<incom> UN Reform: South Faults One-Size-Fits-All Approach

[Soenke Zehle]

More on the "High-level Panel’s Report on System-wide Coherence" and 
discussion via UN-NGLS, Soenke

<http://www.un-ngls.org/site/article.php3?id_article=263>

South Faults One-Size-Fits-All Approach
By Thalif Deen
Inter Press Service <http://www.ipsnews.net/>
April 6, 2007

The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and the Group of 77 (G77), the two 
largest political and economic groups of developing nations, have 
expressed reservations on a proposed plan to restructure the U.N.'s 
operational activities for social and economic development.

In a letter to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, both groups have cautioned 
him against rushing into any hasty decision leading to the 
implementation of the proposed plan, which includes a single, unified 
approach to all U.N. development activities in the field. "There is no 
one-size-fits-all (approach)," the joint letter said, warning that there 
should be no restrictions on the ability and sovereignty of national 
governments to determine their own development priorities or select 
their own development partners.

The letter was a strong reaction to a report by a blue-ribbon panel of 
current and former world leaders who have called for "a unified United 
Nations" at the country level -- with one leader, one programme, one 
budget, and where appropriate, one office. Titled the "High-Level Panel 
on U.N. System-Wide Coherence", the 15-member panel released a study 
last November called "Delivering as One" that focused on three areas: 
development, humanitarian assistance and the environment. The ultimate 
aim of the "One-UN" initiative is to reduce duplication and transaction 
costs so that the United Nations can use resources more effectively to 
support partner countries to achieve their development goals, according 
to the panel.

While conceding there are "a number of useful recommendations on the 
report we can build on", the NAM/G77 letter warns that the study may 
have mistakenly touched on "cross cutting issues" -- such as human 
rights, gender and sustainable development -- as part of U.N. 
operational activities for development. While cross-cutting issues are 
not confined only to developing countries, the letter says that both the 
G77 and NAM are concerned "that those issues, as well as humanitarian 
assistance, might be misused to introduce new conditionalities on 
international development assistance, which is not acceptable to 
developing countries."

Both groups met the secretary-general last week to brief him in greater 
detail. The secretary-general himself is expected to provide his own 
reactions and recommendations to the panel's report shortly. Among the 
other recommendations in the report are: a Sustainable Development Board 
to oversee the One-UN Country programmes; a new panel consisting of the 
U.N. Secretary-General, the president of the World Bank and the 
Executive Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to review, 
update and conclude formal agreements on their respective roles and 
relations at the global and country levels.

As part of the "One-U.N." programme, eight countries have volunteered to 
be guinea pigs in an experimental exercise meant to reduce duplication 
and to use resources more effectively. The programme, which is expected 
to be launched later this year, will be evaluated over the next 12 
months for possible inclusion of additional countries willing to join 
it. The eight pilot countries -- Albania, Cape Verde, Mozambique, 
Pakistan, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uruguay and Vietnam -- will provide case 
studies as to how the U.N. family can deliver in a more coordinated 
manner by pooling funds at the country level.

The G77 and NAM are skeptical of the One-UN approach to operational 
activities for development. "The U.N. development system should continue 
to support development efforts of developing countries principally by 
assisting in the implementation of nationally determined development 
plans, strategies and priorities," the letter said.

James Paul, executive director of the New York-based Global Policy 
Forum, points out that the whole concept of "coherence" is 
problematical, since it is driven by pressure to adhere to a single 
standard of development -- a standard that is heavily influenced by 
neo-liberalism. In institutional terms, he argued, the coherence panel 
favors eliminating institutions and streamlining a process that is 
likely to eliminate or seriously reduce the advocacy emphasis of the 
various U.N. funds and programmes.

These include the U.N. Development Programme, the U.N. Children's Fund, 
the U.N. Population Fund, the World Food Programme, the World Health 
Organization and the U.N. Environment Programme, among many others, 
which are actively involved in various country programmes in developing 
countries. "Institutional tinkering is a way to avoid directly 
addressing the crisis of development and the dilemma of an aid system 
that is making so little progress," Paul told IPS.

Jens Stoltenberg, prime minister of Norway and one of the co-chairs of 
the panel, told a U.N. press conference last November that the United 
Nations could save up to 20 percent of its current costs system-wide by 
eliminating duplication and consolidating certain funds and programmes. 
"The whole idea is not to save money for donor countries, but to save 
money so we can use more money for development, more money for 
protecting the environment and more money for humanitarian assistance," 
he added. But despite the good intentions of the panel, the successful 
implementation of its proposals will depend largely on whether or not it 
receives the necessary support from developing countries, comprising 
over two-thirds of the 192-member General Assembly and who represent all 
the members of both NAM and the G77.

The letter to the secretary-general also points out that coherence at 
the national and international level should also involve the Bretton 
Woods institutions, namely the World Bank and the IMF, where they exist. 
"They should be part of any integrated approach to development 
cooperation. Bilateral development partners should also be part and 
parcel of this approach," it said.

Chee Yoke Ling of the Penang-based Third World Network, one of more 
active development-oriented non-governmental organizations, points out 
that 2007 is a decisive year for U.N. reform. "The fundamental issue is 
whether the high-level panel proposals will overall strengthen or weaken 
the U.N. system's activities and impact on sustainable development, in 
both policy and operations," she told IPS. Increasingly, she said, the 
trend seems to be developed countries seeking to narrow the wider 
development work of the United Nations and to align the world body with 
the Bretton Woods Institutions.

Developing countries have always had more trust in the U.N. system, but 
this can be drastically eroded if the reform further weakens that 
system, she added. "The G77 and NAM letter reflects this shaken trust," 
Ling said. She said that her own organization and many civil society 
groups are very concerned that the panel's proposals seem to reduce the 
U.N.'s economic and social affairs mandate to "development", which is 
further reduced to only aid and some technical assistance.

She said there are also concerns that the diversity and best aspects of 
the United Nations may be replaced with a concentration of authority in 
the proposed Sustainable Development Board, the Development Policy and 
Operations Council, and a Development Coordinator, thereby creating "an 
architecture where the UN system makes or breaks on the shoulders of a 
small number of individuals."