Economic and Social Council

2008 Substantive Session

26^th & 27^th Meetings (AM & PM)

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL BEGINS THREE-DAY SEGMENT OF CURRENT SESSION AIMED

AT EVALUATING EFFECTIVENESS OF DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES AT COUNTRY LEVEL

Deputy Secretary-General Opens Segment;

Panels: Changing Aid Environment; Different Needs of Programme Countries

The Economic and Social Council today opened the operational activities segment of its 2008 substantive session, which Deputy Secretary-General Asha-Rose Migiro said would give the 54-member body a “crucial” opportunity to evaluate -- and motivate actions to strengthen -- the effectiveness and efficiency of the United Nations system’s support to development programmes at the country level.

The Council’s operational activities segment, which runs through 14 July, will follow up on the implementation of the policy recommendations of the General Assembly, particularly Assembly resolution 62/208 on the Triennial Comprehensive Policy Review.  That exercise aims to shape the Organizations’ development activities over the next three years, specifically on funding, national capacity development and development effectiveness.

By that text, the Assembly underscored that there was no “one-size-fits-all” approach to development and that United Nations development assistance should respond to the varying development needs of programme countries, based on their national development plans and strategies.  The main purpose of the Triennial Comprehensive Policy Review is to evaluate the effectiveness of United Nations support to developing countries, in line with the world body’s development agenda that emerged from the Millennium Summit’s landmark Declaration and other global conferences and summits.

The Deputy Secretary-General said that the Assembly’s recognition of the unique value of [development] activities was all the more critical now, against the backdrop of a dramatically changing landscape, with new actors and new approaches gaining importance in development cooperation.  “It gives the United Nations strong impetus to make the most of these changes, strengthening efficiency and effectiveness to keep pace with emerging demands,” she said.

She highlighted key mandates that had emerged from the Policy Review, including a call to increase financial contributions to the United Nations system, notably to regular resources, and recommendations aimed at increasing the Organization’s overall coherence, effectiveness and relevance.  At the national level, the world body should support the central role of the Resident Coordinator in improving its effectiveness in responding to country priorities, she said.

The Council must ensure that the Policy Review resolution would, in the next three years, be carried out effectively across the Organization’s development system, and by Member States.  “The stakes are high,” she said, adding that the Secretariat was working to make the resolution’s provisions a reality, while also counting on Member States to do their part.  “This operational activities segment is crucial,” she said, stressing that, at the heart of its key coordination role, the Council must motivate action on the Policy Review to enhance the effectiveness of operational development.

In his opening remarks, Economic and Social Council Vice-President Andrei Dapkiunas (Belarus), who is also Chair of the operational segment, said that, over its next three working days, the Council would hold a series of relevant interactive dialogues, including two panel discussions today on the role of the United Nations system in a changing aid environment, and on strengthening the Organization’s development system’s responsiveness to the different needs of programme countries.

The Policy Review resolution had confirmed that the universal, voluntary and grant nature of United Nations system operations were part of the “unique added value” of the Organization’s support to developing nations, he continued.  Further, it underscored the need for the development systems to respond quickly to the varying development needs of programme countries.  The Council’s task during the segment was to ensure that the Organization launched the needed actions to implement Policy Review recommendations, he added.

The panel discussion on the changing aid environment was moderated by Abdoulie Janneh, Executive Secretary of the Economic Commission for Africa (ECA), and featured panellists Ambassador Francis K. Butagira (Uganda); Aiichiro Yamamoto, Resident Representative, Japan International Cooperation Agency; Thoraya Obaid, Executive Director of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA); and Bruce Jenks, Assistant Administrator and Director, Partnerships Bureau, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).  The lead discussant was Charles Riemen Schneider, Director, Investment Centre Division, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

Mr. Yamamoto highlighted the United Nations duel role as “guardian” of the Millennium Development Goals, and as platform for aid cooperation on the ground. On the first point, he said the Organization was the locomotive that pulled the international community towards achievement of the Goals.  Those efforts, however, were challenged by two imminent problems: globalization and external shocks, such as the oil and food crises.

Spotlighting his organization’s “one village, one product” movement, which generated income for small-scale farmers, he noted that, in Africa, globalization had hit farmers particularly hard, notably in Malawi, where domestically produced milk and mushrooms could not make their way onto local supermarket shelves.  Under the current system, “hardworking people were not necessarily winners”, he added.  On countries’ susceptibility to external shocks, he said lack of investment in disaster risk reduction had left poor people disproportionately affected, as seen in the aftermath of the Myanmar floods and earthquake in China. 

Under such circumstances, the United Nations should tap its agencies’ expert knowledge of countries striving to achieve the Goals, notably that of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF).  He called for providing financial assistance for people starting small businesses, to achieve the Millennium Development Goals.

“If we let the goals drive the processes, we are more likely to succeed,” said Ms. Obaid, who also stressed that, while many delegations had indicated that multilateralism was “we” -- meaning United Nations agencies -- really it was “you”.  “You decide what you want us to do,” she said, stressing that that idea had been missing during the discussion.

On capacity-building, she said training could be provided, but if a Government did not implement appropriate reforms in its institutional systems to absorb and leverage the new skills, the capacity-building would be for nothing. Further, in the new aid environment, “you lead us”, she said.

