ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL HOLDS DIALOGUE WITH FOUR UNITED NATIONS FUNDS AND PROGRAMMES

03.07.03


UNDP, UNICEF, UNFPA and WFP Discuss Progress
on Simplification and Harmonization Efforts




The Economic and Social Council this afternoon held an interactive dialogue with the executive heads of the United Nations Development Fund (UNDP), the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), as well as the deputy head of the World Food Programme (WFP) under its consideration of the operational activities of the United Nations for international development cooperation.
Opening the dialogue, the four panelists’ presentations focused largely on how the environment within which their agencies conducted their affairs had changed in recent years. They centered their comments on the renewed commitment to development evidenced by the internationally agreed outcomes of the Millennium Summit, as well as those of the Monterrey and Johannesburg Summits, and the related push for increased simplification and harmonization of rules and procedures among United Nations development agencies.
Mark Malloch Brown, Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme, said that the United Nations Funds and Programmes should be ready to move with changed times. As United Nations bodies, it was essential to lead the change, not merely to react to it. In the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the international community had an agreed outcome-oriented set of targets for development cooperation. To help achieve them, a strong UN country presence needed to be offered to development partners.
Carol Bellamy, Executive Director of the United Nations Children’s Fund, said that UNICEF was engaged in an intensive and collective dialogue on the topic of the Simplification and Harmonization of Rules and Procedures of the United Nations Funds and Programmes, in the context of which the United Nations agencies undertook to allow country-level programmatic considerations to drive the process, to allow governments and governmental priorities to set the context, to review comprehensively the country programme preparation and implementation processes of each agency, and to identify a series of key issues requiring concerted action.
Thoraya Ahmed Obaid, Executive Director of the United Nations Population Fund, said that the conversion of the Millennium Development Goals and targets into a road map, both for national development and international cooperation, had created many new opportunities for working together in a coherent and harmonized way to achieve global peace, security and prosperity, through the eradication of poverty the world over. In that context, there was a major and vital role for the United Nations.
Jean-Jacques Graisse, Deputy Executive Director of the World Food Programme, said that the transition from relief to development had been on the international community’s agenda often over the last decade. The United Nations Development Group was working with United Nations country teams to identify problems impacting their ability to respond effectively in situations of transition, to clarify the United Nations’ role, and to assess the lessons learned from previous transition challenges.
The interactive dialogue, which followed the panelists’ presentations, focused upon different issues such as the relationship between the United Nations system and the World Bank, examining the ways in which their funding and programming differed and how they might work to complement each other. Other subjects of significance were the roles and purposes of the joint board sessions, the need for communications for awareness building in the simplification and harmonization process and the coherence, or lack thereof, of the funding process.
Representatives from the following States participated in the interactive dialogue that followed the initial presentations by the four panelists: El Salvador, France, Russian Federation, Switzerland, Denmark, Senegal, United Kingdom, Norway, Nepal, the Netherlands and Guatemala. Also participating in the dialogue was a representative of the World Federation of United Nations Associations.
The Council will reconvene at 10 a.m. on Friday, 4 July, to hold a high-level panel discussion on lessons learnt from field-level evaluations.

Statements
MARK MALLOCH BROWN, Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme, highlighted UNDP's Annual Reports which this year focused on harmonization and simplification efforts, not only because this responded to ECOSOC priorities, but also because they all firmly believed that these efforts represented a building block for the future. On the road to a new partnership for development, three markers helped guide the way. First, it seemed the United Nations was coming to an end of the great cycle of conferences and summits. Today, one could already look back at the achievements of Monterrey and Johannesburg. Second, the focus on implementation, including means of implementation, was one aspect. But more was needed. Last February, donor and programme countries, together with bilateral aid institutions and multilateral partners, had met in Rome. The Rome Declaration on Harmonization was an essential commitment to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and an outcome-oriented development cooperation policy. Third, another marker on this road was the adoption by the General Assembly, last month, of the resolution on integrated and coordinated implementation of and follow up to conferences and summits in the economic and social fields.
