide added value. This is inparticularin the development of norms and standardstosupport the achievement of health-related MDGs, includingrights-related issues such as women's equality and sexual andreproductive health and rights.Cross cutting multilateral indicatorsIs the organisation innovative and agendasetting within its mandate?To what extent is the organisation relevantand approachable to Danish developmentpriorities?Does the organisation have satisfactorysystems for economic responsibility –including risk management and anti-corruption?Does the organisation provide their mem-bers and interested parties with a satisfac-tory level of information on results andchallenges?Does the organisation comply with theobligations in the Paris Declaration and theAccra action plan?Does the organisation participate activelyand constructively in the reform efforts inthe international development system?Does the organisation actively attempt toinclude new development actors in itswork?WHOX

The Global FundThe Global Fund’s current and expected future roleThe Global Fund's first decade was characterized byrapid growth, significant successes, and bil-lions of USD invested in fighting hiv/aids, tuberculosis, and malaria.However, experience hasalso shown that the Fund with its own structures and procedures often was incapable of adjusting tothe overall efforts to harmonize and align external assistance in-country, and sometimes contributed todelaying progress in this area. With the release of information on extensive corruption problems inGFATM in 2011, the Fund faces a severe crisis which requires implementation of a number ofradicalreforms.An independent expert panel was appointed to review the case. It concluded that there was anurgent need to improve several of the Fund's business processes and procedures. The panel made sev-eral recommendations for strengthening management and enhancing the future effectiveness of theFund. These recommendations are linked to existing reform processes in the Fund concerning suchdimensions as management and the Fund's new strategy (2012-2016).A timetable has been agreed for a thorough reform of the Fund through enhanced overall manage-ment, handling of risks and contributions, allocation of resources, alignment with partner country sys-tems, investment and evaluation, organization at the Secretariat, as well as resource mobilization.39

In the past decade huge amounts of money were mobilized toDoes the organisation participate activelyand constructively in the reform efforts inXfight hiv /aids (reaching USD 15.6 billion in 2008 of which athe international development system?large part went through the Fund). However, funding forDoes the organisation actively attempt tohiv/aids is now declining, and the Fund is forced to consider theinclude new development actors in itsXwork?viability of future application rounds because of declining com-mitment and lack of fulfilment of existing commitments fromseveral donors. In the period 2007-2010, Denmark was 17th largest donor to the GFATM. The Danishcontribution in 2010 was DKK 175 million.The monitoring of the annual action plan for Denmark’s cooperation with GFATM in 2010 showsgenerallysatisfactory results,including in the management of contributions, delivery of results, theinvolvement of civil society and contribution to fulfilment of MDG's. Performances in terms of theFund'sresponse time are less satisfactory,reflecting a lack of capacity and harmonization with part-ner country processes and systems.The Fund will remain a key partner for Denmark in the effort to fight hiv/aids and achieving MDG6on hiv/aids but also in relation to MDG5 on maternal mortality and MDG 4 on reducing child mortali-ty (the elimination of mother-to-child transmission).The Fund’s new strategy builds on existing initiatives aimed at improved handling of gender and rightsaspects of the Fund's work. Denmark will work to ensure that focus is maintained on building capaci-ties and policies in these areas - including in relation to the most vulnerable groups (sex workers, menwho have sex with men and drug addicts). In addition, Denmark will emphasize follow-up related tothe Fund's specific strategies for equality and working with sexual orientation.It is estimated that the Fund will continue to be a model for public-private- partnerships with closeinvolvement of civil society. The Fund has shown a willingness and resolve to change during the crisistriggered by the corruption problems.

focuses its energy on the poorest countries and follow recommendations from UNAIDS to channelfunds to where they are most needed. And Denmark will underscore the need for the Fund to complywith agreed international principles of aid effectiveness, particularly as regards the use of national sys-tems and strategies and the need to work in partnership, including within the UN system.Denmark works to promote its priorities and interests in collaboration with other partners in its con-stituency in GFATM, namely Ireland (currently on the board), Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, andLuxembourg. Preparation of positions takes place in close coordination in the coalition as well asthough meetings with like-minded donors in a wider circle, especially in Geneva. Denmark will work tofurther strengthen cooperation between like-minded donors, for example in connection with reportingon GFATM performance and in relation to selected the rights based approach to development.UNAIDSUNAIDS’ current and expected future roleUNAIDS is the UN’s joint program established to promote concerted action among the ten organiza-tions involved in the fight against hiv/aids (UNICEF, UNDP, UNFPA, UNESCO, WHO, the WorldBank, UNODC, ILO, WFP, and UNHCR). UNAIDS mobilizes political support and financial re-sources, designs global strategies and provides advice. Monitoring the epidemic on a global scale andcapacity building at country level are also key tasks for UNAIDS.With itsnew strategy"Getting to Zero" (2011-2015) UNAIDS has formulated the framework for theUN hiv/aids response towards the expiry of the MDGs in 2015 and positioned itself on a global devel-opment agenda characterized by "competing" priorities. UNAIDS is committed to bringing "aids outof the isolation" and believes hiv/aids efforts should also be exploited as a platform for a broader de-velopment policy by improving social justice and living conditions for the most vulnerable.UNAIDS's focus andrights-based approachis in keeping with Danish priorities. The Executive Di-rector sees UNAIDS as an organization which can and should be the catalyst of the fight against dis-crimination. Unlike for example WHO, UNAIDS is not controlled by member states and can thereforemore easily handle sensitive topics - such as sexual and reproductive rights as well as the most vulnera-ble groups: Men who have sex with men, sex workers, and drug addicts.The strategy's goal to bring the number of infections, aids-related deaths, and the extent of discrimina-tion to a zero may seem unrealistic. But in a time of economic crisis and focus on delivery of results,UNAIDS insists on a drastic change of course by streamlining and focusing resources in areas withhigh infection rates and adopting approaches which have already proved useful.Along with the strategy, acomprehensive new framework of results based management andmonitoringwas recently developed through close involvement of partners, donors, and civil society,and eventually adopted. The challenge is still to turn the objective of securing more effective interactionamongst the ten agencies into reality at the country level.UNAIDS is expected to actively engage in the process to develop a post-2015 MDG-type framework.The planned review in 2013-14 of the recently adopted declaration on hiv/aids at the UN Summit inJune 2011 can contribute importantly to the work on updating the MDG6 on hiv/aids.

Like other multilateral organizations UNAIDS facessignificant challenges in relation to its fund-ing.In the past decade huge amounts of money were mobilized for the fight against hiv/aids, but since2009 contributions have declined. Denmark was 7th largest donor to UNAIDS in 2010 and makes anannual contribution of DKK 40 million.In terms of performance UNAIDS has demonstratedprogress on key indicators,including globaladvocacy, support to countries in the promotion of rights and the fight against stigma, and in connect-ing hiv/aids with sexual and reproductive health and rights.Priorities for Denmark’s futurecooperation with UNAIDSUNAIDS will continue to be a relevant partner for Denmark inrelation to hiv/aids. Along with like-minded donors, Denmarkwill work to ensure effective implementation of the new strategyfor UNAIDS, and thus actively provide a counterbalance tomore conservative tendencies particularly in relation to the pro-motion of rights for the most vulnerable groups.Denmark will underline that UNAIDS needs to continue to fillits key coordinating role amongst the ten relevant organizationsin partner countries. Denmark will also continue to focus oneffective follow-up on the evaluation from 2009, including onleadership and management.Finally, UNAIDS will be instrumental in relation to the follow-up on review of Danish hiv/aids efforts (conducted in spring2011), with more focus on UNAIDS’ technical support facilities.Cross cutting multilateral indicatorsIs the organisation innovative and agendasetting within its mandate?To what extent is the organisation relevantand approachable to Danish developmentpriorities?Does the organisation have satisfactorysystems for economic responsibility –including risk management and anti-corruption?Does the organisation provide their mem-bers and interested parties with a satisfac-tory level of information on results andchallenges?Does the organisation comply with theobligations in the Paris Declaration and theAccra action plan?Does the organisation participate activelyand constructively in the reform efforts inthe international development system?Does the organisation actively attempt toinclude new development actors in itswork?XUNAIDSX