The panel discussion on “Strengthening the United Nations development system’s responsiveness to the different needs of programme countries” was moderated by Thomas Stelzer, Assistant Secretary-General for Policy Coordination and Inter-Agency Affairs.  The panellists were José Luís Guterres, Vice-Prime Minister of Timor-Leste; Henrique Banze, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs and Cooperation of Mozambique; Rodolfo Pastor Fasquelle, Coordinator of the Social Cabinet and Minister of Culture, Arts and Sports of Honduras; and Jan Vandemoortele, Senior Adviser on Policy, Division on Policy and Practice of the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and former United Nations Resident Coordinator in Pakistan.

Mr. Banze discussed the Maputo Seminar, which had been organized by Mozambique and included representatives of the seven other “Delivering as One” pilot countries.  They had discussed, among other things, the constraints and challenges in implementing that initiative.  The initial indication had been that the pilot process was yielding results in responding to national development plans and progress.  National ownership of the “partnership for development” had been enhanced as a result of the initiative and the “no-one-size-fits-all” principle was indeed being implemented.

Turning to constraints, he said the Seminar had identified a lack of predictability and timeliness in funding; little harmonization of business practices; high transaction costs; and poor alignment of United Nations capacity with national priorities.  To address such issues, participants had recommended improving national coordination structures.  In addition, operational activities should focus on national capacity-building and strategic support for poverty reduction, among other things.  “Dialogue, national ownership and […] inclusiveness are crucial in all of this,” he stressed.

As for the Secretariat’s role, he called for steps to support the consolidation of gains achieved at the country-level.  Through the Chief Executives Board, the Organization should consider a simplified process to address national problems.  Urging a more proactive United Nations, he said the Seminar had also called for a renegotiation of contracts commensurate with the new global aid environment.

The Economic and Social Council will continue its operational activities segment at 10 a.m. Friday, 11 July, when it will hold a dialogue with the executive heads of the United Nations funds and programmes.

Background

The 2008 substantive session of the Economic and Social Council today began its annual review of the operational activities of the United Nations for international development cooperation.  In the morning, it was expected to hold a panel discussion on “The UN system in a changing aid environment:  implications and comparative advantages”, and in the afternoon, hold another on “Strengthening United Nations development system’s responsiveness to the different needs of programme countries”.

Before the Council are several reports of the Secretary-General, including on comprehensive statistical data on operational activities for development of the United Nations system; the functioning of the resident coordinator system, including costs and benefits; the management process for the implementation of General Assembly resolution 62/208 on the triennial comprehensive policy review of operational activities for development of the United Nations system (document E/2008/49).

The Secretary-General’s statistical analysis (document A/63/71-E/2008/46) states that the total value of contributions received by the Organization for operational activities in 2006 amounted to $17.2 billion.  This total represents an increase of 0.4 per cent in nominal terms, and a decrease of 2 per cent in real terms, over the contributions received in 2005.  The expenditures of the United Nations system for operational activities in 2006 amounted to $16.4 billion.

On the progress in building a comprehensive and sustainable financial data and reporting system on United Nations operational activities, as mandated by General Assembly resolution 62/208, the report says that work has been under way to improve the financial data and analysis through:  (a) provision of an accurate aggregate statement of the United Nations annual financial receipts (excluding transfers among United Nations agencies to avoid double counting); (b) provision of an accurate snapshot of agency-specific total annual financing (including transfers from other United Nations agencies), entity by entity; and (c) provision of reliable trend data on past and, to the extent possible, future trends.

The report on the resident coordinator system (document E/2008/60) notes that significant progress has been made through various measures aimed at:  improving programmatic and operational coherence at the country level; system-wide participation, in particular by non-resident agencies; and strengthening accountability.

It also highlights the benefits arising from coherence measures, particularly the use of the common country assessment and the United Nations Development Assistance Framework, as well as other instruments, such as joint programming tools.  The report adds that benefits from simplification and harmonization measures, such as common premises and services, are evidenced by some available quantitative indicators on savings and efficiencies.

The report also provides information on the funding of the resident coordinator system, as a starting point on which to build up an appropriate analysis of the costs and benefits of country-level coordination in future reporting.  The funding of the resident coordinator post needs to be understood as an investment for all United Nations coordination activities, including for United Nations security and, where relevant, for humanitarian response and post-conflict transition.

Despite important achievements and progress, the report identifies “continuing major challenges” to achieving effectiveness and efficiency in operational activities for development through the regional coordinator system, including the need to:  respond adequately to the various demands placed on the system; mobilize the expertise Organization-wide to provide support to country development processes; and address divergences in business practices.  To this end, the report recommends that, among other things, the Council might wish to encourage an effort to seek the views of programme countries and national partners about the effectiveness of coordination of the United Nations system’s operational activities for development, as well as their involvement in those processes.

The report on the triennial comprehensive policy review of operational activities for development of the United Nations system (document E/2008/49) recommends that the Council may wish to recall that the Assembly requested the Secretary-General to prepare a report identifying human resources challenges within the United Nations development system at the country level, and formulating recommendations for improvement; and to request that this report be presented to the Council at its 2009 substantive session.

It also notes that the Council may wish to reiterate the Assembly’s call for the governing bodies of the United Nations funds, programmes and specialized agencies of the development system to take appropriate actions for the full implementation of resolution 62/208, which decided that, with the agreement and consent of relevant host countries, the United Nations development system should assist national Governments in creating an enabling environment in which the links and cooperation between national Governments and the United Nations development system are strengthened.