At the levels of funds and programmes, one must be ready to move with the changed times, he said. As United Nations bodies, it was essential to lead the change, not merely to react to it. In the MDGs, the international community had an agreed outcome-oriented set of targets for development cooperation. There was a similar format for country programmes and UNDP was working on common knowledge management bases, and on a financial reporting system that was clear, and shared by all. Within a development system where country owned and led development cooperation was the norm, the recent experience in Zambia came most readily into mind and he believed that development partners needed to be offered a strong United Nations country presence. This would entail working towards providing support and technical assistance to governments and civil society as they implemented their own development programmes to meet the MDGs. Mr. Malloch Brown also saw a radical simplification of the United Nations’ collective country presence, and more use of the Resident Coordinator system. Finally, he saw much more efforts in ensuring that instruments at hand met national priorities and fulfilled national needs.
CAROL BELLAMY, Executive Director of the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), said that UNICEF had, for the past 18 months, been engaged in an intensive and collective dialogue on the topic of the Simplification and Harmonization of Rules and Procedures of the United Nations Funds and Programmes, in the context of which the United Nations agencies undertook to allow country-level programmatic considerations to drive the process, to allow governments and governmental priorities to set the context, to review comprehensively the country programme preparation and implementation processes of each agency, and to identify a series of key issues requiring concerted action. During this period, the issues initially associated with simplification and harmonization had evolved in scope. The General Assembly had last year requested a review of the issues of joint programming and pooling of resources in accordance with Action 14 of the Secretary-General’s reform proposals and an ever-increasing number of specialized agencies had become members of the United Nations Development Group (UNDG).
The issues under discussion, she said, went straight to the heart of what the funds and programmes did, what they stood for and what they represented, individually and collectively. These questions had become particularly relevant as the work of the Aid for Development Committee of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development on donor practices came to fruition. Thus, the documentation offered today presented a series of common tools and instruments that had been agreed on or proposed for use among the four UNDG ExComm agencies. These tools were part of the operational continuum running through programme analysis and assessment, planning, implementation, reporting, monitoring and evaluation that formed the core of the agencies’ support for national governments in the implementation of their goals and targets.
The UNDAF Results Matrix, she explained, lay out linkages between national priorities, overall United Nations contributions and the contributions of each agency, while the new County Programme Action Plan (CPAP) gave each agency a standard format for planning with partners for the duration of the programme cycle. Moreover, a standard format for annual work planning and budgeting had been proposed. One major benefit of these exercises had been to clarify the terminology used by agencies and the development community. Among the specific tools of interest to delegations, she suggested, would be the joint strategy meetings, which would replace four separate meetings with national counterparts and reduce workloads for all partners, ensure greater transparency and comparability and allow for better tracking of progress.
All of this work had now been completed, she said, and would be implemented either globally or phased in as new programme cycles began. Within the context of ongoing work, there had been progress toward more effective and efficient joint programming. The ultimate test for all the simplification and harmonization efforts would be found in their effectiveness and reduced transaction costs.
THORAYA AHMED OBAID, Executive Director of the United Nations Population Fund, said the conversion of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and targets into a road map, both for national development and international cooperation, had indeed created many new opportunities for working together in a coherent and harmonized way to achieve global peace, security and prosperity through the eradication of poverty the world over. In the same way, the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSP) must be seen as part of the global commitment to poverty reduction. The MDGs and PRSPs were clearly interconnected. Where the PRSP provided an operational framework through which low-income countries lay out the country’s strategic plan for macroeconomic, structural, and social policies to generate economic growth and reduce poverty, the MDGs provided the coherent development framework, containing an interrelated set of goals and targets considered vital for the eradication of poverty. The United Nations was in a unique position to ensure that the PRSP processes became MDG-driven, and that they became more targeted towards the most disadvantaged and deprived segments of society.