The International Financial InstitutionsThe IMF, the World Bank and the regional development banks are indispensable financial, organiza-tional, and professional wheels in the institutional machinery for development. As global institutionswith considerable financial weight and global oversight mandates and as advisors of the G20, the IMFand the World Bank contribute significantly to international financial and monetary stability and to fa-cilitating the structural adjustment of the world economy, which has led to widespread global prosperityin the past decade. These two institutions have been instrumental in making the interdependence ofnations resulting from an increasingly interwoven global economy clear to decision makers. In addition,the regional development banks serve increasingly as fora for discussion and development of regionalsolutions, and IFAD is playing an important niche role as IFI in relation to agricultural development.The IFIs haveconsiderable fundsat their disposal which they lend to countries to help stabilizeeconomies during crises and to fund investment in infrastructure and development of human capital.For several years the IFI’s have targeted the achievement of the MDGs in their operations. The specialfeature of this part of the family of multilateral institutions is that the IFIs lend money to member

countries10– often with very long maturities (up to 50 years). This creates abinding long-term part-nershipfocused on promoting development and sustainability in public finances. The IFI concentrateon investments in human and physical preconditions for growth and on strengthening key institutionsthrough reform of the civil service and public financial management to enhance the effectiveness ofpublic spending. The IFI often provide or help service platforms for negotiations between governmentand donors on the aforementioned issues - a role which underpinned by the IFIs’ support to the prepa-ration of poverty reduction strategies, economic and financial policies and sectorial strategies. IFI fund-ing is generally integrated in the partner county budgets, and the predictability which historically hasbeen associated with the institutions' contributions has helped to create the policy space necessary forpartner countries to exercise ownership of their development.The IFIs have no mandate to promote civil and political rights, and the provisions on non-interferencein their articles of agreement restrict their ability to act independently on politically or culturally sensi-tive parts of the development agenda, such as democracy, human rights as well as interventions in con-flict-affected and fragile states. In these areas, the IFIs must leave the initiative or the leadership to theUN. But the IFI can contribute significantly to putting peoples’ social and economic rights at the centerof development and to ensuring that these rights are respected. Despite the aforementioned re-strictions, it is essential that the MDBs focus on the underlying social tensions in their analyses as theWorld Bank has announced that it intends to do in conflict-affected and fragile states. The Nordic trustfund on human rights in the World Bank is an example of how it is possible to create new platforms inthe institutions.The World BankThe World Bank’s current andexpected future roleIn the next decade,the World Bank will continue to be a key playerin the international effort topromote growth and development worldwide. The Bank's raison d'être is to provide funding and adviceto developing countries on the broad set of development interventions that make up the state budgets.The Bank’s lending to infrastructure often happens in close partnership with the private sector, and theprivate sector is specifically targeted by the International Finance Corporation the Multilateral Invest-ment Guarantee Agency.Following the latest voice reform in the World Bank developing countries will hold 47 per cent of theshare capital in IBRD - a proportion which is expected to increase in the coming decade. Denmark willwork to ensure that the dynamic economies increasingly contribute to the funding of IDA. Denmarkhas contributed approx. DKK 190 million to the capital expansion in IBRD which was part of thevoice reform.The World Bank also plays a central role as aglobal knowledge bankwith a significant capacity toprovide research based evidence on emerging development issues and ability to rapidly produce anddisseminate new knowledge amongst countries and between regions through its representation in over100 countries. The World Bank's influence in the coming decade will depend on its ability to use itsown financial resources to leverage funding for development from the private sector and new devel-

opment actors such as the BRICS11. Also, there is a strong desire to see the World Bank playa centralrole in contributing to the generation of global public goods and preventing and minimizingthe damage from global public “bads”.The World Bank is considered an efficiently run organization, also in relation to demonstrating theresults of its efforts in partner countries.12The World Bank’s strategic orientation is to contribute topoverty reduction through support for inclusive and sustainable economic growth, human capital de-velopment, gender equality and enhanced environmental management. The Bank also helps to mitigatethe impact of crises and other shocks to developing countries.IDA covers an average of 20 per cent of the need for ODA among the 79 poor countries who haveaccess to IDA, and plays a leading international role in fighting poverty. During the coming 10-15 yearsit is expected that about half of IDA countries will become middle-income countries. They will then nolonger have access to the very favourable IDA loans, but go on to draw on loans, guarantees, and advi-sory services from IBRD, IFC and MIGA. The majority of the remaining IDA countries are expectedto be in Africa.In recent years there has been considerable progress inthe World Bank's cooperation with otherkey development actorsincluding the UN, the EU Commission, other international institutions, andbilateral donors. The Bank contributes as part of the "shadow secretariat" to the G20 cooperation andis one of the proponents of greater involvement of the emerging economies in international develop-ment. The World Bank has been a strong supporter of partner country ownership of development, butthe Bank's participation in donor coordination at country level is sometimes less convincing.Priorities for Denmark’s future cooperation with the World BankDenmark's future cooperation with the Bank will be outlined in thenew organisational strategyforthe period 2013-2017 to be formulated in 2012. In the following, considerations and priorities are sug-gested that may form the basis for the new strategy.a. Growth and employmentThe Bank has a central role in advising developing countries on their strategies for growth and as asource of funding growth. Through the IFC, the Bank also catalyzes private investment. Denmark willwork to ensure that the Bank supports countries in their efforts to promote more inclusive patterns ofgrowth, where the vast majority of citizens have the opportunity to improve their income by engagingas entrepreneurs or employees. Development in agriculture combined with the generation of more jobsin the manufacturing and service sectors are prerequisites for inclusive growth that benefit the poor,including through improved food security. The World Bank hasraised its lending to agriculture,andDenmark will work to ensure that the Bank maintains a high level of commitment and helps tostrengthen donor cooperation in this field.It is important that the Bank works closely with the IMF, the regional development banks, the UN, andbilateral donors on investment and capacity building in low- and middle-income countries. Denmarkwill work to ensure that specific mechanisms for better donor coordination on the jobs agenda areidentified in the forthcoming World Development Report 2013 on jobs.

b. Good GovernanceDenmark will work to ensure that the Bank maintains its leading role in supporting developing coun-tries in their efforts to strengthen central institutions of governance in relation to economic policy andpublic spending. This also implies an obligation to take the lead in initiatives aimed at limiting the riskof corruption and misuse of funds. The Bank must work with IMF in particular, but also with the otherMDB, the UN, the EU and bilateral donors.c. Post-conflict and fragile statesThrough IDA, the World Bank has doubled its support to conflict affected and fragile states since2000, and Bank support to this group of countries is one of four priority areas in IDA16 (2012-2014).The Bank also manages a number of trust funds established to cover operations in conflict-affected andfragile states. Denmark will work to ensure that the Bank follows the recommendation of WDR2011on conflict-affected and fragile states, including. 1. That UN should have the leading role in the transi-tion phase between peace building and reconstruction, and 2. that the Bank focuses on identifying thestress factors which lead to conflict and supports government structures which can promote security, asense of justice and development, and opportunities for breaking the spiral of violence.The Bank aims to support efforts to build robust and legitimate institutions based on a long-term per-spective and maintaining its assistance also in the face of temporary set-backs in performance. TheBank will support job creation and concrete improvements in living standards through investments inboth the private and the public sector. In addition, the Bank has declared itself ready to take on morerisks, including developing new instruments for managing risks. The Bank will have to coordinateclosely particularly with the UN, but also with regional organizations such as the AU in the political-normative field, and with other donors. The UN must basically take the lead in creating the right envi-ronment for the Bank's investments in post-conflict and fragile states.d. Environment and ClimateIn recent years the World Bank has increased its work on environment and climate significantly. Thisincludes the publication of the World Development Report 2010 on climate, the Bank's role as managerof the climate funds and more attention paid to climate and environment in the institution's overallwork. The World Bank also leverages significant private investments which help to promote greengrowth. Denmark will work for astrengthening of the Bank's integration of the environment and climate dimensions in country and sec-tor strategies and in specific projects and programs, and for the Bank to increase its investments in re-newable energy and energy efficiency. Finally, the Bank is expected to further step up its effort to helppartner countries strengthen their capacity to handle and prevent natural disasters.e. Gender equalityAssessments and evaluations made in recent years show that, despite progress, there is still room forimprovement in the Bank's mainstreaming of gender equality. Denmark will work to ensure that theBank follows up on recommendations from the World Development Report 12, which focuses ongender equality and economic growth. This implies that the Bank strengthens the gender dimension inthe design, implementation and evaluation of program and projects, especially in the economic sectors,and that it intensifies its dialogue with partner countries on this issue, also in middle-income countries.Finally, specific targets need to be developed for gender integration in country strategies and for wom-en’s participation in economic growth. The choice of gender equality as a priority area for IDA16 rep-resents a golden opportunity to promote this agenda.

The African Development BankThe African Development Bank’s current and expected future roleThe African Development Bank (AfDB) has undergone reform and increasingly appears as a moderndevelopment institution which makes an important contribution to the development of the Africancontinent. 60 per cent of the African Bank's share capital is owned by the 53 African member countriesand the remaining 40 per cent by 25 countries outside the continent, including Denmark. This owner-ship structure gives AfDBconsiderable political legitimacyand influence for African member coun-tries. The African Bank is popularly speaking anAfricandevelopment institution with the African Un-ion (AU) and the UN Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA) as the other two fix points in anemerging pan-African architecture.As a result of the reform work in AfDB in the last 4-5 yearssignificant progress has been made inthe formulation of clear and more focused policies and strategies.In 2007, a comprehensive me-dium-term strategy was approved with four focus areas in line with the African heads of states’ policypriorities, namely infrastructure, good governance, private sector development and higher education. Inaddition, timetables have been set for implementation of key institutional reforms such as decentraliza-tion, policies for the use of instruments such as budget support have been formulated, a results-basedsystem for resource allocation from the African development Fund (AfDF) has been introduced, and aresults based management and monitoring system established for the purpose of monitoring progresson institutional reforms and in delivering development results.46

