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

[Soenke Zehle]

Hi Ronda,

 >Do you know if the letters sent by the G-77 and the NAM to Ban Ki-moon 
are available yet as official documents from the UN

I have not seen the letter but SUNS published an essay discussing it in 
March,

Soenke

<http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/UN_reform/news/6220.by.mk.doc>
<http://www.twnside.org.sg/un_reform_news.htm>

South-North Development Monitor (SUNS)
#6220 Wednesday 28 March 2007

JOINT G77-NAM LETTER ON UN ‘COHERENCE’ SENT TO UN S-G

By Martin Khor, New York, 25 March 2007

A joint letter by the Group of 77 and China and the Non-Aligned Movement 
has been sent to the United Nations Secretary-General, stating the two 
organisations' preliminary views on the report of the panel on UN 
system-wide coherence.
 
The letter was sent to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon by Pakistan's 
Ambassador Munir Akram, current Chair of the G77 and China in New York, 
and Cuba's Ambassador Roderigo Diaz, Chair of the NAM's coordinating bureau.
 
The G77 and NAM have a joint coordinating committee (JCC), and the 
letter (dated 19 March) was issued by this committee, as well as the two 
organisations of the developing countries.
 
The joint letter addresses several concerns of the G77 and NAM countries 
on the coherence panel report and the follow-up process.
 
The panel, which was established by previous Secretary-General Kofi 
Annan and co-chaired by the Prime Ministers of Pakistan, Norway and 
Mozambique, was set up to prepare proposals to strengthen and better 
coordinate the UN's work in development, humanitarian assistance and the 
environment.
 
Its report, presented at the UN on 9 November, called for a unified UN 
at the country level, with a single UN office, resident coordinator, 
programme and budget. The new "one UN" model is proposed to be phased in 
with five "pilot" countries to implement it in 2007, 20 other countries 
by 2009, 40 by 2010 and all the rest by 2012.
 
Other proposals include establishing a "global leaders' forum" 
comprising 27 heads-of-government (or L27 in the report's term) chosen 
from ECOSOC members to meet annually; a new Sustainable Development 
Board of selected governments to supervise the activities and funding of 
the UN country offices; and a UN Development Policy and Operations Group 
(comprising the UN agencies and departments) which would coordinate the 
work of the agencies and service the Board.
 
The report proposed an overall leadership role for the UN Development 
Programme (UNDP), which would be in charge of the UN's country resident 
coordinators, and with its Administrator assuming the post of UN 
Development Coordinator (who would chair the Group and report to the Board).
 
On funding, the report proposed that each UN country office have a 
unified budget, and the system be supported by a new multi-year MDG 
Funding Mechanism to ensure predictable funding. Non-core funds now 
obtained by the different UN agencies will in future be placed in the 
MDG Fund to be supervised by the Board and the Development Group.
 
The report also proposed setting up a UN entity on gender issues 
(combining three existing gender entities under a new UN 
Under-Secretary-General) and an upgraded role for the UN Environment 
Programme (to have real authority as the environmental policy pillar of 
the UN).
 
The panel postponed a decision on the most controversial issue - whether 
and how the various UN funds, programmes, specialized agencies and 
regional entities should be constituted in future, with some to close, 
others to merge and with newly delineated mandates.
 
Kofi Annan was expected to issue his response to the report, but was 
unable to do so before his departure. It is not known whether the new 
Secretary-General will issue his own paper on the panel's report. 
Indeed, it is not known what Mr. Ban's views are on the panel report nor 
how he intends to take the process forward.
 
It is expected that the General Assembly will in the next few months 
start a process to discuss the panel report.
 
Interviews with several developing-country diplomats in New York 
revealed that they have certain concerns about some of the report's 
proposals. There is apprehension that the developed countries may want 
to reduce development funding, making use of the rationale of cutting 
duplication among UN agencies.
 
Another concern is that the setting up of a Sustainable Development 
Board would duplicate or erode the work of ECOSOC, which contradicts the 
recent agreed measures to strengthen ECOSOC. The diplomats say that they 
favour ECOSOC playing the role envisaged for the proposed Sustainable 
Development Board.
 
