Reforms that can create a more sustainable United Nations

Analysts in their recent observations have recalled how since its birth, the United Nations was identified as a champion of human rights, the world's peacekeeper and provider of disaster relief and was accepted by most of the world as the world's single most important organisation. However, some geo-strategists have been quite critical about the diminishing role of the United Nations over the last two decades.

Felix Dodds and Chris Spence who have participated in UN negotiations on the environment and sustainable development since the 1990s and monitored the evolving challenging dimensions within the United Nations have drawn attention to a significant fact-- the need for the UN to adjust as it is being forced to have reduced budgets and the consequent shortfalls will start to bite.

The UN system as a whole has the revenue of more than US Dollar 74 billion-bigger than many countries. However, the UN's regular (core) budget is relatively small: US Dollar 3.72 billion for 2025. This scenario has persuaded many to ask questions from LDC and developing countries as to where all the money is going. 

Well, it is an interesting scenario.

A lot is dedicated to helping developing countries with their humanitarian, development, and environmental work. In addition, there is a peacekeeping budget that pays for UN peacekeeping forces. This budget is currently $5.6 billion. Another expense relates to UN programmes focusing on specific topics, such as development (UNDP), environmental protection (UNEP), or humanitarian aid (UNHCR). These programmes are funded through voluntary contributions from governments, and are managed through the specific UN programme's dedicated governing bodies. UN agencies are also technically separate from the "core" UN because they select their own leaders and have their own governing bodies.

Unlike some previous efforts at UN reform that have petered out-often because governments and various UN entities could not agree on their implementation-this time the UN appears to have no choice but to adapt.

For the first time in its history, funding is likely to fall. The years of growth are clearly over. Budgets will soon need to be cut. Already, funding shortfalls are starting to bite. By April 30, 2025, unpaid "assessments" (money owed to the UN by individual countries) stood at US Dollar 2.4 billion, with the US owing $1.5 billion, China owes the UN around US Dollar 600 million and Russia more than US Dollar 70 million. On top of that, the peacekeeping budget is also US Dollar 2.7 billion in arrears. In 2024, 41 countries did not pay their mandated contributions.

In March 2025, UN Secretary-General António Guterres initiated "UN80"-- a review that seeks to ensure the institution continues to be fit-for-purpose as it looks towards a financially-straightened future. This review is examining operational efficiency, how the organisation's key tasks or missions are implemented, and major structural reforms. It may be noted at this point that the Secretary-General has acknowledged criticism about major overlaps between UN agencies and programmes, as well as inefficiencies, spiraling costs, fragmentation, outdated working methods, and the rapid growth in high-level managerial and executive jobs within the system.

Such an approach has led analysts to think that Guterres is considering major changes, such as merging multiple Departments, Agencies and Groups into a much smaller number that would each cover a major area like Peace and Security, Humanitarian Affairs, Human Rights, and Sustainable Development.

It is true that the cuts in funding will mean a certain level of job losses. However, such an intentional challenge is likely to improve the UN's functional presence despite reduction in funding.

All these factors have persuaded strategists to think about how to have a sustainable United Nations.

They have pointed out that one should not overlook the fact that the UN outrivals others in being able to coordinate international action on topics that go beyond national boundaries. This includes sustainable development and major environmental crises like climate change, pollution, and biodiversity loss. However, the UN can initiate required improvements that will lead to consolidation of the many UN entities dealing with issues of sustainable development and the environment -- DESA, FAO, IFAD, UNDRR, UNDP, UNESCO, UN-Habitat, UNIDO, and many others.

At this point, it may be easier for the UN Secretary-General to start by reforming the UN Secretariats and programmes rather than the UN "Agencies" (such as FAO, ILO, UNESCO, and WHO). It may be more practical to start with parts of the system that can be easier to change and rationalise. In this context, some analysts have also observed that shifting programmatic work to the UN regional commission headquarters in places like Chile, Ethiopia, and Thailand may also save money. In Europe, it may also be worth considering whether there are less expensive options than Geneva or Paris (both in the top ten cities globally for costs), compared with, say, Bonn, where the UN's climate secretariat, the UN Convention to Combat Desertification and some smaller UN bodies such as UN Volunteers, are located.