The Council may reiterate the request of the Assembly to the executive heads of those organizations to report annually to their governing bodies on measures taken and envisaged for the implementation of the resolution for the triennial comprehensive policy review.

Opening Statements

Opening the operational activities segment, Economic and Social Council Vice-President ANDREI DAPKIUNAS ( Belarus) said the segment’s agenda was particularly timely, as it was taking place during a year in which the United Nations was involved in a range of activities to promote development cooperation, including the Doha Review Conference on Financing for Development.  Indeed, the segment provided an opportunity to review how to improve the United Nations’ development cooperation ahead of such global processes.

He said the outcome document of the 2007 Triennial Comprehensive Policy Review (TCPR) confirmed that the universal, voluntary and grant nature of the United Nations system operations were part of the “unique added value” of the Organization’s support to developing nations.  Further, it underscored the need for the development systems to respond quickly to the varying development needs of programme countries.  The Council’s task during the segment was to ensure that the Organization launched the needed actions to implement TCPR recommendations.

The theme of the morning panel -- “The United Nations system in a changing aid environment:  implications and comparative advantages” -- was a timely one, he said.  International development cooperation had experienced drastic changes in recent years, with the emergence of new actors and aid modalities and the decline in official development assistance.  The principle of national ownership was at the core of both United Nations efforts and the TCPR.  The afternoon panel on “strengthening United Nations system’s responsiveness to different needs of programme countries” was also critical, as it underscored a “no one size fits all” approach to development.  The Council’s discussion with Executive Heads of the United Nations Funds and Programmes on the Millennium Development Goals would invite debate on how to promote progress towards the Goals, while tomorrow’s general debate would allow an exchange of views on United Nations preparations for implementing the TCPR.

Underscoring the Council’s critical role in coordinating the Organization’s work and providing clear directions to the funds and programmes on implementing policies defined by the General Assembly, he encouraged Members to reflect on how to deliver those functions in a more efficient, effective and timely way.

Deputy Secretary-General ASHA-ROSE MIGIRO opened the Council’s Operational Segment by reviewing the status of the implementation of General Assembly resolution 62/208 on the Triennial Comprehensive Policy Review (TCPR), which aims to shape United Nations development activities over the next three years, specifically on funding, national-capacity development and development effectiveness.  She said the resolution sent an important message to the organization, as well as the wider international community, that Member States were committed to its operational activities for development.

The Assembly’s recognition of the unique value of those activities was all the more critical now, against the backdrop of a dramatically changing landscape, with new actors and mew approaches gaining importance in development cooperation.  “It gives the United Nations strong impetus to make the most of these changes, strengthening efficiency and effectiveness to keep pace with emerging demands,” she said.  The resolution also confirmed that the internationally agreed development goals, including the Millennium Development Goals, formed the framework for United Nations activities, which should be based on how well they helped countries pursue poverty reduction, economic growth and sustainable development.

“In all operations for development, the United Nations is focused on building the capacity of programme countries based on their national priorities,” she said, stressing that the Policy Review challenged the world body and its programmes and agencies to do that in a number of areas, while enhancing national ownership and leadership of development activities.  The Review also recognized that strengthening the United Nations capacity to assist countries required continuous improvement in effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and impact, along with a significant increase in resources.

She went on to highlight two mandates that had emerged from the Policy Review, including the call to increase financial contributions to the United Nations system, notably to core or regular resources.  “This is essential for us to actively help programme countries respond to the many challenges that confront them today,” she said.  The second key mandate related to recommendations aimed at increasing the Organization’s overall coherence, effectiveness and relevance.  At the national level, the United Nations needed to support the central role of the Resident Coordinator in improving its effectiveness in responding to country priorities.

“And at Headquarters, we need to simplify and harmonize business practices,” she said, noting that recent reform of the United Nations System Chief Executives Board for Coordination (CEB), which had brought the United Nations Development Group (UNDG) under its purview, should enable the United Nations system to respond more coherently to the Policy Review demands.  “We can also strengthen coherence based on the experience gained in the eight pilot countries [participating in the “Delivering as One” initiative], which continue to attract attention from Member States,” she added.

She said that during its operational segment, the Council must ensure that the Policy Review resolution would, in the next three years, be carried out effectively across the Organization’s development system, and by Member States.  “The stakes are high,” she said, underscoring that the Secretariat was working to make the resolution’s provisions a reality.  At the same time, the Secretariat was also counting on Member States to do their part to enhance the effectiveness of operational development.

Turning next to introduce the key reports before the Council, she said the survey of the management process for implementing Assembly resolution 62/208, responded to the Assembly’s request for a report containing clear guidelines, targets, benchmarks and time frames for such implementation.  All organizations had joined forces to forge that work plan and she looked forward to the Council’s guidance on the best way to put it into action.

Also before the Council was a critical assessment of the resident coordinator system, which included some initial figures on costs and highlighted some examples of the benefits of country-level coordination, she said.  The report also looked at how the Organization’s development agencies participated in the resident coordinator system.  The Council’s direction and guidance would be important, including on the themes and scope of next year’s report, she added.