Securing astronger presence in partner countriesas a means to enhance quality and efficiency in theBank’s programs has been one of the major challenges. Twenty-five country offices, including in allDenmark’s partner countries, have been established and will be supplemented by regional offices withstrong sectorial expertise, initially in Nairobi and Johannesburg. A good example of the "New AfricaBank" is seen in North Africa, where AfDB has played an active and valued role - including a politicalrole behind the scenes. A MOPAN evaluation from 2010 concluded that considerable progress regard-ing strategies and organizational development had been made, while challenges remained in terms ofthe delegation of decision making authority, in the areas of general HR policy and in relation to adapt-ing to local context and using partner countries' own systems, including in procurement.Priorities for Denmark’s future cooperation with the AfDBA neworganizational strategyfor Denmark’s cooperationwith AfDB will be finalized in 2012 within the framework ofDenmark’s new Development Strategy. In terms of content,focus is on the themes examined below. These themes havebeen chosen based on consideration of development needs,Denmark’s development priorities and AfDB’s absolute andcomparative advantages.Cross cutting multilateral indicatorsIs the organisation innovative and agendasetting within its mandate?To what extent is the organisation relevantand approachable to Danish developmentpriorities?Does the organisation have satisfactorysystems for economic responsibility –including risk management and anti-corruption?Does the organisation provide their mem-bers and interested parties with a satisfac-tory level of information on results andchallenges?XAfDBX

a. Inclusive growth and employment with an emphasis onXagricultureThe African continent has experienced strong economic growthin the last decade with rising commodity prices, economic diver-Does the organisation comply with thesification, and the emergence of a middle class. Sound economicobligations in the Paris Declaration and theXAccra action plan?policies have helped facilitate this development. However, inXmany countries high rates of growth have not translated into theDoes the organisation participate activelyand constructively in the reform efforts inexpected reduction in poverty. AfDB is in a good position tothe international development system?help countries nurture growth patterns that involve a wider por-Does the organisation actively attempt totion of the population in the creation and distribution of wealth.include new development actors in itsXwork?Events in North Africa and growing youth unemployment onthe Continent have made governments more apprehensive andopen to the need for this approach. Denmark has a valued partnership with the AfDB on private sectordevelopment through the African Guarantee Fund. Denmark will work to ensure that the AfDB: 1.Supports economic development based on an inclusive approach with an emphasis on creating goodjobs in both the formal and the informal sector, 2. advocates the inclusion of the voices of all citizensin national development processes, 3. draws attention to Africa as an attractive business area for inves-tors, 4. works to attract private and other sources of financing for development, and, 5. actively partici-pates in the AGF.b. Green growth, energy, climateThe Bank has engaged in the green growth agenda, including in promotion of renewable energy, whichit endeavours to internalize by building a strong policy profile and strengthening its expertise in han-dling issues at the intersection of energy, environment, and climate. A new energy policy is scheduledfor completion in early 2012 and work is underway on a broader strategy for green growth. The AfricaCommission's initiative for renewable energy - Sustainable Energy Fund for Africa, SEFA - is anchoredin the African Development Bank with an initial Danish contribution of DKK 300 million for the peri-od 2011-15. In 2012, Denmark will work to ensure that the AfDB actively contributes to the Rio+20

follow-up, strengthens integration of the green agenda in the Bank's strategies and work, prioritizescooperation with emerging donors on climate funding, reinforces its green growth advocacy amongstthe African member states and implements SEFA effectively and as agreed.c. Conflict-Affected and Fragile StatesIt is a strategic objective for the Bank to strengthen its efforts in fragile and post-conflict countries.This is so, both because the majority of the world's fragile states is to be found on the African conti-nent, but also because AfDB with its legitimacy as a regional institution can contribute significantly toeconomic reconstruction and strengthening of key institutions in these countries. In March 2008, aseparate fragile state department was established in the Bank alongside a separate funding mechanism,the Fragile States Facility (FSF). The FSF provides grants to eligible countries in areas such as govern-ance, capacity building and infrastructure rehabilitation, as well as for settlement of arrears to the Bank.The African Bank's office in Harare manages a joint multi-donor trust fund, the Zim-Fund, to whichDenmark has so far allocated DKK 75 million.In future, Denmark will work for a stronger AfDB engagement in the reconstruction of specific con-flict affected and fragile states. This engagement would involve support from the FSF as well as alloca-tion of sufficient administrative resources through establishment or strengthening of country officesand staff expertise in areas such as conflict analysis. I would also involve the Bank’s active participationin international efforts to develop and implement standards for effective interventions in fragile coun-tries, a strengthening of the integration of policy objectives concerning fragile states in operations, andeffective implementation of projects under the Zim-Fund.d. Good GovernanceThe uprisings in several North African countries underscores the need for better governance, and theAfrican Bank may, again with its unique regional backing, play a key role in helping countries enhancetransparency in public administration and fight corruption and nepotism. The topic is sensitive, andseveral member countries do not believe that the AfDB should deal with political and distributionalissues. Denmark will work for a stronger role for the AfDB in promotion of good governance - bothanalytically and in the country programs – through intensified advocacy role targeting governments anda reinforcement of its internal capacity in this area.e. EqualityToday, Bank management fully supports the institution’s engagement in gender equality and pursuesbetter performance for the Bank in this area. Only two out of seven country strategies approved in2011 had treated gender satisfactorily. Denmark will work to ensure that the AfDB increases its analyti-cal and operational capacities in gender equality, integrates gender equality in all relevant activities, col-laborates with partners with greater expertise in this field, such as UNWOMEN and the World Bank,and strengthens incentives to work with gender equality for Bank staff.f. Development Effectiveness, Funding and CommunicationDenmark wants to be seen as a responsible and credible partner who supports the African Bank's ownobjectives and work program. Consequently, most of the Danish funding of the Bank must be made inthe form of long-term core budget contributions through support to ADF replenishments and AfDBcapital increases.Denmark will work for a greater concentration and focus on AfDB's country program, and - despite

opposition from countries such as France and the U.S. – for AfDB’s intensified use of partner coun-tries’ own systems and abolishment of project implementation units.Denmark will work to strengthen AfDB’s focus on results, harmonization and alignment of its opera-tions to the country system. Denmark will contribute to the international debate on development effec-tiveness, decentralization and delegation of responsibility, development of results based management incooperation with other multilateral actors and a strengthening of the Bank’s evaluation function. Den-mark will also work to ensure that AfDB manages its capital in a manner which ensures a robust finan-cial base and maintains the Bank's AAA credit rating. And Denmark will actively pursue achieving anappropriate balance between core budget and earmarked contributions in the funding of the AfDB aswell as implementation of the agreed trust fund reforms13, such as closure of trust funds that do notcontribute to the Bank's core mandate. In addition, Denmark will work for a relevant and effectivemid-term review of ADF12, and to ensure that AfDB strengthens its dissemination of experience andresults to relevant audiences.

The Asian Development BankThe Asian development Bank’s currentand expected future roleAsDB's overall objective is to fight poverty and promote sustainable development in Asia and the Pa-cific. AsDB is bothan efficient and effective development bankwhich - in addition to being finan-cially sound - enjoys the confidence, respect, and sense of ownership from the countries of the region.Denmark has been a member of the Asian Development Bank (AsDB) since its founding in 1966. TheBank has grown to be one of the most important sources of funding for development in Asia, and inmany poor Asian countries AsDB is the largest active development partner. Furthermore, AsDB func-tions as a development policy think tank withstrong regional ownership.It was decided in 2009 toincrease AsDB's share capital by 200 per cent, corresponding to approx. USD 105 billion. This triplingof the capital means that the AsDB will continue to be a leading institution for development funding inAsia and the Pacific. Denmark holds 0.39 per cent of the total paid-in share capital. Denmark's share ofcallable capital represents a similar percentage and DKK 2.9 billion in commitments.Negotiations have been launched on a replenishment of the Banks’s concessional lending window forlow income countries the Asian Development Fund (AsDF), based on an indicative figure of US$ 12.9billion. Through AsDF, AsDB is directly supporting comprehensive development programs in Asia'spoorest countries. Negotiations for the replenishment are expected to be completed with two meetingsin March and May 2012. AsDB is expected to contribute 63 per cent of the replenishment from its ownresources. The remaining 37 percent will be paid by donors to the AsDF.AsDB supports not only the implementation of infrastructure programs, but also reforms, moderniza-tion and capacity building. As a regional organization, AsDB helps bridge the gap between countrieswith latent or open conflicts and contributes also to post-conflict reconstruction, for example in Af-ghanistan and Pakistan. In connection with the latest capital expansion, AsDB has undergone a reformand was seen asthe world's most effective development organizationin a review conducted by the13