Another issue is how the "one-country, one-programme" principle will 
work at the national level. The diplomats stress the need for national 
governments to determine the UN's role in the country, which should be 
in line with national development plans. Some diplomats are concerned 
that reform of the UN at country-level has not yet been discussed let 
alone approved at the General Assembly, but that there are already eight 
"pilot countries" in which the reform is taking place.
 
Another concern is whether the removal of non-core funds of UN agencies 
and their being re-channelled to a single fund under the Development 
Group would lead to reduced flexibility and operations of the agencies, 
an over-concentration of power in a single Development Group and a 
possible reduction of overall funds under the rationale of cost-saving.
The joint G77-NAM letter addresses several of these concerns. The letter 
starts by conveying the Groups' willingness to engage constructively in 
a General Assembly consideration of the report, which has a number of 
useful recommendations.
 
The groups say that their letter contains in a "very preliminary way" 
some important elements for the Secretary-General's consideration. They 
note that the panel has acknowledged national ownership as the bedrock 
and has advocated a demand-driven approach. They reaffirm that 
development should remain the centerpiece of deliberations at the UN, 
and that the achievement of the Internationally Agreed Development 
Goals, including the MDGs, should continue to be the over-arching 
framework of UN activities.
 
They emphasize the need for a strengthened global partnership for 
development, and believe that any related process should be driven by a 
vision of a stronger UN role on development issues, and by the need to 
fully implement all commitments from all the major UN Summits and 
Conferences in the economic and social fields.
 
In a section on Preliminary Elements, the G77 and NAM say that the 
fundamental characteristics of the UN operational activities for 
development must remain, inter alia, the universal, voluntary and grant 
nature, the neutrality and multilateralism, as well as their ability to 
respond to the development needs of program countries in a flexible manner.
 
While the report has some useful recommendations, it has also touched 
upon some issues, such as human rights, gender and sustainable 
development, as cross-cutting issues in the context of UN operational 
activities for development, says the letter. "While those issues are not 
confined only to developing countries, the Group has concern 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."
 
Developing countries have a great interest in a fair, rules-based 
international system, and the enhanced UN system-wide coherence should 
strengthen the UN's standard-setting role to reinforce its normative 
capacities.
 
In a section on the "One UN Approach", the G77/NAM letter says that the 
"Pilots" for the one-country approach in several developing countries 
should be, as recognised in the panel's report, entirely voluntary, 
decided and led by the national governments taking into account national 
particularities and conditions.
 
"These should neither create any systemic changes in the methods of 
formulating, approving and financing country programmes, nor lead to any 
systematic expansion of the number of pilots, without further open and 
inclusive intergovernmental consideration," says the letter.
 
The groups add that there is no "one size fits all", as also recognized 
by the panel. There should be no restrictions on the ability and 
sovereignty of national governments to determine their own development 
priorities or select their development partners, as well
as the type of relation with the UN development entities they wish to 
establish at the country level. The UN 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.
 
In a section on Funding, the G77 and NAM say that the central issue of 
the quantity, quality and predictability of development assistance from 
the UN system based on the demand-driven approach needs to be addressed 
more concretely. It is essential to ensure that there is an expanding 
and adequate base of development assistance from the UN system and other 
sources, responsive to the national development plans of program countries.
 
The letter says: "The continuing imbalance between 'core' and 'non-core' 
resources, highlighted in the report as a problem, remains a major 
reason for the incoherence of UN development programs, including at the 
country level, resulting in the distortion in the support provided by 
the UN development system for implementing national priorities of 
program countries.
 
"The guiding principle of the coherence process should be to provide 
more efficiency in delivery. It should not be a cost-cutting exercise. 
Hence, any savings acquired as a result of the streamlining process 
should be re-channelled into the development expenditures of the UN and 
not to be directed into other activities. Further, to the largest 
extent, savings generated from efficiencies at the country level must be 
ploughed back into the programme and activities in that country."
 
The letter also says that funding modalities proposed by the report, 
especially the concept of "results-based funding", raise serious 
questions. "They may imply new conditionalities in development 
cooperation. Moreover, these recommendations on financing do not address 
the central issue of the quantity and quality of development assistance 
from the UN system."
 