She said the Council was also set to take up a comprehensive statistical analysis of the finances of operational activities for development for 2006.  That report consolidated financial data on the contributions and expenditures of more than three dozen United Nations entities.  The total received for 2006 was $17.2 billion, representing a decrease of 2 per cent in real terms over the contributions received in 2005.  The expenditures of the United Nations system for operational activities in 2006 amounted to $16.4 billion.

Overall, that report served as a reminder of “the precarious funding situation” of the United Nations development system, she said, adding that later in the year, at the Assembly’s request, the Secretary-General would report on actions to improve the quality and quantity of funding for those operational activities.  “This operational activities segment is crucial,” she said in closing, stressing that, at the heart of its key coordination role, the Council must motivate action on the Triennial Comprehensive Policy Review and that this year offered an opportunity for the 54-member body to reflect on how it could carry out that function more effectively.

Panel Discussion on Changing Aid Environment

Mr. DAPKIUNAS chaired the panel discussion on “The United Nations System in a changing aid environment:  Implications and comparative advantages”.

Moderated by Abdoulie Janneh, Executive Secretary of the Economic Commission for Africa, the panel featured the participation of Francis K. Butagira, Permanent Representative of Uganda; Aiichiro Yamamoto, Resident Representative of Japan International Cooperation Agency; Thoraya Obaid, Executive Director of the United Nations Population Fund; and Bruce Jenks, Assistant Administrator and Director, Partnerships Bureau, United Nations Development Programme.  The lead discussant was Charles Riemen Schneider, Director, Investment Centre Division, Food and Agriculture Organization.

Noting that last week’s Development Cooperation Forum had revealed a number of challenges and opportunities resulting from a drastically changed international development arena, Mr. DAPKIUNAS said today’s dialogue would bring attention back to the role of the United Nations operational activities in helping countries achieve national development goals and the Millennium Development Goals.  The trends in aid volumes, the growing focus on the quality of aid and national ownership, and the increasing role of new aid modalities all impacted on the Organization’s role.  The morning’s discussion would focus, in particular, on the impact of those changes in development on the aid environment.

Opening the discussion, Mr. JANNEH said that, at a time when the triennial review was being examined, it was important to look at the way the United Nations system was positioning itself in the global development realm and how it was responding to the needs and requests of a number of aid partners, as official development assistance (ODA) was declining.  The United Nations could play a role in helping countries implement their aid programmes.  The universal nature of its standing in the world gave it a broad platform from which it could truly affect worldwide development.

At the heart of today’s discussion was how the United Nations system could adapt to the changes, he said.  In that, it was important to consider the actual and potential role of the United Nations system in making ODA and programme-based approaches more effective.  Improvements and key actions that should be made and taken should also be examined.

Mr. BUTAGIRA, taking up the decline in ODA, said that what had happened since developed countries pledged to devote 0.7 per cent of their gross national product (GNP) in the 1970s was “depressing”.  Only four countries had met that target.  In light of that failure, it was important to ask what had gone wrong and if the countries making those pledges had simply reneged on them, or if something was wrong with the international aid architecture.

Developing countries and developed countries had committed themselves to a set of development goals in Monterrey in 2002.  In return for improved governance on the part of developing countries, developed countries had pledged resources to assist in development goals.  While the developing countries had made progress on their part through such things as the Peer Review Mechanism in Africa, the developed countries had not significantly followed through. Indeed, only $3 billion of the $25 billion that had been pledged at Gleneagles in 2005 had so far been realized.

The issue of aid effectiveness was also compromised by an array of providers, such as bilateral donors, multilateral players like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, and individual partnership agreements.  As a result, there was a general lack of coordination, coherence and synergies between the various players engaged in aid delivery.  That was equally true within the United Nations system, with its various funds and programmes, as well as the United Nations Development Programme, the secretariats of various conventions, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, and various regional commissions and bodies.  In addition, attention was sometimes given unequally to different developing countries.

To remedy that situation, the United Nations system should be reformed to improve coordination and coherence to avoid duplication of effort, he said.  The current pilot projects going on in some countries regarding “delivering as one” at the country level was a step in the right direction.  Member States also make use of existing mechanisms, such as the Council’s Annual Ministerial Review and the biennial Development Cooperation Forum, to examine the whole issue of aid delivery, effectiveness and policy guidelines.

In addition, recipient countries should own aid delivery, so that maximum benefit could be derived from whatever aid is given, he continued.  There should also be a monitoring mechanism and benchmarks to make donor countries fulfil their commitments.  Stressing that donor and recipient countries should work in partnership, he said the focus of donor countries’ should be geared towards helping recipient countries own and manage their development agenda through fashioning appropriate poverty alleviation strategy papers.  In addition, the focus of the United Nations economic development agenda should be aid for trade.  Recipient countries should be assisted in developing infrastructure, manpower resources, and the necessary capacity, such as regulatory regimes that fostered private investment.

Taking the floor next, Mr. YAMAMOTO discussed the United Nations’ role as “guardian” of the Millennium Development Goals, and as platform for aid cooperation on the ground. On the first point, he said the Organization was the locomotive that pulled the international community towards achievement of the Goals.  Those efforts, however, were challenged by two imminent problems:  globalization and external shocks, such as the oil and food crises.  Touching on globalization, he discussed his organization’s “one village, one product” movement, which generated income for small-scale farmers.  In Africa, globalization had taken a particular toll on farmers, notably in Malawi, where domestically-produced milk and mushrooms had not made their way onto local supermarket shelves.  Under the current system, “hardworking people were not necessarily winners”.

