A/HRC/23/20 obligations towards women; in the human rights debate, however, it was divided on gender issues. More cooperation was therefore needed in that regard. The international community had to speak with one voice on women and violence against women, in particular in the context of armed conflict. 37. Women’s organizations, indeed civil society as a whole, had made a massive contribution to the process of developing and implementing international human rights instruments. Concern was expressed that, since the reform of the United Nations, room for civil society had been reduced and fewer consultations were held with it than before, contrary to expectations and in spite of its growing capacity. 38. With regard to the requirements for international cooperation, there was a need for stronger consensus on such issues as access to food, water and land, human rights, in particular women’s rights. Dialogue had to be strengthened at the regional level, but also at the international level. States, especially in the South, and civil society needed support from the international community to implement their treaty obligations. 39. National ownership, capacity-development, South-South and North-South cooperation, and flexibility in responding to national development priorities were important principles for development cooperation, and also a key factor in the strengthening and sustainability of institutions and capacities necessary for the promotion and protection of human rights. 40. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) provided support at the country level in the development and implementation of national plans of action on human rights, capacity-building of national human rights institutions, the integration of human rights into national development plans, policies and programmes, the harmonization of national legislation with international human rights standards, and the preparation of national reports to United Nations human rights mechanisms. Within the United Nations system, its partnership with OHCHR was of key importance in that it received specific technical expertise in the field of human rights. 41. Lessons noted from the universal periodic review process brought to light that the mechanism was still seen as primarily a human rights process, somewhat disconnected from other processes within the United Nations. Follow-up to review recommendations required a holistic approach to development-orientated programming and investment in order to develop its full potential for synergies between human rights and development. 42. There was a strong interest in and an enormous potential for expanded collaboration between the human rights and development communities for a better understanding and operationalization of human rights mechanisms in the development context. United Nations agencies together with Member States therefore needed to increase their efforts to better promote and engage with the human rights machinery and architecture, while more innovative ways of engaging had to be sought. 43. In the ensuing debate, several States reiterated the importance of solidarity and cooperation without conditionality, and gave examples of good practices of regional integration based on solidarity and economic complementarity and South-South cooperation (Morocco, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela). It was regretted that the Voluntary Fund for financial and technical assistance for the implementation of the universal periodic review did not dispose of sufficient funds and that it should be more widely accessible to countries. 44. The potential of expanded collaboration for a better understanding and operationalization of human rights mechanisms was reemphasized. In addition, agencies should intensify their work with the mechanisms. 10