World bank in 2010 ("Aid Quality and Donor Rankings"). The satisfactory AsDB performance in rela-tion to the Paris Declaration indicators may be explained by a very strong ownership (50 per cent of theshares) among the countries of the region. The strong ownership frequently contributes to reinforcingdisagreements with the traditional donor countries over policy issues such as environment, genderequality, and poverty eradication. The ranking of AsDB as the most effective development organizationmust therefore be taken with a grain of salt. It is a constant challenge to ensure that the Bank remainsnot only a considerable source of funding, but must also an important source of knowledge about de-velopment.In the spring 2008 the AsDB Board adopted anew long-term strategyfor the institutions work untilthe year 2020 ("Strategy 2020"). The strategy outlines AsDB's vision of an Asia-Pacific region freedfrom poverty. According to the strategy the Bank should focus on five core areas: infrastructure, theenvironment, regional cooperation and integration, financial sector development and education. TheBank considers agriculture as very important, but its comparative advantage is not in a direct engage-ment in the sector. Nevertheless, the strategy envisages a considerable increase of the AsDB's supportto the private sector, including agriculture, through appropriate infrastructure such as transport, etc.Denmark manages its membership of the AsDB through a multi-country constituency in the boardwith Canada, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Ireland, and the Netherlands. Through active input and dia-logue this like-minded group has achieved an influence in the bank which goes beyond its total share-holding of approx. 8 per cent. For Denmark, the membership of AsDB provides possibilities for partic-ipation, insight and influence in development cooperation in an important region.Priorities for Denmark’s future cooperation with the Asian Development BankAsia is home to 60 per cent of the world's population, containsCross cutting multilateral indicatorsvast differences, and continues to have the largest number ofpoor people in the world as well as some of the world’s mostIs the organisation innovative and agendasetting within its mandate?fragile states posing a risk to global security. Seven countries(Asia-7) generate the bulk of growth in Asia: China, India, Japan,To what extent is the organisation relevantand approachable to Danish developmentIndonesia, Korea, Malaysia, and Thailand.But Asia is alsopriorities?home to 31 countries with limited or moderate growth.Does the organisation have satisfactoryAsia's share of world GDP amounted to 27 per cent in 2010.systems for economic responsibility –including risk management and anti-AsDB estimates that this could grow to 51 per cent in 2050,corruption?provided that the countries in the region make sound politicalDoes the organisation provide their mem-bers and interested parties with a satisfac-and economic choices and avoid falling into what is referred totory level of information on results andchallenges?as the "middle-income trap" through investments in educationDoes the organisation comply with theand infrastructure, fighting of corruption and lifting of largeobligations in the Paris Declaration and thenumbers of people out of poverty. This is where the AsDB playsAccra action plan?its partner role.In its constituency, Denmark pays particular attention to ensur-ing a coherent policy on the part of AsDB to its interventions inconflict-affected and fragile states, with a top priority to Afghan-istan and Pakistan. In addition, Denmark will prioritize and ac-tively pursue the constituency’s work in the areas dealt with below.Does the organisation participate activelyand constructively in the reform efforts inthe international development system?Does the organisation actively attempt toinclude new development actors in itswork?

requirements (such as CSR, environment) specified in the terms for AsDB’s ordinary loans. Russia -who intends to apply for admission as a regional member of the Bank - should be included with theprovision that Russia cannot borrow and that Russia also contributes proportionally to the ADF.Denmark will work for a successful outcome of the replenishment of the ADF expected to close inMay 2012 as a prerequisite to maintaining the required flow of grants and soft loans to the poorestcountries in the region, including fragile and conflict-affected states. Denmark will work to ensure amajor financial contribution to the ADF from the strong economies in the region as well as continu-ously high contributions from traditional donors such as Japan, South Korea, and the U.S.Conflict-Affected and Fragile States:Denmark will work to ensure that AsDB maintains quality andvolume in its assistance to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Afghanistan is scheduled to receive USD 550 mil-lion in 2011-2012 and AsDB is the largest contributor to Pakistan with planned annual disbursementsof up to USD 1.4 billion. Yet, Pakistan and AsDB need to work together to resolve the difficulties thathave hampered program execution and timely disbursements.Green growth, energy and climate:Sustainable development is one of AsDB's strategic priorities,and Denmark will work with the aim of raising the institution’s investment in energy, the mainstream-ing of environmental considerations in its operations and a stronger effort in support of adaptation toand prevention of climate change. In 2009 the board adopted a new energy policy replacing the previ-ous policy formulated 15 years ago. After much discussion between regional and non-regional memberstates, it was agreed that the Bank would continue to fund coal-fired power plants whilst promotingclean technology which significantly reduces emissions of greenhouse gasses.Inclusive growth:Denmark will work to ensure that AsDB invests in education and supports equita-ble distribution policies – including through taxation - as well as infrastructure and anti-corruption andcontinues to fund programs for lifting large numbers of people out of poverty.Good Governance:In 2006 AsDB adopted a new action plan on good governance and anti-corruptionafter a period in which it had lagged behind in these areas. Since then, the Bank has made considerableprogress and now has a leading role in the assessment of corruption risks at country, sector, and projectlevel. The AsDB report "Asia 2050 - Realising the Asian Century" points to corruption and poor gov-ernance as the biggest threat to development in the region. The regional ownership of AsDB makes iteasier to discuss this sensitive issue openly in the institution.Gender equality:The progress registered earlier on in terms of the Bank’s work in gender related ca-pacity building in member states and in strengthening gender in the AsDB's operations has lost mo-mentum. Furthermore, the making and follow up of gender related decisions in the institution itself haslost steam. Thus, the proportion of women in the Bank’s workforce is about 30 per cent and has notchanged significantly since 2007. Denmark will work to ensure that gender equality, also a priority forthe rest of the constituency, is put back on top of the agenda.Development Effectiveness:AsDB has come a long way in implementing the principles of the ParisDeclaration. As part of the reform process the Bank has developed a results based management andmonitoring system designed to track the AsDB's and ADF's performance at the institutional, regionaland country level and Denmark will work to ensure that the positive trend continues.

The International Fund for Agricultural DevelopmentIFAD’s current and expected future roleIFAD occupies aniche positionin the global development architecture as the only international fi-nancial institution which directly targets the poorest farmers, many in remote areas where other agen-cies are not operating directly. In the on-going eighth replenishment of IFAD with an indicative budgetof USD 3 billion, Denmark is the 19th largest donor. In the coming three-year replenishment period(IFAD9) 2013-15 Denmark expects to increase its contribution over that of IFAD8. The preconditionto this increase is a fair burden-sharing in which the new donors also take on more responsibility. Forevery dollar IFAD hands out, two are raised from other sources, particularly from emerging economies.The assessment of the institution’s performance against indicators and targets included in the 2010 ac-tion plan for Denmark’s cooperation with IFAD indicates ahigh degree of target achievement.19out of 20 targets were met or satisfactory progress was registered, including in poverty orientation, fo-cus on Africa, gender equality and mobilization of resources from other actors. IFAD spends morethan 45 per cent of its funds in Sub-Saharan Africa and achieves good results on gender equality andpoverty alleviation, just as IFAD has strengthened itsresults-based focusthrough, among otherthings, systematic follow-up on recommendations from the independent evaluation unit. Environmen-tal and natural resource management is however an area where IFAD should strengthen its efforts in2011.IFAD's organizational efficiency, accountability, and results-based management receivea positive assessment in a number of external evaluations from 2010-11.14Despite the positive reviews, IFAD is confronted with a number of challenges, including in relation tomanagement of natural resources, decentralization, scaling up of its successes, participation in harmoni-zation and alignment, sustainability of efforts particularly in fragile states and HR reform. The financialcrisis increases the risk associated with IFAD lending. The complex global food situation is one of thekey challenges.IFAD's core mandate is 2015-Goal Number 1 – reduction of hunger and poverty by 50 per cent - andthe fund is focused on improving particularly poor small-holders food security, resilience and livelihoodthrough sustainable farming and commercialization. Approximately 60 per cent of IFAD-supportedsmall-holding farmers are women, and IFAD has developed an "Adaptation of the Small holder Agri-cultural Program" expected to provide support tosmall-holders’ adaptation to climatechange asfrom 2012.IFAD cooperates closely with implementing partners through national and local governments, regionaldevelopment banks, NGOs, and local organizations as well as the target groups themselves. In addi-tion, IFAD actively participates in the UNDAF and DAO in countries where it is present.IFAD's"light" country presenceis an interesting model within the framework of "One UN". IFAD's pro-jects and programs are developed in close cooperation with national authorities and relevant actors asbuilding blocks in national agricultural programs. These programs are implemented by national institu-tions through national systems.IFAD's own country offices are small, usually housed by other international organizations. IFAD'scountry programs are assessed by national and international partners through annual client surveys.14

IFAD plays an increasingly strategic role within the framework of the international system’s handling offood security.IFAD hosts the Secretariat of the UN secretary-general’s "High Level Task Force onGlobal Food Security", coordinating responses among the 22 multilateral organizations involved.IFAD’s President is also chairman of the "Global Agenda on Food Security" under the auspices of the"World Economic Forum". IFAD participates in the World Bank's agriculture and food security pro-gram in Africa. IFAD cooperates with WFP on issues such as promoting local food productionthrough the purchase of food products for humanitarian needs, while IFAD and FAO work togetheron sector analyses and project design.IFAD is working consistently to raise awareness on gender equality. IFAD's independent evaluationoffice in 2010 assessed IFAD's overall work on gender equality. As a follow-up, IFAD is in the processof drafting a gender equality policy to be adopted by the governing bodies in April 2012.A new climate strategy for IFAD was adopted in 2010, supplemented by a new policy on environmen-tal and natural resource management in 2011. This includes assistance to small-holders in managingrisks and improving disaster preparedness and resilience, enhancing seed production, processing andstorage, information about and access to markets, capacity building, and development of mechanismsto counter the negative influences on food production from climate change.Priorities for Denmark’s future cooperation with IFADAnew three-year organizational strategycovering Denmark’scooperation with IFAD in the period 2013-15 will be preparedin 2012. It will cover cooperation with IFAD until the expiry ofIFAD's existing strategic framework in 2015. At IFAD's Councilmeeting in February 2012, a multi-year framework for measuringof IFAD's results for the period 2013-15 was introduced. It willalso form the basis for selection of indicators, targets, and priori-ties in the Danish strategy.Denmark will work to ensure that IFAD in accordance with itsstrategic framework (2011-15)concentrates its efforts in low-income countries, fragile states and Sub-Saharan Africa and fo-cuses more on climate alignment, value chain development,andmarket access for small businesses in rural areas as well as wom-en. Decentralization and donor harmonization are importantDanish priorities. IFAD9 focuses on the Fund's relevance andefficiency, achievement and documentation of results, improvedknowledge management, innovation, continued improvement ofIFAD's development effectiveness, consolidation of achieve-ments, South-South cooperation and involvement of new actors.