There were, however, several other challenges that had to be addressed for the PRSPs to play an even more strategic role. An important challenge was for the PRSPs to become more pro-poor by really involving the poor and most underprivileged in shaping outcomes. There were two aspects to this, the first was the issue of national ownership, and the second was the limited attention paid to social sectors. With regard to the first aspect, several reviews of the PRSPs process had highlighted that while there had been increased Government ownership, the same could not be said for national ownership. This was where there was a major and vital role for the United Nations in promoting broad based participation, providing analytical inputs, and in tracking progress, given the almost universal field presence by some of the United Nations agencies. While monitoring and implementation were the purview of Governments, the United Nations country teams could play an influencing role in poverty monitoring through capacity building as well as in the development of appropriate indicators.
With regards to the second aspect, limited attention being paid to the social sectors, there was a tendency to over-emphasize the macro-economic facets of development. This was most likely the result of the limited involvement of ministries, civil society groups and limitations in United Nations engagement as compared to the much stronger involvement by the central coordinating agencies such as Ministries of Planning and Finance, as well as the Bretton Woods institutions. Much had been done at the policy level to align all factors and the MDGs processes into a coherent and integrated development framework at the country level, but at the same time, much remained to be done. The commitment from development partners was there, the overarching development and strategic frameworks were agreed upon and in place. The United Nations owed it to the poor to finally make it happen.
JEAN-JACQUES GRAISSE, Deputy Executive Director of the World Food Programme, said that the transition from relief to development had been on the international community’s agenda often over the last decade. Building upon the consensus regarding the importance of developing and implementing coherent strategies for restoring stability and normalcy, the Secretary-General had requested the United Nations Development Group (UNDG) to develop an implementation plan to address the issues of integrated planning, budgeting and resource mobilization tools for countries emerging from conflict, for which purpose the UNDG and the Executive Committee on Humanitarian Assistance had established a joint Working Group on Transition Issues.
He said the UNDG was working with United Nations country teams to identify problems impacting their ability to respond effectively in situations of transition, to clarify the United Nations’ role and to assess the lessons learned from previous transition challenges. The UNDG was proud of its partnerships with United Nations agencies, host governments and non-governmental organizations to strengthen international early warning capacities. Too often food and other aid only started to flow in large quantity when pictures of starving children appeared on television, yet the early effects of food insecurity were much more subtle and no less compelling. Doing nothing to help before food shortages reached the critical stage left victims worse off after the immediate crisis was over and more vulnerable to the next drought, war or economic upheaval.
The United Nations also needed to respond quickly to new threats, he said. The foremost of these was HIV/AIDS, especially in Africa, which not only presented a health crisis but had become a major cause of malnutrition and food insecurity. The United Nations could also make a difference in the area of prevention; natural disasters were difficult to predict, but many of the world’s crises were man-made – the results of war and conflict. Finally, recovery and rehabilitation were important as the roots of the next crisis were often found in the lack of attention and money given to aid recovery from a previous emergency. Within the context of prevention, mitigation and recovery, there should be an effort to map out areas most vulnerable to recurring disasters and immediate food insecurity, to invest more in assets for the most vulnerable, and to support long-term relief and development strategies.

Interactive Segment
In a subsequent interactive debate, one speaker said that in order for there to be adequate political will on the part of States, it was essential to raise awareness. It was stressed that strategies of adequate communication were needed to raise awareness. Addressing the panelists, he asked if they had considered joint communications programmes to raise awareness.
Another speaker said core resources of the United Nations had continued to decline, putting the Organization at risk. At the same time, it seemed that the Bretton Woods institutions situation was quite different. He asked whether it was a question of visibility or efficiency. Should the United Nations copy the World Bank system, he asked.
