Thank you, Assistant Secretary-General Ramanathan for meeting with us.  I would like to welcome you and ECOSOC President, Ambassador Rae, in Vienna. 

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union and its 27 Member States.

The work of the UNODC remains of crucial importance in the present-day world where cross-border threats stemming from transnational organised crime, in particular with regard to the health and security of our societies are becoming more multi-faceted and pressing. The EU remains a strong supporter of multilateral cooperation and the work of the UN to address such challenges.

The EU fully supports the UN Secretary-General’s vision for the UN80 initiative to review, restructure and revitalise the UN system. We also continue to encourage the UNSG to present bold and courageous proposals for a stronger, more agile, efficient and accountable UN, adjusted to the financial realities. 

We are however concerned about the impact of the ongoing liquidity crisis.  Cost-cutting measures should assess impact to preserve key mandates and functions. It should be an exercise to make the UN more resilient and to strengthen mandate delivery – not just a reaction to challenges we face today. 

In this vein, we wonder if a comprehensive assessment on the implications of cuts on Vienna based organisations such as UNODC, or the UN Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA) has been conducted.   

These Offices are already understaffed and underfunded, and in the case of the UNODC, voluntary contributions make up 95% of its funding. This is not a sustainable situation as it leaves the UNODC vulnerable to changing donor priorities and their extrabudgetary contributions. In fact, more resources, not less, are required from the UN Regular Budget to allow the UNODC to carry on its Treaty-based normative functions, which are in the core of its mandate.

UNODC’s work is also characterised by its strong presence in the field, where it is successfully delivering technical assistance and building capacities. Furthermore, UNODC’s research at headquarters provides the key global benchmark for evidence-based policy-making on drugs and crime. 

While there is certainly room for better coordination between UN agencies, their core mandates and comparative advantages should not be undermined. In this context, could you update on a possible merging between UNODC’s counter-terrorism activities with those of the UNOCT in New York, which is a more expensive duty station than Vienna? While UNOCT has its role, UNODC’s added value stems from its integrated approach, taking into account the interlinkages between drugs, crime, corruption and terrorism. Reforms should be guided by impact. Enhancing operational effectiveness, maintaining institutional expertise, especially in capacity-building, and delivering concrete results must be the guiding principles of reform.

While the liquidity crisis poses undeniable challenges, it could also serve as catalyst for a strategic reform within UNODC, aimed at ensuring that the Office becomes even more efficient, agile, and capable of effectively responding to complex global threats in the 21st century. For example, there could be ways to make the research functions even more effective by merging the concerned units, data collection and analysis into a single service. 

The EU believes that Member States should be able to engage meaningfully in this process, which should also incorporate input from all relevant UN entities. The EU stand ready to contribute to such thinking. 

Given the current budget constraints and freezing of many posts, we would like to explore whether there are ways to review or adjust the cuts to mitigate their impact on UNODC’s mandate. Strengthening coordination between UN hubs, particularly New York and Vienna, is essential. Likewise, field-level coordination among UN entities must be improved to ensure coherent and impactful programme delivery on the field.

It is essential that the Office has access to adequate and predictable funding across its core mandates. This includes resources to cross-cutting key functions such as the gender team and the independent evaluation office. Such functions serve the whole Office to deliver better, and cannot be deprioritised in the name of efficiency. Generally, gender equality must remain a priority throughout the reform process if we are serious about building a UN that is fit for purpose. 

More broadly, we wish to highlight the need for greater transparency around the budgetary processes affecting all UN entities. Member States must have clearer and more comprehensive information in order to exercise their governance responsibilities effectively, and to ensure that resources are aligned with agreed priorities.

We thank you once again for this exchange and look forward to continuing this dialogue in a constructive and inclusive spirit.