On countries’ susceptibility to external shocks, he said the food crisis was in part due to the neglect of direct aid to agriculture, particularly to Africa, while natural disasters had affected poor people at unprecedented levels.  A lack of investment in disaster risk reduction had left poor people disproportionately affected, as seen in the aftermath of the Myanmar floods and earthquake in China.  Under such circumstances, the United Nations should tap its agencies’ expert knowledge of countries striving to achieve the Goals, notably that of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF).  He called for providing financial assistance for people starting small businesses, to achieve the Goals.

Turning to the function of the United Nations Resident Coordinator, he said all donors needed to share common knowledge, particularly in post-conflict situations, where reliable data was often lacking.  The United Nations should boost its capacities in the area of the common country assessment.  Its role on the ground should be respected.

Next, Ms. OBAID called for a behavioural change, saying that today’s challenges -- from widespread poverty, to hunger to climate change -- required a United Nations that was able to effectively deliver mandates.  On nationally led and owned development, she said Governments in all regions wanted to see more harmonization, stronger results and greater aid effectiveness.  That had been reflected in the General Assembly resolution on the Triennial Comprehensive Policy Review and Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness.  The funds, programmes and specialized agencies, as well as United Nations country teams, had worked intensively to both increase coherence and truly “deliver as one” in support of national development.

Turning to harmonized business practices, she said the High-Level Committee on Management had developed a draft plan in that area, which was presented last month to the General Assembly.  That plan had buy-in from 20 United Nations organizations, and dealt with existing practices within the jurisdiction of the heads in the areas of human resources, budget and finance, information and communications technology, enterprise resource planning, International Public Sector Accounting Standards and procurement.  It built on the belief that greater coherence in working practices could contribute to delivery of stronger development results.  On aligning with national priorities, she said aid effectiveness was in the service of programme countries, and the United Nations’ comparative advantage was that it had always focused on providing a platform for bringing parties together.  Country teams played a pivotal role in supporting national leadership and in helping partners verify that sector-based programmes benefited the poorest people.  She also described the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)’s work with parliamentarians, and activity in sector-wide approaches through its country offices.

Finally, on strategic partnerships, she said they were particularly important in the area of public health, and several United Nations agencies were working with partners through the “H8”, a group which included the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.  In closing, she said “if we let the goals drive the processes, we are more likely to succeed”.

Mr. JENKS said that, while the focus of the discussions was rightly on the comparative advantage of the United Nations system, it could be illuminating to approach the issue of aid effectiveness by focusing on ODA as a relationship between Governments and a type of multilateralism and when that was considered advantageous.  One way to look at it was to ask what States got out of multilateralism, and when multilateralism appeared to the hard -- that was, rational -- option.

He identified five different ways for understanding when multilateralism was a rational option.  The first, “pooling”, was a situation in which a number of clients and people wanted the same thing.  In that case, it made sense to pool resources and skill sets into a kind of knowledge centre or programme.  That was largely the thinking behind the United Nations system, with its different agencies and programmes.  The way that the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs had come together was one example of how the need for a critical mass of skills and activities could result in a whole organization aimed at one general activity.

A second case could be made for multilateralism when the opposite of pooling was needed.  Indeed, “outsourcing” occurred when no one wanted to do anything, and the task at hand was figuring out who would do it.  In that situation, the international community might be willing to fund the activity, but have it be carried out by another actor.  That case was perhaps best illustrated by “aid orphans”, or countries that were in need and deserving, but did not receive a focus.  Post-conflict countries were also part of that group.

The third area was related to globalization, he said, where there was a need for common responsibility and the regulation of global public goods.  That type of multilateralism could be seen in the United Nations system in such things as the World Health Organization, or in the current focus on climate change.  In that case, concerted action was often needed among unequal partners.  Sometimes the problems being tackled came from a failure of multilateralism.

The fourth area focused on countries that were looking for neutral assistance, he continued.  Neutrality had a perceived multilateralism advantage when countries sought a multiplicity of policy options.  Offers of assistance in which no strings were attached were also attractive.  The final area touched on donor countries.  They had an interest in multilateral forums, because unilateral action might be perceived as interference.  That was often seen in such areas as early recovery and democratic governance.

Overall, comparative advantage needed to be understood as those instances in which multilateralism was in demand, he said.  Yet, never had multilateralism been under such scrutiny or in such demand.  A greater understanding of how multilateralism and aid were interlinked was needed.  It had been understood at Monterrey.  He hoped it would be re-understood in time for Doha.

Kicking off the interactive segment of the panel, Mr. SCHNEIDER pointed to the Paris Declaration, which had articulated ways in which aid effectiveness could be enhanced, particularly through agricultural and rural development.  The Declaration had not resulted in the promised increase in ODA for rural and agricultural development.  In fact, that type of ODA had decreased by 58 per cent since then.

In that context, it was important to understand that aid and development effectiveness were intrinsically linked to aid volumes and the timely delivery of promised assistance.  Because increasing aid volume was only as good as its follow through, aid should be linked to improved development outcomes.  Agricultural growth was 2.5 times more effective in improving the real economic situation of poor households than investments in other parts of a country’s economy.