The UN Climate Treaty (UNFCCC) is also the only so-called "Rio" treaty (the others deal with biodiversity and desertification) not under UNEP's purview. Bringing the UNFCCC under UNEP would enable better coordination between the Rio Conventions and move towards the clustering of environmental conventions. This was actually proposed as far back as the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development. UNEP has prior experience in working to better coordinate among different environmental treaties. It has overseen the clustering of the various chemical-related conventions and the beginning of the clustering of the biodiversity-related treaties, too. If UNEP was empowered to coordinate the chemicals, biodiversity and climate conventions, it could save funds and ensure better and more effective delivery.

The idea of better coordination between UNEP and UN-Habitat on sustainable urban development also seems rational and might be taken forward as UN-Habitat was once part of UNDP. In the time of financial shortage for the United Nations it might also be more practical to consider merging UNAIDS (the UN program on HIV/AIDS) within a large body, like the World Health Organisation or UN Development Programme, and also be more logical by joining together UN Women and the UN Population Fund (UNFPA).  There might be initial difficulties but it deserves impartial consideration.

 Analyst Palitha Kohona has also made some interesting observations about UN reform.  UN reform should be an ongoing dynamic process and not simply a response to regular US threats to withhold funding. It must be overseen by a specialised unit reporting to the Secretary-General and which should have the power to review the organisational structure, responsibilities, work methods and output of any unit in the Organization or any unit affiliated to with it and make recommendations.

It has been noted by Kohona that the UN is going through another exercise in reforming itself under immense pressure from the US-- its main funder. This time US President Donald Trump has expressed himself much more forcefully and seems determined to trim down US contributions and demand further curtailing of UN expenses. This approach by Trump is being carefully followed by some other reluctant donors.

To emphasise that it means business, and to the cheers of its cabal of domestic supporters, the US has withdrawn from the UN Human Rights Council, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and the World Health Organisation (WHO). In addition, it has pulled out of the Paris Climate Accords. On previous occasions, the US had also withheld its contributions forcing then Secretaries-General, Kofi Annan and Ban ki-Moon to undertake reform exercises. That the US should now adopt a more ruthless approach to the UN after having been a catalytic force in its creation, is a sad commentary on the changes that have impacted on the original idealism. It would seem that the UN goes through such a procedure of trying to reform itself every time the US withholds funding, usually when the Republicans assume power in Washington DC.

Nevertheless, analysts have noted that despite some awkward decisions to the relief of many, the US appears to be still committed to the UN. The Acting Permanent Representative of the US to the UN, Dorothy Shea has said, "The United Nations remains essential to resolving complex international challenges, first among them maintaining international peace and security, and addressing the causes of armed conflict. The UN must return to its principal purpose and the Secretary-General is uniquely positioned as the Chief Administrative Officer to lead this endeavor." The message of the Acting PR is abundantly clear - the UN must re-focus on its key goals.

UN reform, to be convincing, should be an ongoing process and not simply a response to US threats to withhold funding. The Department of Management Strategy, Policy and Compliance (DMSPC) and the UNGA Fifth Committee perform useful functions in this respect, but the UNGA 5TH Committee is subject to unnecessary pressure from Member States. It must be remembered that managers must not only be technically competent but also be modern executives who believe in continuing change, upskilling and upgrading. Training to upgrade skills and the commitment of staff to the core goals of the organisation should be a regular feature. Those appointed to the highest levels by the Secretary-General, must also possess superior managerial skills, especially those presented for appointment by influential States.

Some countries might also consider an existing cost-effective option for the meetings of the UN Committees and even the UNGA as was done during the Covid lock downs. Now, UN meetings can be organised differently. All meetings need not take place in New York or Geneva with the participation of delegations from capitals. These meetings are expensive to organise, costly to the participants and unlikely to have the best representatives from poorer countries due to the costs involved. If participation could be arranged from capitals, using modern technology which is now freely available, results would most likely be better. In the rare case where a country cannot organise such distant participation using modern technology, the UN office in the capital could assist in providing the necessary facilities.

All these denominators will help create a more sustainable United Nations.

Muhammad Zamir, a former Ambassador is an analyst specialised in foreign affairs, right to information and good governance. muhammadzamir0@gmail.com