The Humanitarian OrganisationsHumanitarian aid is intended to meet fundamental needs for help and protection of people in distressas a result of external shocks. The so-calledhumanitarian imperativemeans that the internationalcommunity has an obligation to seek to prevent or minimise human suffering caused by conflict ordisaster. As in the field of development, the multilateral system has obvious advantages for contributingto solve humanitarian tasks, and it has similar obligations to help forge the vital links between the vari-ous humanitarian instruments at the disposal of the international community.Humanitarian crises are often provoked bya combination of causes.Humanitarian crises can occuras a consequence of armed conflict, political instability, poor governance and weak infrastructure, hu-man rights violations, problems with food security and natural disasters. Often, one will find several ofthese factors at work simultaneously, thus exacerbating the overall impact. That is also why it is oftendifficult to distinguish sharply between types of crisis. Yet, crises are categorized as either complex cri-ses triggered primarily by anthropogenic factors or one-dimensional crises which are generally seen inconnection with natural disasters. The humanitarian crises are becoming increasingly complex. Thisunderscores the need to consider the humanitarian dimension together with the development dimen-sion to raise the chance of covering the entire continuum of interventions that span relief, reconstruc-tion and development.There has been agrowing need for humanitarian assistancein recent years. Therefore, it is an areacharacterized by strong competition amongst agencies for available funds. Humanitarian non-governmental organisations account for the largest share of global relief and also play a significant rolein Denmark's humanitarian efforts. Yet, the UN organisations have a pivotal position in Denmark’shumanitarian engagement because of their global capacity, normative role, privileged status under in-ternational law and their technical expertise. In terms of the overall coordination of relief efforts, theUN Office for Emergency Aid Coordination – OCHA plays an increasingly important role.Competitors / partners are numerous.Historically, International Red Cross and Red Crescent So-cieties have played a key role in global humanitarian efforts. They occupy a special position in the hu-manitarian architecture, between the UN system and civil society organisations. The ICRC is the singlemost important organisation providing anchorage for the international humanitarian system in interna-tional humanitarian law. The International Federation (IFRC) plays a similar central role in disasterpreparedness, early warning, relief, and disaster prevention.In addition,a large number of civilian society organisations,Danish and international, have accu-mulated technical and operational expertise coupled with detailed knowledge of specific geographicalareas and capacity to provide the right assistance to the most vulnerable populations. In specific situa-tions one or more IFIs may participate in relief efforts. It will generally be one of the regional banksdue to their almost universal presence at country level in their respective regions - exemplified by thevery active role that the IDB played in connection with disaster relief and reconstruction efforts follow-ing the earthquake in Haiti in early 2010. Because of the IDB's massive presence in Haiti, the Bank'semployees played an unusual role as information providers in the first chaotic time after the earthquake

and until the usual operators were mobilized. Also IFAD, a hybrid between the IFI and the UN, withits special mandate may play a role - not least in the transition from emergency relief to development.Denmark works in partnership with all types of actors in the field of humanitarian assistance. However,seen from a Danish perspective, it is particularlyimportant to ensure that the UN system carriesthe necessary weight to play its key role.Therefore, a substantial proportion of Denmark’s totalhumanitarian contributions are given as core budget contributions to organisations such as UNHCR,UNRWA, OCHA, WFP, ICRC, OHCHR, UN Joint Disaster Relief Fund (CERF) and UNMAS. Inaddition, funding is directed at strategic partnerships with selected UN agencies like UNICEF andUNFPA, and a part of the Danish humanitarian contributions goes to acute emergency relief opera-tions carried out by relevant UN agencies.OCHA's growing roleis not only related to stronger global demand. At the country level OCHA'scoordinating role is crucial - especially in connection with work in the humanitarian cluster. The focushere is primarily on acute, one-dimensional relief operations, but also to some extent on coordinationof long-term conflict and disaster prevention in cooperation with development agencies. The UN is ina special position as it alone can influence the linkage and balance between humanitarian assistance anddevelopment efforts. It is also clear that so-calledNew Dealagreement made in Busan on involvementof the international community in conflict affected and fragile states, with its five objectives (legitimategovernment, justice, security, economic opportunities, and revenues and services) for enhanced coop-eration between actors and a greater involvement of national governments in the prioritisation andplanning of interventions, involves special obligations for the UN system as well as a requirement tokeep the humanitarian principles alive and safeguard humanitarian space.Denmark has developedorganisational strategies and action planswith all key humanitarian organ-izations in the UN system, i.e. UNFPA, UNHCR, UNICEF, UNRWA, and WFP), in addition toOHCHR, which plays a central role in the legal field. Recently, OCHA has also been included (firststrategy concluded in cooperation with Ireland in early 2011). Outside the UN system, strategic cooper-ation includes the ICRC.The long-term humanitarian implications of food insecurity and large-scale natural disasters provokedamong others by climate change are expected to raise the demands on humanitarian and developmentactors and their ability to build emergency response capabilities through cooperation. This is one of thechallenges that the international system needs to find workable solutions for.OHCAOCHA's current and expected future roleOCHA is part of the UN Secretariat and derives its mandate from the UN General Assembly Resolu-tion 46/1182 from 1991, which aimed to strengthen and streamline the UN response to humanitariancrises. The resolution also forms the basis for the creation of the Inter-Agency Standing Committee(IASC) with OCHA as chairman and the establishment of the Central Disaster Relief Fund CERF(Central Emergency Response Fund). The UN Under-Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs isthe head of OCHA with direct reference to the UN Secretary General. In connection with an institu-tional reform in 1998, OCHA expanded its mandate to include coordination of humanitarian efforts atcountry level, advocacy and policy developments in the humanitarian field.

OCHA demonstratedgood results in 2010within the overall objectives of the action plan for Den-mark’s cooperation with OCHA and in accordance with the joint donor strategy 2010-13. Of a total of18 selected targets 10 were fully met and 5 partially so. 3 targets have been deferred to 2011, which isacceptable considering the very large tasks OCHA has tackled in 2010.In 2010 Denmark was number 16 on the list of contributors to OCHA with DKK 20 million in non-earmarked contributions and earmarked contributions totalling DKK 2.5 million. In addition, Denmarkcontributed DKK 60 million to CERF and DKK 110 million to UN’s country funds in Sudan, Ethio-pia, Zimbabwe, Yemen, and Somalia. These funds are very important in ensuring a rapid and coordi-nated response to the joint appeals and play a significant role in the strengthening of OCHA and thehumanitarian coordinators.OCHA's coordination mandate is unique and the organisation has in recent years managed to establishitself asthe central actorthrough quick response to crises, as well as sending expert teams to under-take needs assessment, preparation of joint appeals, fast funding from CERF and an ever stronger rolein coordinating at country level. Another force is OCHA's information products which are indispensa-ble tools for many humanitarian actors.Priorities for Denmark’sfuture cooperation with OHCAThe Danish humanitarian strategy emphasises the importance of a coordinated, principled and well-informed humanitarian response and highlights in particular OCHA's central coordinating role. OCHAis generally recognised for its special contribution to coordination in humanitarian crises, not leastthrough its role in cluster coordination. Under the new leadership OCHA has taken important stepstowards strengthening the international humanitarian advocacy and in building stronger partnershipswith regional organisations.

