Two documents of dissent

In November 2006, a high-level panel published the report “Delivering as one”. It suggested, among other things, that joint country offices of various UN agencies should coordinate efforts in developing countries in future, and that programmes should also be managed and funded in a more coherent manner. Moreover, they proposed establishing a new UN Sustainable Development Board to monitor country programmes.

In view of the developing countries, however, such reforms would weaken their position when dealing with UN agencies. That is the thrust of a letter sent to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon by the Group of 77 and China (G77) and the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). Many of the objections raised by developing country governments are also included a joint position paper by the Center of Concern, the International Trade Union Confederation, the World Federalist Movement and the UBUNTU Forum, a global forum of civil-society networks.

Both recent documents bemoan that the reform report remains too vague about the future roles of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank Group. The NGOs state that donor countries have been downscaling the political role of UN agencies for decades, particularly in trade and finance matters, boosting the role of the IMF and the World Bank instead. They maintain the report only examines the efficiency of UN agencies, but not that of the two Bretton Woods institutions. In this perspective, the reform proposals tend to degrade the UN to a set of mere implementing agencies, rather than incorporating the World Bank and the IMF better into the UN system.

In addition, both recent documents also regard the diversity of UN agencies, which is criticised in “Delivering as one”, as a virtue. Diversity, it is said, allows developing countries to consult various analyses and policy recommendations. In view of the dominance of the World Bank and IMF, the argument goes, it is important that individual UN agencies develop other points of view in future, too; this is indeed considered a particular forte of the UN system. Both the developing countries and the NGOs fear that higher efficiency might only pave the way for cutting UN agencies’ funds. G77 and NAM, therefore, want all money saved to flow back in to UN development efforts.

Furthermore, developing countries and NGOs alike oppose setting up a Sustainable Development Board under the umbrella of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). Rather, they recommend that ECOSOC itself monitor UN development activities.

Both papers criticise the process by which “Delivering as one” was drawn up. According to the NGOs, it was prepared under unreasonable time pressure by a panel appointed by Kofi Annan, UN secretary-general at the time. This made it difficult for developing countries, NGOs and parliaments to participate. The developing countries find fault with the fact that the reform plan has already been implemented in several pilot countries (see D+C/E+Z 3/2007, p. 95), even though the General Assembly has not discussed the issue at all.

However, NGOs and developing countries differ completely in one point. “Delivering as one” recommended giving cross-cutting issues such as human rights, gender equality and environmental protection greater emphasis in all UN programmes. According to G77 and NAM, that would result in new and, in their view, unacceptable conditions attached to UN development aid. The NGOs, on the other hand, are largely in favour of this recommendation, and endorse the proposal to merge and strengthen all UN committees dealing with gender issues, for example. (bl)