In a section on "Engagement with the Bretton Woods Institutions (BWIs)", 
the G77 and NAM say that coherence at the national and international 
level also involves the BWIs where they exist. They should be a part of 
any integrated approach to development cooperation. Bilateral 
development partners should also be part and parcel of this approach.
 
The letter suggests that the UN Secretary-General, the World Bank 
President and the IMF Executive Director set up a process to review and 
update their respective roles and relations at the global as well as at 
the country levels, where those institutions operate. After consultation 
with member states, they should have formal agreements to promote 
coordinated and coherent contributions to the implementation of national 
development plans and strategies.
 
In a section on Governance, the NAM and G77 say that the various 
development-related organizations, agencies, funds and programmes of the 
UN system, with their diverse and complementary fields of activities, 
bring a unique wealth of expertise and resources in assisting in the 
achievement of the MDGs and the other internationally agreed development 
goals.
 
"However, the concept of 'comparative advantage', as contained in the 
report, may undermine the contribution which individual funds and 
agencies can make to development cooperation," they warn.
 
The groups also caution that the proposed creation of the Sustainable 
Development Board needs careful consideration.
 
"The establishment of a Sustainable Development Board may duplicate the 
work of ECOSOC in view of the adoption by the General Assembly of the 
resolution on the strengthening of the ECOSOC (A/61/16). There is an 
urgent need to restore balance to the UN's intergovernmental processes 
in particular to reflect the agreed principles of national ownership of 
the development strategies.
 
"In this context, it is essential to review the membership, rules and 
procedures, budgets and the decision-making processes of the Executive 
Boards of individual UN funds and programmes to ensure greater 
transparency, representation and participation."
 
The letter also states that exhortations at the Secretariat level for 
closer coordination and cooperation within the CEB (Chief Executives' 
Board) or the UNDG (UN Development Group) need to be explored more to 
produce desired results in themselves unless there is some mechanism for 
intergovernmental oversight and monitoring of such cooperation and 
coordination. Moreover, a central question is whether the Bretton Woods 
Institutions are willing to participate in the envisaged cooperation and 
coordination.
 
In a section on the UN's "Business Practices", the letter says that any 
process aiming at achieving coherence of the UN system should be 
inclusive and take into account previous recommendations made by the 
internal and external oversight bodies, such as the JIU, BOA, OIOS and 
other relevant internal entities, and already endorsed by the General 
Assembly.
 
Confidence-building among the UN's membership regarding reform should be 
a top priority. "Hence, proposals already rejected by the General 
Assembly on management reform and the institutionalization of business 
practices (A/60/260) should not be resubmitted," says the letter. 
"Proposals which continue to be under consideration of the GA on these 
issues also should not be brought for consideration in this process."
 
The G77 and NAM add that harmonization of various practices and 
procedures, e. g., procurement among the various UN Funds and Programmes 
and the Specialized Agencies should continue to be undertaken by the 
Secretariat through the CEB, in accordance with high-level 
intergovernmental decisions.
 
In a section on Regional Dimension, the letter says that the importance 
of the regional dimension of development is manifested in the mandates 
given to the regional commissions in the outcomes of the major UN 
Conferences and Summits. Improved coherence at the regional level will 
require strengthening existing UN regional mechanisms for horizontal 
coordination, and ensuring a vertical link-up and alignment in the UN 
development and coordination architecture at the global, regional, and 
country levels.
 
In a section on South-South Cooperation, the G77 and NAM state that in 
seeking coherence in the UN's development activities, efforts should be 
made to enhance South/South and triangular cooperation within the 
system. Concrete measures should be taken to further strengthen the 
Special Unit for South-South Cooperation as a separate entity and a 
focal point for South-South Cooperation within the UN System.
 
In conclusion, the two groups said that implementation of 
recommendations contained in the report should follow intergovernmental 
consideration and agreement by the General Assembly. They would also 
appreciate receiving the Secretary-General's views on the report and his 
proposals with regard to its future consideration, and these should take 
the two groups' views and concerns into account.