Yet, it was clear that development processes too often did not benefit those who needed it most, he said, that was certainly true in the agricultural sector.  In many countries, the sector was quite complex and measures needed to be put in place to provide avenues for full participation.  The Paris Declaration was notably silent on target beneficiaries.  That should be addressed as Doha approached, he stressed.

Development partnerships should also include mutual accountability, he continued. Steps to ensure the predictability of aid flows were key elements to a sound partnership.  In the agricultural sector, partnerships should include the participation of the private sector.  In the agricultural sector, more than any other sector, partnerships between development partners needed to consider the regional and national characteristics.

Several delegates then raised questions about the risks associated with pursuing comparative advantages, noting that the level of resources and their allocation often posed a major challenge for the system in that area.  The nature of today’s challenges was broad and mutually reinforcing, and the collaboration needed for cross-sectoral work had become “extremely critical”.  How was the system positioning itself -- mentally and technically -- for the delivery that countries required, and to help nations build capacities to respond to such issues?

The representative of Saint Lucia pointed out that multilateralism often tended to stifle diversity, and if the United Nations was a microcosm of the world, certain aspects of “population dynamics” applied:  one group would be able to superimpose its thinking on another; and acceptance would be gained with people thinking that their own ideas had been accepted, which was not the case.

Articulating the view of recipient countries, another speaker said that if the United Nations did not have a comparative advantage in technical assistance, it should develop one.  In that context, cooperation for development focused on building mutual trust and the United Nations should be a neutral broker in creating that among countries.

Other comments focused on the need to discuss the promotion of knowledge transfer, notably through South-South cooperation, and to take into account the regional dimension of development.  Also, it was important to ensure that the approach focused on inter-United Nations coordination.  On ODA delivery, speakers highlighted that, if the portion of ODA allocated to agriculture was increased, that would create a greater imperative to increase overall ODA levels.  Further, funds should not just flow to African agriculture.  They should help ensure that products reached national and international markets at fair prices.  Other queries focused on whether the Comprehensive Statistical Analysis report’s notation of contributions to non-United Nations multilateral institutions indicated a preference to contribute to such agencies, as opposed to United Nations agencies.

Responding to the comments and questions, Ms. OBAID said that, while many delegations had indicated that multilateralism was “we” -- meaning United Nations agencies -- really it was “you”.  “You decide what you want us to do,” she said, stressing that this idea had been missing during the discussion.

In the area of capacity-building, she said training could be provided, but if a Government did not implement appropriate reforms in its institutional systems to absorb and leverage the new skills, the capacity-building would be for nothing.

Continuing, she said that in the new aid environment, “you lead us”.  For example, when the pilot programme in Rwanda began, eight pillars, including agriculture, had been created.  But, the Rwandan Government said that, because the United Nations did not have a comparative advantage, it did not want that pillar to be implemented.

Turning to the question of regional commissions, she said that funds and programmes had not yet brought in the regional commissions for policy and strategy design and that should be done.  In addition, there had been the realization at UNFPA that it was too small to really deliver technical assistance to specific countries. Now, it was attempting to work with regional organizations to share information, thereby taking its expertise and inserting it into a knowledge network.

Mr. JENKS said one critical dimension of aid effectiveness was the issue of the Organization’s capacities and to what extent it was possible for it to give advice to the questions being asked.  The United Nations needed to be in a position to attract the very best expertise available, he added.

Taking up the issue of the need for objective policy advice to be presented through a number of options, he underscored the point made by the representative of Saint Lucia that too often the “comfortable” option was reached for.  Looking at the food crisis or the challenge of climate change, it was clear that a world in which one solution was sufficient no longer existed.

Saying farmers were not government employees, Mr. SCHNEIDER underlined that agriculture was different from other development sectors, because it was primarily implemented at the local, decentralized level. Thus, efforts to increase aid effectiveness that focused only at the national level might not appropriately address the challenges of agricultural development.  A balance was needed between investment in agriculture and in social sectors. He expressed agreement with Tanzania’s point that development needed to encompass all parts of the value chain.

Mr. YAMAMOTO said that, in Africa, there was a linkage between research and development and extension.  Because farmers did not learn from books, but from the voices and example of their fellow farmers, it was important to train them on the ground.

Responding to the question on budget support, he said that, in the past 10 years, donors and partners had learned both the advantages and risks of budget support.  Japan did not deny the efficacy of budget support, but it emphasized a number of other aid modalities.  He himself favoured project support.  As far as budget support was concerned, there was a big problem with exit support.  If, for example, 40 per cent of a government programme’s budget came from donor support, how could the government ever take over the budgeting for that programme?  Instead, project support could complement the weaknesses in a system by providing direct technical assistance, through training to those people who would provide the programme’s implementation.

He also stressed that the supply chain was key to achieving inclusive globalization, which aimed to benefit everyone equally, pointing to initiatives in Mozambique to can surplus tomatoes and in Ghana to produce shea-based soaps for export to international consumers.

Mr. BUTAGIRA emphasized that the issue of agricultural production was a very important topic and should be examined, as should effective trade liberalization and subsidies, especially as they related to food security in developing countries.  The problem of food prices had been going on for years in developing countries, largely because of imbalances in the trade system.  Responding to the comment that “Delivering as One” was merely a slogan, he said that, in his experience something was happening on the ground.