The challenges for OCHA in the coming years lie mainly in securing a streamlining of the organisationwhich includesimproved monitoring and reporting systems.In 2009, an analysis of OCHA's struc-ture and capacity identified a number of ambiguities in the allocation of responsibilities between officesin New York and Geneva. Despite some efforts, these problems are not yet solved satisfactorily and acontinued dialogue with OCHA is needed on the issue.Another challenge is to ensure adequate acceptance of and support for OCHA's coordinating role fromother UN organisations as some of them do not support the coordination system with the necessaryvigour. However, during 2011 significant progress has been made through the IASC. Its members havecommitted to a number of specific agreements on financing of coordination functions at sector level,greater emphasis on the obligation to obtain collective job descriptions, more systematic use of com-mon assessments and implementation of peer reviews. There is also agreement to develop joint strate-gic plans at country level and a commitment to strengthen leadership and coordination.Denmark works closely with OCHA. A close dialogue and a significant contribution to the core budgetputs Denmark in a good position in terms of influencing OCHA's strategic priorities. The cooperationis anchored in the joint donor strategy entitled “Joint Institutional Strategy 2010-2013”, which Den-mark and Ireland have agreed with OCHA. Importantly, Denmark also participates in the OCHA Do-nor Support Group (ODSG), which is called for regular briefings in Geneva and New York, as well asin the annual High Level Meeting in ODSG where OCHA reports on its work and introduces the mainpriorities for the coming year. As OCHA's overall management is available for two full days, it gives thedonors a unique opportunity to discuss key strategic issues and to reach agreements on future coopera-tion with management.Overall Denmark considers OCHA with itsclear comparative advantagesis a key actor within thefield of humanitarian assistance.UNFPAUNFPA's role as a development actor was dealt with above in the section on multilateral developmentagencies. UNFPA is a relatively new humanitarian actor but fills an important gap in the landscape ofhumanitarian organizations. In 2011, Denmark signed a multi-year partnership agreement with UNFPAfor the protection of women and youth in conflicts and protracted crises. The agreement is part of theimplementation of the new Danish humanitarian strategy for 2010-2015.It stipulates allocation of DKK25 million covering the second half of 2010 and 2011. In the following years the expected annual finan-cial frame is DKK 15 million. During the past year, UNFPA has developed a free-standing instrumentfor working with humanitarian assistance (Results Framework on Humanitarian Assistance), providingthe organization with abetter and more coherent basis for its work in this field.At country level,UNFPA works closely with major UN organizations responsible for the overall UN effort in humani-tarian situations. Denmark's cooperation with UNFPA in the humanitarian field includes a humanitari-an partnership agreement with a focus on a number of priority countries, determined annually in dia-logue with UNFPA.UNFPAwishesto distinguish itself more clearly as a humanitarian actor. The organization's humanitar-ian contributions are still largelyhandled byother organizations,and UNFPA feels thatthere is a lackof visibility of its efforts.Denmarkshares the assessment that UNFPAplaysa significant rolee on thehumanitarian stage and performs essential tasks that otherwise would not be carried out.

UNHCRUNHCR's mandate is to protect refugees and provide humani-tarian assistanceuntildurable solutions are found forreturn,integration in the host country / local integration in the regionsor resettlement in thirdparty countries.As part of the reform toimprove the division of work between humanitarian organiza-tions,UNHCR hasstrengthened its focus on helping internallydisplaced people (IDPs). According to the latest global figures,UNHCRprovides protection and assistance to 14.7 millionIDPs and 10.6 million refugees.However, effortsin this andother areas of humanitarian reform need to be strengthenedfurther. IDPconstitutes agrey zone in relation to UNHCR'smandate, andaffectedcountriesdo not always acceptUNHCRinvolvement. Denmark's contribution to UNHCR amounted toDKK 293 million in 2010 (8th largest donor).Cross cutting multilateral indicatorsIs the organisation innovative and agendasetting within its mandate?To what extent is the organisation relevantand approachable to Danish developmentpriorities?Does the organisation have satisfactorysystems for economic responsibility –including risk management and anti-corruption?Does the organisation provide their mem-bers and interested parties with a satisfac-tory level of information on results andchallenges?Does the organisation comply with theobligations in the Paris Declaration and theAccra action plan?Does the organisation participate activelyand constructively in the reform efforts inthe international development system?UNHCRX

UNHCR's main strengths are: A politically skilled High Commissioner and agood reform processwhich yielded progress inresults-based management and monitoring,though it is not fully imple-mented. The main weaknesses are: UNHCR’s large andcomplex organizationand need to respond tomany acute emergencies, and the fact that decentralization and central cooperation remains a challengefor the organization.UNICEFUNICEF's role as a development actor is described above. UNICEF's dual humanitarian and develop-mental mandate provides it with acomparative advantagein providing consistent and sustained sup-port in countries in the transition from humanitarian to development assistance. The Danish contribu-tion amounts to DKK 20 million to UNICEF's humanitarian work. This is part of the humanitarianpartnership agreement, providing 40 million annually from 2011. UNICEF's work and focus aregener-allyaligned with Denmark’s development priorities, and the organizationperforms satisfactorilyinrelation to the targets agreed in the annual action plan.UNICEF's decentralized business model and massive country presence, the organization's dual man-date, and its experience in relation to service delivery, make it aprominent humanitarian actor.About one third of UNICEF's total interventions are humanitarian. UNICEF had its humanitarianresponse and effectiveness as an organization tested in 2010 in connection with the disasters in Paki-stan and Haiti. In the wake of these crises some criticism was voiced of UNICEF's coordination effort.

It was felt that the organization did not live up to its responsibilities and was slow and disorganized inreacting.UNICEF has responded openly to critique. Based on an external evaluation it has initiated a number ofinitiatives to improve its mechanisms and instruments.Preliminary experience suggests that thenew capability has worked. UNICEF is expected to continue to play an essential role as a humanitarianactor. Provided that the mentioned initiatives produce the desired results, UNICEF has comparativeadvantages in the humanitarian field due to its capacity, presence, experience, and legitimacy. It is antic-ipated that Danish investments in UNICEF's humanitarian efforts will continue to provide good valuefor the money.UNRWAUNRWA’s current and expected future roleMonitored against the targets in the annual action plan for Denmark’s engagement with UNRWA, theorganization’sperformance was weak.Indicators of improved reporting on humanitarian assistancefor UNRWA's target group, budget reforms and efficiency, and improved dialogue with relevant actorswere only fulfilled to a limited degree. UNRWA operates infragile and difficult conditions,frequent-ly characterized by armed conflict.The organization's core activities in education, health, and jobCross cutting multilateral indicatorsUNRWAcreation are designed with a rights-based approach and the needIs the organisation innovative and agendato reduce poverty among the most vulnerable Palestinian refu-setting within its mandate?Xgees in mind. UNRWA's activities are thus very much in lineXwith Denmark’s development priorities. Seen from this perspec-To what extent is the organisation relevantand approachable to Danish developmenttive, UNRWA is ahighly relevant and unique actorprovidingpriorities?essential social and rights-related safety nets for the PalestinianDoes the organisation have satisfactorysystems for economic responsibility –refugees in the region. UNRWA'slack of effectiveness andXincluding risk management and anti-corruption?management for resultsis a major concern. It is essential thatDoes the organisation provide their mem-UNRWA's management addresses these issues in the comingbers and interested parties with a satisfac-tory level of information on results andyears - not least to preserve the massive support among the largechallenges?Xtraditional donors who account for the bulk of funding ofDoes the organisation comply with theUNRWA's core activities.obligations in the Paris Declaration and theAccra action plan?Growing demand for UNRWA services arising as a result ofXdeteriorating conditions for Palestinian refugees and populationDoes the organisation participate activelyand constructively in the reform efforts ingrowth has put the organization under pressure. At the samethe international development system?Xtime, the organization isfinancially squeezeddue to stagnatingDoes the organisation actively attempt todonor contributions. Traditional donors all seem affected by theinclude new development actors in itsXwork?global financial crisis (about 80 per cent of UNRWA's GeneralFund consists of contributions from ten major donors). Thisaffects the organization's ability to meet future challenges and cuts in its services have provoked localcriticism of the organization. However, the tight financial situation seems also to have provided incen-tives for UNRWA to streamline and prioritize its tasks. As part of the reform, cooperation with otherUN agencies (mainly WFP) is strengthened. And a vigorous outreach is underway to expand the fund-ing base, primarily aimed at Arab donors, BRICS countries and private companies. The reform mayhave started late, but the plan is ambitious and has the support of UNRWA's donors, including Den-mark. Denmark supported UNRWA in 2011 with DKK 70 million in core budget contributions. Theamount for 2012 is expected at least to be the same.

Priorities for Denmark’s futurecooperation with UNRWAFor Denmark, UNRWA is the key institution securing a degree of social and rights-related protectionof the Palestinian refugees in the region. As long as a political solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflictis outstanding, and millions of refugees thus continue to live in uncertainty, UNRWA will be among themost important partners for Denmark in the developmental and humanitarian field in the region.In order to enable UNRWA to continue its role Denmark wishes to work for a strengthening ofUNRWA's viability under increasingly difficult conditions. Efforts to reform cooperation amongUNRWA donors and host countries along with a continued focus on improving UNRWA's "humani-tarian access" in the occupied territories will be pivotal in the medium term. In the short term,UNRWA must make progress in the development of atransparent and consolidated budgetandimprove its openeness and dialogue with donors.Beginning in 2012 Denmark will exclusively contribute to UNRWA's General Fund (core budget con-tribution) to strengthen UNRWA's capacity for long-term planning. It is believed that this will helpincrease budget transparency and diminish the temptation to fund long-term development with short-term (emergency) funds. Furthermore, Denmark will make the release of a small part of the Danishcontribution dependent on progress on transparent budgeting. The conditional contribution policy willbe developed in close consultation with the United Kingdom and Australia who have adopted similarmodalities.