The complex crisis in the world called for a certain degree of coordinated response from United Nations funds and programmes, one speaker pointed out. The question was how could this be done most efficiently and effectively in order to ensure a quick and flexible response in emergency situations. How did the panelists assess the activities of their respective agencies in the post-conflict activities in Iraq, he asked. Panelists were also asked whether they had implemented into their policies the fact that practical national significance of the Millennium Development Goals depended on the socio-economic situation of each country.
The United Nations had changed and reformed, measures had been taken, but to what extent did they work or produce results, one delegate said. Could the panelists inform ECOSOC how they would approach joint evaluation after joint collaboration, he asked.
A representative of a non-governmental organization (NGO) asked if contacts had been made with NGOs concerning the simplification and harmonization goals. How could national associations interact with some of the local United Nations offices present in the field, she said.
Responding, Mr. Malloch Brown said the funding was not about coherence within the United Nations, but about the incoherence of donor governments. This was the basic problem – the non-coherent law of the jungle that prevailed and protected the powerful through a framework of laws created for that purpose. The donor decision-making end needed addressing, he said. UNDP was not a provider of budget support, but a provider of technical assistance. The proactive and positive agenda of harmonization and simplification was just the first step. In an era of pooling budget support by donors, the United Nations held the complementary role of technical assistance. However, this by no means reduced the inherent importance of the United Nations. The United Nations must be right there in the first row of reform, he said. UNDP was in discussion with United Nations partners on how to increase support to them as non-resident agencies; to help them offer their technical assistance at the country level; and to provide a coherent United Nations country response.
In response to a number of points made by the delegates, Ms. Bellamy said that it was important to remember that the goals agreed upon for development efforts were national goals, not international ones. She also acknowledged that within the United Nations, communications campaigns had often been used and had proved to be effective tools in areas such as capacity building.
On the subject of transition, she reminded the assembly that she would be holding a briefing on the work of the Transition Committee next Friday and that there would be an ECOSOC meeting on the transition from relief to development in two weeks, on 14 July.
In response to a question about how activities undertaken during emergencies affected post-emergency activities, Ms. Obaid said that her organization’s activities continued during times of war and peace. However, in times of emergency, needs did become more pressing. The decentralized nature of UNFPA’s authority structure gave workers in the field more flexibility to move around as periods of conflict necessitated.
On the subject of the need for follow-up activities during recovery periods, Mr. Graisse said that the goal in post-crisis times had always been to get out as soon as possible so as to address the next crisis. Thus, though the WFP had had a large programme in the Balkans a few years ago to respond to the crisis in Kosovo, its presence there was now greatly scaled down.
Welcoming the efforts of the agencies on simplification and harmonization, one delegate asked if in view of the progress made, the agencies were ready to join the harmonization process between the national Governments and donor Governments, as seen in Zambia. Concerning the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) process, he welcomed the joint letter sent out by Mr. Malloch Brown and the World Bank on cooperation. However, it was important that there was now room for common disagreement. Unless disagreements were accepted, the United Nations agencies would most likely lose their comparative advantage. There was a difference between what the United Nations and the World Bank could offer on a country level. The consensus between the two must not quell the important goals of the MDGs.
Another delegate asked about the process of liberalization outside the framework of the United Nations and what kind of assistance could be given to developing countries.
Bringing up aspects of Mr. Malloch Brown’s statement on the possibilities of radical simplification of the United Nations procedures and the United Nations systems’ collective country presence, another delegate asked what the key benchmarks were for measuring such progress.
Harmonization and simplification were not ends in themselves, but a means to put the partner countries in the driver’s seat, one delegate said. Concerning the joint sessions that had been held on policy dialogue, he suggested an institutionalization of this practice. Such an institutionalization would benefit not only United Nations agencies, but States too.
Concerning the correlation between PRSPs and MDGs, another delegate pointed out that the PRSPs had been getting more attention due to the resources promised in the programmes. Looking at the role played by the United Nations, more focus needed to be paid to making United Nations programmes more secure and better funded.