In closing, Mr. JANNEH said the United Nations system was reforming itself.  The Paris Declaration was not enough and should be given a more global focus.  In addition, it was clear that to increase aid effectiveness, aid had to be scaled up.  That would be the only way the United Nations could play the role expected of it.

Panel Discussion on Different Needs of Programme Countries

The panel discussion on “Strengthening the United Nations development system’s responsiveness to the different needs of programme countries”, was moderated by Assistant Secretary-General for Policy Coordination and Inter-Agency Affairs Thomas Stelzer.  Featured on the panel were José Luís Gutteres, Vice-Prime Minister of Timor-Leste; Henrique Banze, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs and Cooperation of Mozambique; Rodolfo Pastor Fasquelle, Coordinator of the Social Cabinet and Minister of Culture, Arts and Sports of Honduras; and Jan Vandemoortele, Senior Adviser on Policy, Division on Policy and Practice of United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and former United Nations Resident Coordinator in Pakistan.

Mr. STELZER said that the 2007 Triennial Comprehensive Policy Review had given clear mandates for strengthening the effectiveness and efficiency of the United Nations system, strongly reaffirmed the principle of national ownership and reiterated a “no-one-size-fits-all” approach.

He added that new demands had arisen from the need to help countries cope with such global dynamics as economic difficulty, rising food and energy prices and natural disasters, and because of that, the system had been called upon to adjust its support.  The Organization was making strides in increasing coordination and coherence at the country level, and the “Delivering as One” initiative was a good example of that.  The panellist from Mozambique would update the Council on lessons learned from pilot countries, while other panellists, who represented non-pilot countries, would share their country’s experiences on how well the system was adjusting its support to their situations.

Taking the floor first, Mr. GUTTERES said it had not been easy for his country to find a solution to the issue of internally displaced persons, a problem that fell under his jurisdiction.  Weekly meetings with the Secretary-General’s Special Representative had been very successful, however, as had those held with United Nations agencies.  Those meetings had helped to find solutions acceptable to the displaced persons themselves, and he hoped 80 per cent of them would return home by yearend.

In a broader context, he said: “We know we are in a situation of crisis,” and he welcomed the Secretary-General’s efforts to create a food crisis Task Force.  For a country such as his, which was not self-sufficient in food production, rising prices had taken a large toll on the development process, which was why, in the mid-term budget review, the Government had allocated $240 million to that issue.  A focus on agriculture was also needed, as was investment in rural development.

Investment in education also was needed, and Government resources would be allocated for professional training to prepare young generations for the labour market.  In addition, the Government was working to provide electricity to all areas in Timor-Leste by 2010.  Transitioning from a post-conflict situation called for dealing with the problem of former combatants, and the Government on 15 July would start pension payments to 12,000 beneficiaries.  Similarly, it would start pension payments to 70,000 to 80,000 elderly and disabled people.

Next, Mr. BANZE discussed the Maputo Seminar, which had been organized by his Government and included representatives of the eight “Delivering as One” Governments, who had discussed, among other things, the constraints and challenges in implementing that initiative.  During that meeting, a working group debate had been based on analyses that identified constraints and challenges.  The initial indication was that the pilot process was yielding results in responding to national development plans and progress.  National ownership of the “partnership” had been enhanced as a result of the “Delivering as One” initiative.  Pilot countries had agreed that the “no-one-size-fits-all” principle was indeed being implemented and that the one budget framework had both fostered transparency and allowed for the planning of resources.

Among the constraints, he said, participants had identified a lack of predictability and timeliness in funding; little harmonization of business practices; high transaction costs; and poor alignment of United Nations capacity with national priorities.  To address such issues, participants had recommended improving national coordination structures.  In addition, operational activities should focus on national capacity-building and strategic support for poverty reduction, among other things.  The role and authority of the International Red Cross needed to be further clarified.

As for United Nations Headquarters, steps should be taken with a view to supporting the consolidation of gains achieved at the country-level, he said. Through the Chief Executives Board, the Organization should investigate a simplified process to addressing country problems.  Urging a more proactive United Nations, Maputo participants had called for a renegotiation of contracts commensurate with the new global aid environment.  In closing, he invited the General Assembly to support programme countries in their efforts to increase the effectiveness of the entire system.

Next, Mr. FASQUELLE said that Honduras had recently achieved “middle-income” status, but had already begun to experience some significant changes in its development cooperation.  Indeed, several European countries had announced that they would no longer provide Honduras with development assistance.  That, and other actions, had made the Government somewhat ambivalent about the changes in the country’s economic status.  He reminded the Council that international aid had helped Honduras take actions to steadily improve its socio-economic situation over the past two decades.  It had also helped the country recover from the devastation wrought by Hurricane Mitch.   Honduras had also been one of the pilot countries selected for the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative, he added.

Even though Honduras had significantly improved its gross domestic product, it still faced development obstacles, especially in bridging the wide economic inequalities and disparities between the county’s different populations and regions.  National averages were, in fact, disguising serious and disparate socio-economic difficulties.  By example, he noted that, while in some coastal regions unemployment hovered at around 17 per cent, in indigenous areas it often climbed as high as 45 per cent.  That was something that needed to be taken into consideration when setting up development cooperation schemes.

He said natural disasters, as well as the current food and energy sector shocks, were also putting pressure on Honduras’ development efforts, especially because it was a net food and fuel importer.  “Our country also needs far-reaching political reforms, because it is the current political systems that had [paved the way] for the current inequalities,” he said, calling for an overall reassessment of development cooperation for Honduras.