WFPWFP’s current and expected future roleAs theworld's largest humanitarian organizationin the fight against hunger in developing coun-tries, WFP is an indispensable partner for Denmark. The main aim of the Danish humanitarian strategyis to save and protect lives, identical with the objective given the highest priority in WFP's strategicplan. WFP's approach isrights-based,focusing on the right to life, including a life without hunger. 80per cent of WFP's total resources are spent on relief. The non-earmarked Danish contribution toWFP's humanitarian action provides Denmark with a strong voice in the dialogue with WFP. This isnot so much in quantitative terms - the core contribution of DKK 185 million annually puts Denmarkas number 16 in 2010 of the bilateral donors and a share of less than 1 per cent of WFP's total reve-nues. But in qualitative terms, Denmark’s untied, predictable, and transparent core budget contributionadds considerable value which is publicly acknowledged by WFP's senior management. Core budgetcontributions provide strategic influence and opportunity for dialogue which surpasses Denmark's rela-tively modest rank as a donor. This should also be seen in light of the fact that about 90 per cent ofWFP's budget is still in the form of earmarked contributions.WFP's humanitarian role is under pressure, not least because of limitations in the humanitarian spaceimposed primarily by non-state actors in fragile states and conflict situations. WFP’s performance ischallenged by rising safety concerns and by more and often coinciding crises and disasters, includingmega-crises. It all affects WFP's ability to secure adequate transport capacity and supply networks andavoid bottlenecks and breaches in the supply lines resulting in loss of human lives. As a response, WFPis currently strengthening its organization-wide capacity to manage crises and disasters through apro-gram to improve response capability.

WFP's role in protracted crises and development efforts is a constant challenge and a concern to Den-mark. Generally, up to 70 per cent of WFP's humanitarian assistance is targeted at ten countries withprotracted crises, including several recurrent crises. This state of affairs has provoked disagreementbetween WFP's management and donor and recipient countries on the balance between the organiza-tion's role as a humanitarian actor and development actor respectively. WFP's dual mandate carries arisk to WFP's ability to prioritize its relief efforts and engage in areas where the organization has com-parative advantages. In extreme cases it leads to attempts to "cannibalise" other UN organizations (e.g.on climate change or nutrition). This will affect WFP's ability to prioritize its limited resources and tophase out in protracted crises. Cooperation between the UN organizations within and across the differ-ent coordination clusters is hampered by a tendency to compete for funding, particularly in high-profilecrises with international media attention. Also in areas attracting major funding, such as climate, WFPtends to expand its "business model" in an effort to attract new funding, even though its core compe-tencies lie elsewhere seen from a Danish perspective. This is an example of how the combination ofgrowing competition amongst organizations for resources and the tendency to increasingly earmarkmultilateral funding may pull organizations away from their core mandate.Priorities for Denmark’s future cooperation withWFPThere are strong similarities between the principles embedded inDenmark’s humanitarian policy and those guiding WFP's hu-manitarian work. WFP has integrated the international humani-tarian principles, including humanitarian protection in its strate-gic plan, operational procedures, and guidelines. WFP's respondsto humanitarian crises and disasters, often as the sole actor andunder very difficult political and safety conditions, and enjoysglobal recognition. This goes for WFP's logistical expertise andability to analyze the food situation and to target assistance toparticularly vulnerable populations. WFP's targeted food assis-tance boosts the resilience of vulnerable groups of people.Cross cutting multilateral indicatorsIs the organisation innovative and agendasetting within its mandate?To what extent is the organisation relevantand approachable to Danish developmentpriorities?Does the organisation have satisfactorysystems for economic responsibility –including risk management and anti-corruption?Does the organisation provide their mem-bers and interested parties with a satisfac-tory level of information on results andchallenges?Does the organisation comply with theobligations in the Paris Declaration and theAccra action plan?XWFPX

Infragile statesWFP's food relief may play a role in relation toconflict management and discourage the use of food as a weap-XDoes the organisation participate activelyon against civilians. Denmark’s humanitarian strategy emphasiz-and constructively in the reform efforts ines the importance of well-orchestrated, robust and well-the international development system?informed humanitarian responses and supports the UN's keyDoes the organisation actively attempt tocoordinating role in this respect. Denmark will work to ensureinclude new development actors in itsXwork?that WFP continues to make a significant contribution to theeffective coordination related to humanitarian crises, not leastthrough its UN cluster-responsibility within logistics, telecommunications, and food security as well asthrough its participation in the humanitarian country teams during emergency situations. This collabo-ration helps to avoid gaps, duplications, and parallel structures in the humanitarian response. Denmarkwill also focus on WFP's on-going transition towards more strategic food assistance with the use ofnew instruments such as cash and food coupons and increased reliance on local and regional food pro-duction and markets.

ICRCICRC’s current and expected future roleICRC is an impartial, neutral, and independent private organization whose overall humanitarian missionis to protect and assist victims of armed conflicts. ICRC's mandate is defined in the Geneva Conven-tions and Additional Protocols and in the Red Cross Societies’ statutes. ICRC also has a role instrengthening and publicizing international humanitarian law (IHL) and universal humanitarian princi-ples. The organization manages and coordinates the international Red Cross operations in approx. 80countries affected by conflict around the world.The ICRC is generally viewed asa highly professional and efficient organizationable to deliver -even under difficult conditions of safety. The organization acts on the basis of its mandate in relation toboth individual states and other humanitarian actors. In 2008 the ICRC established a special Rapid De-ployment System, which has enabled it to rapidly respond to new crises.Strengths:Strong and credible leadership which defends the mandate by strenuously maintaining dialogue with allwarring parties and other stakeholders (local authorities, etc.) with a view to gain access to and protectall victims. At the same time a well-functioning and independent organization which contributes toeffective coordination among all humanitarian actors, both at HQ and country level.Weaknesses:Results-based management is part of ICRC's organisational strategy for 2011-2014, but is not complete-ly implemented. In the coming years, focus is on expanding and integrating RBM in all areas of ICRC’swork.Most of the ICRC's operations take place in fragile and conflict-affected states, and the organisation’seleven major operations in 2012 also include Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq, Pakistan, the Sudan, CongoDRC, Israel / occupied territories, Yemen, Colombia, and South Sudan. Over the years the organisa-tion has gained enormous experience in operating in countries / regions marked by lawlessness, corrup-tion, and weak or absent civil structures.In DFID's assessment of multilateral organizations, conducted in 2010-11 (The Multilateral Aid Re-view), the ICRC comes out among the best 9 of 43 organizations. The very positive assessments ofICRC's work covered criteria such as ability to work and demonstrate results in fragile states. ICRC'sunique status and right to take humanitarian initiatives gives it unparalleled access to regions and popu-lations that would otherwise be left without assistance. No case has been registered where the ICRChas failed to exercise its humanitarian mandate, but the work in conflict areas is closely related to theimpartial and neutral reputation (acceptance) ICRC must uphold through regular dialogue with civil /military authorities, armed militias, and local communities.ICRC views the humanitarian sector as undergoing fundamental change. It considers the crises of Côted'Ivoire and Libya as examples of how certain humanitarian players have lost the ability to respondduring the emergency phase of armed conflicts. There is an awareness of the protracted conflicts whichis not driven by ideological motives, but rather by an economic and even, at times, a criminal rationale.According to the ICRC strategy 2011-2014 the ambition is to intensify access for populations and indi-viduals in complex emergencies. Besides acute relief there will be an increased focus on the "early re-covery" phase.

ICRC will assert itself as a reference organization for development and expansion of the IHL. It willseek to influence the political agenda on issues related to the human cost of armed conflict and otherviolent situations as well as questions concerning future humanitarian operations and other IHL-relatedissues.With a contribution of CHF 13 million, Denmark was 15th largest country donor in 2010. This leve offunding is expected to be maintained in 2011. ICRC's total budget for 2010 was CHF 1.144 million.ICRC came out of 2010 with a deficit - for the first time in ten years - of CHF 84,3 million. Shrinkingcontributions from large donors due to the financial crisis, significant decline in exchange rates, and theICRC's high implementation rate of 91 per cent, were underlying factors of the deficit.The budget for 2012 is CHF 963 million, of which 41 per cent covers operations in Africa, 24.2 percent in Asia and the Pacific, 14.6 per cent in Europe and America and 19 per cent in the Middle East. 5per cent of the annual contribution comes from the national Red Cross Societies, with whom the ICRChas a close cooperation wherever the organization is active.Priorities for Denmark’s future cooperation with ICRCICRC appreciates Denmark's engagement and understanding ofits work and wants to continue to explore common thematicinterests, where Danish technical and diplomatic involvementmay help boost ICRC's humanitarian response. ICRC considersthe following areas suitable for bilateral cooperation:• Support ICRC’s work on detainees and protection of its confi-dentiality.• Support to identify new potential donors.• International Humanitarian Law (IHL): The Copenhagen Pro-cess on handling of prisoners.• "Other Situations of Violence" as described in the ICRC policypaper from 2011.• "Health care in danger"- campaign (access to health care inconflict and in OSV).• Disarmament (cluster arms and light weapons).Cross cutting multilateral indicatorsIs the organisation innovative and agendasetting within its mandate?To what extent is the organisation relevantand approachable to Danish developmentpriorities?Does the organisation have satisfactorysystems for economic responsibility –including risk management and anti-corruption?Does the organisation provide their mem-bers and interested parties with a satisfac-tory level of information on results andchallenges?Does the organisation comply with theobligations in the Paris Declaration and theAccra action plan?Does the organisation participate activelyand constructively in the reform efforts inthe international development system?Does the organisation actively attempt toinclude new development actors in itswork?ICRCX