Responding to this set of interventions, Mr. Malloch Brown said that UNDP had already instructed the Resident Representative to cooperate with the harmonization process in Zambia. On another point, he said that there must be an amicable difference of opinion on achieving the Millennium Development Goals. In the Human Development Report, to be launched soon, the UNDP did indeed critique World Bank and IMF country missions and argued that they were still allowing the macroeconomic tail to wag the dog. Country planning had to be based on what could be afforded, not wishful thinking. Let the healthy debate begin, he said. Concerning the issue of aligning personnel, he stressed that the United Nations needed to engage in other fields beyond macroeconomics alone. There was no need for the United Nations to copy or emulate the World Bank in this sense. On the issue of the pooling of resources, he said that through electronic systems being introduced, there was a capacity to do much more coherent and unified reporting on donor progress. UNDP had also offered to act as a marketing arm and cohesive force for non-resident country agencies. With regard to joint sessions, he said that it was important to have both coherence and focus. An element of a joint approach was needed, however, delegates needed to take these sessions more seriously, increase participation and report back to capitals. This was a two-way street, he said.
Ms. Bellamy said that there were a variety of different exercises going on in the simplification and harmonization area, and that there did need to be an effort to implement them in stages and draw out some lessons learned. She also explained that UNICEF had been a bit slow to get involved in being supportive of their counterparts in terms of the PRSP process because of disparities in what was believed to be needed and what was available for human resources.
In terms of policy guidance, she said that information on the pooling of resources would be available at the end of the year and that the results seen in the UNDAF Matrix would be implemented. On the subject of the joint boards, she said that there had not been enough interventions from programme countries in the last round of joint boards and that there would need to be more participation for them to be effective. The joint boards also needed to allow some degree of policy focus.
Ms. Obaid said that the comparative advantage of the United Nations agencies over the World Bank was found in the tracking process; it was found not in the money given but in the knowledge and dialogue brought to the programme country. She also commented on aspects of human resources practices related to the hiring of host-country nationals, stressing that as UNFPA offices tended to be very small, there were only one or two international employees per office typically. Positions such as Operations Managers were hired in country.
Mr. Graisse said that WFP was trying to get involved in issues of food security and was therefore trying to retool its staff and hire people with better backgrounds.
Another delegate asked how the UN could go beyond the UN Development Group's simplification and harmonization to involve these processes at the national level.
In his capacity as President of ECOSOC, Gert Rosenthal reminded the audience that the joint boards were subsidiaries of ECOSOC and that the proper place to look at the UNDG as a collective organization was this segment of the Council’s session.

Concluding Remarks
In concluding, Ms. Bellamy said it was fair to say that the development agencies had come quite a distance, in comparison to some of the specialized agencies. Development agencies had come a long way and were working better on both global and local levels. In terms of willingness to work with their counterparts, there was a clear enthusiasm on the part of development agencies. Finally, she reminded ECOSOC that core resources continued to go down and that the issue of resources must be seen to be connected to issues of effectiveness and lower transportation costs.
Ms. Obaid said there was a commitment to continue working closer. Her two messages were to make the process of Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) as inclusive as possible and not forget to focus due attention on social services. She stressed that population dynamics and reproductive health were part and parcel of the Millennium Development Goals.
Mr. Graisse said that partnerships were needed in the implementation of development activities. Many of the reforms instituted in New York were therefore welcomed. Increased resources in development were needed in order to strengthen developing processes.
Mr. Malloch Brown said that the Secretary-General had embarked on a process that was moving along quickly and efficiently and it seemed to be working very well since other agencies were following. New tools were being shared with other members and the UNDG programme group had accepted the results matrix, joint strategy approach and evaluation. Concerning the Secretary-General’s report on reform expected this fall, he said it was in being prepared. It highlighted the progress made and the steps remaining. A number of reports were under preparation on Secretariat cooperation vis-à-vis operational funds and programmes. Finally, he stressed that harmonization and simplification were a two-way street in terms of coherence both for programme countries, donor countries and development agencies.



* *** *