Honduras firmly believed that the United Nations could help address a serious of lingering and emerging challenges, including in the area of political stability, he said.  The United Nations could also generate foreign donor interest in Honduras, to further strengthen its development activities.

The final panellist, Mr. VANDEMOORTELE, said that, in his experience, the “Delivering as One” initiative was yielding positive results, especially in the area of coherence and in aligning the Organization’s engagement with country-level needs.  That initiative had also been successful in coordinating the vast array of United Nations activities under way in several of the pilot countries.  At the same time, while the overall efforts to provide an effective and coherent response were commendable, the speed at which programmes were put into action on the ground was not.  That was an issue that needed to be urgently addressed.

To that end, he said that, while the Organization had been successful in implementing three of the “four ones” of the “Delivering as One” initiative -- proving one programme, one budget and one leader -- it had been least impressive when it came to the “one office” element.  That deficiency was true not only in terms of working out of one premises, but also in terms of business practices on the ground.

The ultimate goal was to “deliver as one”, and that would remain elusive without faster, more proactive and more determined intervention by the Secretariat on that issue.  “Such matters are global in scope and that meant being addressed at Headquarters,” he added, calling for a more coherent response by the Chief Executive Board for Coordination.  He also called on the Secretariat to help lessen the degree of fragmentation among country-level programmes, chiefly by enhancing national ownership and programme management in the Organization’s humanitarian and development work.

In an interactive discussion that followed, speakers drew attention to the fact that enhancing national capacity meant that the United Nations had to take account of that dimension in its approach.  In that regard, the Organization could play a unique role in transition situations, and in enhancing national capacity for managing projects.

Some speakers pointed out that the United Nations was part of a larger international development architecture, and wondered whether panellists could determine whether the system had been more responsive to their specific country needs than other partner programmes.  Also, specialized agencies, funds and programmes had adopted broad strategies on thematic issues -- had that improved United Nations responsiveness to programme country situations?

Responding, Mr. GUTTERES said the United Nations presence in his country had been positive in achieving stabilization and development.  Another four years would allow enough time to ensure that national structures could assume all responsibilities.  He did not think any one person could have anticipated a global crisis of such scale as had occurred.  It was such that the World Food Programme, contrary to past practice, could not continue distribution to internally displaced persons, and the Government had had to take over responsibility.  Generally, agencies were very willing to cooperate to improve the situation.  In addition, investing in agriculture and rural development was important, as it would help ensure a minimum food supply for people.

Mr. BANZE said “Delivering as One” had begun with a high-level panel and culminated with eight pilot countries.  “It is a process and we are learning across that process,” he said.  Its contribution to overall United Nations reform was important, and he was confident that the initiative was crucial to reform efforts.  As to whether the United Nations had been responsive to bilateral partners, he said the question of ownership and leadership was important, as was the idea of inclusiveness in the process.  It was a joint effort, and dialogue should be a permanent characteristic of that effort.

Mr. FASQUELLE remarked that the Council should formulate a strategy that included human development and vulnerability indicators, as well as those that measured economic income.  It was essential that coordination be effective and, as such, Resident Coordinators should have more authority.

Mr. VANDERMOORTELE asserted that “Delivering as One” was not “the be all and end all” of improving effectiveness at the country level.  Facing a towering challenge required breaking down the situation to see areas of progress.  The value of the pilot countries was that they had shown that the United Nations could overcome the inherent inhibition of sectoral and single discipline approaches.  The biggest challenge of the last six decades had been in understanding how to practice a multidisciplinary and multisectoral approach.

One speaker said that the funding was the issue that everyone seemed to be skirting.  “But the capacity to act depends on how much money you have or how much is made available,” he said.  Under current conditions, programme countries were really feeling the pinch, especially since every year, the United Nations was being asked to “tighten its belt”.  “We believe that we are really at the last hole in the belt,” he added.  Moreover, the same degree of enhanced attention should be devoted to bolstering human resources, especially since building national capacities could strengthen the capacity of the United Nations as a whole.

Another speaker was troubled, because, unlike the issue of funding, which no one was talking about, everyone seemed to be discussing coherence, but not with a view to clearing up discrepancies.  Indeed, the coherence issue remained cloudy, especially regarding the Secretariat’s role.  The Organization’s on-the-ground activities needed to be implemented jointly and in a timely, efficient and coherent manner.  Even though everyone knew that, business practices tended to fragment at the implementation stage, exactly the point where coherence was most critical.  One delegate added that he was even unclear about just how far the principle of coherence should go.  Were all country-level programmes to be eventually merged into one strategy, thus becoming cumbersome and losing their flexibility and facility to address changing needs and priorities? he asked.

Wrapping up the discussion, Council Vice-President DAPKIUNAS urged the participants not to get caught up in labels, intimidated by terminology or be put off by innovation.  The “Delivering as One” programme was yielding good results, especially in the area of cooperation.  Moreover, it was a newly launched initiative and was, in fact, but one of the interventions that could assist developing countries.  At the same time, it was clear that the issue of harmonizing business practices at the country level deserved closer consideration by the Council and the wider United Nations system.  Indeed, with all the modern innovations of the day, there must be a way to address that issue in a satisfactory manner, he added.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record