ICRC’s Donor Support Group (DSG) consists of around 19donor countries, including Denmark, which contribute at leastCHF 10 million annually to the organization’s relief appeals. This is the most important and effectiveforum for debate and exchange of information between ICRC’s leadership and the donor community.The purpose of the annual two-day DSG meeting is to create space for in-depth debate on humanitari-an issues, common interests, and proposal of new initiatives in operational policy and IHL. ICRC'sleadership attaches great importance to the open dialogue at these meetings and through the years it hasdemonstrated readiness to adapt its work to suggestions made by donor representatives. Denmark willhost the DSG meeting in 2013 and will thus have the opportunity to contribute to the agenda withitems of its own interest.The UN mission in Geneva participates in the ICRC's regular briefings for donors both in connectionwith the outbreak of new crises, budget adjustments or special briefings for the donor countries.It is of great importance to the ICRC that the major donors (DSG) continue to provide non-earmarkedfunds. Denmark intends to continue this practice. ICRC is an important player in the humanitarian63

In 2010 Denmark's contribution amounted to approx. USD 2.8million and it was the 12th largest donor (in 2009 Denmark wasDoes the organisation comply with the11th largest).OHCHR’s performance as measured against theobligations in the Paris Declaration andXthe Accra action plan?targets agreed in the 2010 action plan 2010 is satisfactoryoverall.However there is scope for OHCHR to improve its per-Does the organisation participate activelyformance, and there is a need to try to tackle the general politicaland constructively in the reform efforts inXthe international development system?challenges that continue to play a role in the work of the office.From Denmark’s point of view support to treaty bodies may beDoes the organisation actively attempt toinclude new development actors in itsimproved but this work is hampered by countries who wish toXwork?restrict the operation of these bodies. OHCHR's work on transi-tional justice is important, and Denmark’s supports initiatives re-lated to the International Criminal Court aimed at ensuring that countries are able to handle matters ontheir own.Denmark will oppose attempts by certain countries to restrict the High Commissioner's independence and ability to act in unforeseen situations involving serious human rightsviolations, with the Arab Springbeinga case in point. Possible ideas for cooperation with Denmarkcould be torture, integration of human rights considerations in UN efforts in conflict-affected coun-tries, vulnerable groups such as women, children and indigenous people, and issues related to develop-ments in the Middle East and North Africa during the Arab Spring, including transitional justice, free-dom of expression, and freedom of association and assembly.

Alignment with Denmark’s development policy prioritiesThe review of Denmark’s cooperation with individual organizations in Part 2 indicates that there is ahigh degree of alignment with Danish priorities overall. In addition to assessing performance againstthe targets agreed with each organization, staff members were also asked to respond to a number ofcross-cutting questions designed to allow for a comparative assessment of the performance of organiza-tions seen against Denmark’s development priorities. The table below combines the outcomes of theseassessments of individual organizations.While recalling the emphasis on the limitations of the method used as explained in the introduction toPart 2, the ratings in the table indicates ahigh degree of satisfaction with the general ability of or-ganizations to be innovative and agenda-setting and a high degree of satisfaction with theirresponsiveness to Denmark’s priorities.Only four out of sixteen organizations - three of them IFIs- have very satisfactory systems for ensuring financial accountability, which indicates a need to improve.Half of the organizations provide very satisfactory information about their work and could serve as amodel for others.

others should learn from their example. Only one organization - UNRWA – fails in five of the sevenindicators. The organization is however irreplaceable and the need to rectify its performance unques-tionable. The diagram on next page shows the relative position of organizations drawn from the tableabove, combined with an assessment of their organizational efficiency derived from MOPAN andDFID’s multilateral analysis. Furthermore, the diagram shows the relative size of the Denmark’s totalcontributions and as well as its core budget contributions indicated as the size of the bubbles for eachindividual organization.15Despite the methodological limitations, the table and the diagram nevertheless contribute to illustratingarelatively good degree of correspondence between the strength of Denmark’s engagement inindividual organizations and their relevance and organizational efficiency.However, it needs tobe taken into account that the diagram does not reflect the development effectiveness of organizationsor the political factors that also influence decisions on Denmark's cooperation with the individual or-ganizations. As mentioned earlier, these elements will be strengthened in the forthcoming multilateralpresentations.In conclusion the multilateral review has indicatedthat there is a good correlation between thework of multilateral organizations and Denmark’s priorities for development cooperation.Atthe same time there seems to be a good correspondence betweenthe strength of Denmark’s cooper-ation with individual organizations and their organizational efficiency and relevance. Thus, theanalysis provides no justification for recommending substantial immediate realignment of fi-nancial contributions among organizations.

Adaptation to new framework conditions and new challengesThe analysis of the policy and financial environment in Part 1 focused on trends in multilateral fundingand the special challenges organizations face in relation to conflict-affected states and the sustainabilityagenda.The analysis ofmultilateral fundingpaints a picture of a multilateral system which issqueezed interms of funding of core budgetsand subject to arising inflow of earmarked funds.The degree towhichtrustfund financed activities fall within the mandates, steering mechanisms and reporting struc-tures of organizations and are administered in accordance with the principle of the partner countryownership varies considerably. This is a difficult agenda to influence. It requires perseverance, energy,and a differentiated approach rather than universal solutions, as reflected in the more specific recom-mendations contained in Part 2 on cooperation with individual organizations. The analysis further indi-cates that maintaining an effectively functioning multilateral system is one where organizations are notasked to deliver in areas outside their core mandate but are supported to uphold their specificity andspecialization on the basis of their absolute and comparative advantages. At the same timethe multi-lateral system's ability to act in a coordinated and coherent fashion must be strengthened.Examination of the challenges in relation to interventions inconflict-affected and fragile statesshows a clear need for a reliable, flexible and adequate response from the international community.Extensive research in recent years has contributed new knowledge on the importance of targeting ef-forts to different communities and needs, and the enormous value for stabilization and developmentwhich an integral and well-orchestrated approach to fragile states provides. This has further under-scored the need for aholistic approach to security, humanitarian needs and development,and toensure a concerted effort by the entire international community aimed at building up home-growncountry capacity. With theirmandates and legitimacymultilateral organizations are the natural start-ing point for orchestrating a coherent response from the international community in accordance withthe countries’ varying needs. The World Development Report 2011 on conflict-affected and fragilestates has contributed particularly to a growing explicit recognition among relevant organizations oftheir own particular roles and the need to work together to exploit the synergy and maximize impact.For Denmark’s and the EU's ambition fora transition to a green global economyto materialize,multilateral organizations must act purposefully toset the norms, provide the platforms for negotia-tion and be strong partners for developing countries.The main priorities for Denmark on themultilateral agenda in this field are: 1. To have the MDGs supplemented with sustainable developmentgoals or a sustainable development dimension; 2. To reach international agreement on a common me-thodical framework for green economy; 3 To create of amore powerful organ in the UNfor advis-ing countries and monitoring their follow up of international agreement; 4. To ensure better orchestra-tion of multilateral support to developing countries in their efforts to transit to sustainable forms ofproduction and consumption. In particular, UNEP, but also other UN funds and program, the WorldBank and the regional development banks have central roles to play in this effort.

RecommendationsThe analysis contained in this paper covers the financing of multilateral organizations, their role in con-flict-affected and fragile and in promoting sustainable development as well as at Denmark’s coopera-tion with individual organisations. The analysis demonstrates a need for a continuedactive engage-ment by Denmark in the work of multilateral organizations.Denmark will work toinfluence thedevelopment of the overall multilateral institutional machinery and the individual organisa-tionsto ensure that these institutions can effectively deliver their part of the international agenda inrelation to stabilisation, humanitarian efforts and development in general, and more specifically on theDanish policy priorities. Denmark will work for a moreefficient, well-coordinated and flexible sys-tem of multilateral organisations,capable of effectively meeting emerging security, development andhumanitarian challenges and of ensuring a better transition between peace-making, stabilisation, hu-manitarian interventions and development, with therequired legitimacy and capacity to respondgloballywherever and whenever necessary.Denmark will seek influence in organisations through its work on the executive boards, its funding pol-icy, bilateral contacts and a sharper focus on secondment of staff in areas of strategic importance toDenmark. The impact of Denmark’s views and priorities will be enhanced through cooperation withlike-minded countries, including within the Nordic+ and the Utstein Group, as well as through the EU.Denmark will work across executive boards and other decisions-making bodies to ensure that mandatesand divisions of labour are respected and built upon to create added value in the overall effort. Thisalso applies to bilateral programmes at country level, where Danish embassies will be expected to helppull organisations in the right direction in accordance with their core mandates. Engaging effectively inthe strategic dialogue in the organisations requires professional involvement and input from the entireDanish Foreign Service, including at times participation from headquarters in important meetings.The overall approach outlined above will be followed while observing the following specific recom-mendations for Denmark’s engagement in the multilateral cooperation.