Oppose Handing UNDP Control of U.N. Country Activities
By Brett D. Schaefer
Heritage Foundation
April 26, 2007
On April 16, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon endorsed the proposals of the High-level Panel on United Nations System-Wide Coherence to streamline U.N. operations in countries around the world. The underlying objectives of the panel's November 2006 report are sound. The U.N. system is a sprawling operation that often works awkwardly or even at cross-purposes within countries, suffering from poor coordination and communication among programs, and is in dire need of reforms to improve efficiency and effectiveness.
Secretary-General Ban should be commended for his willingness to acknowledge the need for reform in his endorsement of Delivering as One, but the Secretary-General made a mistake in endorsing the entire report. As with most U.N. reform proposals, the report was mixed, containing good and bad recommendations. One of the most egregious mistakes was the recommendation to place overall responsibility for U.N. country coordination with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Recent months have revealed significant flaws, weaknesses, and misjudgments by UNDP that should have disqualified the organization from such a prominent and important role. The U.S. and other nations interested in making the U.N. operate more effectively at the country level should oppose the reform proposal unless it is revised so that that the UNDP is not given authority over U.N. country operations and other misguided proposals are eliminated or amended.
A Mixed Bag
The United Nations' institutional, managerial, and political weaknesses have resulted in a litany of scandals in recent years, such as Oil-for-Food, procurement corruption, and sexual abuse by U.N. personnel. The U.N. has reacted to these problems by requesting and releasing a number of reports on how the organization should be reformed to prevent their recurrence. Unfortunately, the U.N. has proven much more successful in publishing reports than in actually implementing reforms.
Delivering as One, the final report of the High-Level Panel on U.N. System-Wide Coherence in the Areas of Development, Humanitarian Assistance, and the Environment is, like earlier reports, mixed in its recommendations. Some are positive, but others are misguided.[1]
The report's key recommendation is to consolidate authority for U.N. country activities under the Resident Coordinator. The U.N. system consists of dozens of specialized agencies, funds and programs, and departments and offices, leading to costly duplication and competition for resources. Under the "One Country Programme" proposed in Delivering as One,theResident Coordinator would strengthen the policy coherence and coordination of U.N. activities in countries.
One of the most positive aspects of Delivering as One is its observation that many U.N. bodies claim custody over the same issues, clouding overall accountability, creating overlap, and undermining effectiveness. For example, the report noted that "In some sectors, such as water and energy, more than 20 UN agencies are active and compete for limited resources without a clear collaborative framework. More than 30 UN agencies and programmes have a stake in environmental management."[2]
Though the report rightly urges consolidation or elimination of duplicative funds, programs, and specialized agencies in order to clarify responsibility, reduce duplication, and reduce burdens on recipient and donor governments, it does not explain that a great deal of redundancy and inefficiency could be resolved if the U.N. General Assembly would conduct a comprehensive mandate review and adopt sunset clauses for mandates. The mandate review is indefinitely stalled, inhibiting the U.N.'s ability to allocate funds according to priorities and eliminate unnecessary tasks, personnel, and functions. Secretary-General Ban should supplement his endorsement of Delivering as One by proposing U.N. mandates for elimination.
Less positive elements of the report include a call for multi-year funding for U.N. programs. Such a funding mechanism would weaken efforts to allocate funding according to priorities by locking in funding and making it more difficult to consolidate duplicative programs.
A large portion of the report makes recommendations to expand the role of the U.N. in development, but these recommendations contravene another dominant theme in the report, removing duplication and overlap. The World Bank, not the U.N., would be more appropriate as a country-level development coordinator based on its expertise, in-country presence, and resources. Indeed, it makes far more sense to eliminate or consolidate the UNDP and regional economic commissions in favor of international financial institutions like the World Bank to avoid duplication and lack of coordination. The U.N. could then address complementary issues, such as political transformation, post-conflict stability, and disease.
The report goes further in urging donors to let the U.N. guide and control all development assistance funds and projects—even bilateral assistance—at the country level. This would elevate a U.N. development agenda that ignores evidence that foreign assistance alone cannot increase economic growth and development. Rather, success in development ultimately depends on developing countries' adopting and implementing policies that promote economic freedom, good governance, and the rule of law. Competition in development strategies is a strength, not a weakness, when a monopoly on development would eliminate or inhibit innovative development initiatives like the U.S. Millennium Challenge Account.
An Ill-Advised Proposal
One of the most questionable elements of Delivering as One is its recommendation that the United Nations Development Program assume overall responsibility for U.N. country coordination. In recent months, disturbing reports and incidents of mismanagement at the UNDP have cast doubt over the soundness of proposals to place that organization in the powerful position of managing U.N. activities at the country level.
North Korea. The United States began questioning the influence that North Korea (DPRK) had over personnel and financial decisions of UNDP in 2006. In an effort to assess the situation, Ambassador Mark Wallace engaged in a series of meetings with UNDP in order to clarify details and access internal reports and audits.[3] Based on available information, Ambassador Wallace concluded:
[B]ecause of the actions of the DPRK government and the complicity of UNDP, at least since 1998 the UNDP DPRK program has been systematically perverted for the benefit of the Kim Jong Il regime—rather than the people of North Korea. The UNDP DPRK program has for years operated in blatant violation of UN rules, served as a steady and large source of hard currency and other resources for the DPRK government with minimal or no assurance that UNDP funds and resources are utilized for legitimate development activities.[4]
Click here for the full story.
Senator Tom Coburn
Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, and International Security
340 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510
Phone: 202-224-2254 Fax: 202-228-3796
|
|
