United Nations Must Integrate Diverse Operational Activities for Development to Better Target National Needs, Says Economic and Social Council President
Segment Pauses Pending Action on Wide-Ranging Resolution
A truly transformative post-2015 agenda demanded adaptation and change from the United Nations development system across the board, the President of the Economic and Social Council said today, as debate concluded on improving the Organization’s internal processes and external interventions designed to help countries strengthen national institutions and improve peoples’ well-being.
While wrapping up the main part of its 2015 operational activities segment, the Council left the door open to adopt a 10-page draft resolution, on progress in the implementation of General Assembly resolution 67/226 on the Quadrennial Comprehensive Policy Review of operational activities — the mechanism through which it evaluates the coherence, effectiveness and funding of the United Nations’ 27 programmes, funds and specialized agencies for development.
Introduced today by the representative of South Africa on behalf of the Group of 77 developing countries and China, the text, when adopted, would outline the Council’s position on such issues as funding for operational activities, poverty eradication and South-South cooperation.
“The United Nations development system is at a crossroads,” said President Martin Sajdik, highlighting key messages from the Council’s three-day review of the system’s longer-term positioning. The requirements of the post-2015 agenda demanded that the Organization develop capacity to shift seamlessly between specialization and integration in the delivery of its operational activities. At the country level, that meant providing expertise, rather than representation — notably through country teams rather than a “multitude” of offices in a capital city.
Importantly, he said, funding would need to align with the new functions reflected in the post-2015 agenda. The current “fragmented” funding architecture of operational activities was not suited to facilitating cooperation. The use of core, thematic, pooled and system-wide funding mechanisms must be strengthened. It was critical to complete reforms at Headquarters level to support common business operations, as well as results management and reporting.
As the number of United Nations Development Assistance Frameworks that promoted South-South cooperation was expected to grow, he said, it was important to better understand State expectations. Demand for the United Nations’ “upstream” policy advisory role was on the rise and it would be equally important to strengthen the use of national capacities in delivering operational activities.
Along those lines, the day featured a panel discussion on the effectiveness of United Nations system support for capacity-building, during which experts weighed the Organization’s ability to deliver results amid a growing number of actors on the international scene.
In a special briefing via video link, Carlos Lopes, Executive Secretary of the Economic Commission for Africa, in his personal capacity, said other more nimble actors had shown they were better able to respond to emergencies, such as Ebola, in part because of their flexible internal processes that had allowed them to adapt to evolving ground conditions. In turn, the United Nations needed “adaptive bureaucracies” backed by flexible rules and regulations. It should rationalize the administrative costs of delivery and understand how operating standards impinged travel, logistics and procurement.
Also today, the Council concluded its general discussion on operational activities for international development cooperation.
The Economic and Social Council will reconvene at a time and date to be announced.
Panel on Effectiveness of UN System Support for Capacity-Building
Titled “Effectiveness of United Nations system support for capacity-building”, the discussion was moderated by Jens Wandel, Assistant Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and Director of the Bureau of Management. It featured presentations by Kikeo Chanthaboury, Vice Minister, Ministry of Planning and Investment, Lao People’s Democratic Republic; Tubagus Achmad Choesni, Director for International Development Cooperation, State Ministry of National Development Planning/BAPPENAS of Indonesia; Thomas Gass, Assistant Secretary-General for Policy Coordination and Interagency Affairs, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs; and Jafar Javan, Director of the United Nations System Staff College, Turin, Italy.
Delivering a special address via video link, CARLOS LOPES, Executive Secretary of the Economic Commission for Africa (ECA), in his personal capacity, said the United Nations no longer enjoyed its traditional “preserve” in development. The inter-relational nature of development was characterized by more assertiveness among developing countries and a tendency towards regionalization, with stronger country groupings and fragmentation of once-globalized power domains. New actors were changing the global economic system: the world was becoming multipolar. The United Nations’ partnership with traditional donors in offering technical assistance was not as straightforward as it had been. He urged greater understanding of new and emerging players on the development scene and their impact on the Organization’s role.
Outlining challenges, he said the United Nations must reposition itself on the international landscape by strengthening internal processes in order to fully embrace a leadership role in the new global context. Today’s actors were nimble and quickly responded to emergencies, such as Ebola. They were better able to deliver interventions, in part, because of their flexible internal processes, which allowed them to respond to changing environments. The United Nations, in turn, needed adaptive bureaucracies backed by flexible rules and regulations. The development system should rationalize the administrative costs of delivery, and review the efficacy of operating standards and how they impinged travel, logistics and procurement. The system could consider making corresponding changes to planning, programming and budgeting.
Next was the challenge of effective coordination in a “blurred” development environment, he said, stressing the need for balancing the role of States with the rise of regional entities and blocs. Those dynamics had altered inter-State cooperation outside the United Nations, as had the rise of regional governance in various areas, including trade, finance, health and environment. Regional groups’ involvement or tacit support for the smooth delivery of United Nations interventions was important for the Organization’s diplomacy and other functions.
In addition, he said, the United Nations — with its political, legal and moral leadership — had a role to play as custodian of global public goods, as had been seen in the design of the sustainable development goals, which were based on universal principles and standards. The Organization could also offer custodianship for the development of statistics as a global public good. Sustained funding would be required to support such work. Capacity development must respect national ownership and transformation. As developing countries had to consider “mega-trends”, such as shifts in political and economic power structures, demography, urbanization and technology — all requiring strengthened capacity at institutional, policy and strategic levels — the Organization’s capacity development efforts must take into account the changing landscape.
Responding to a question by the United States’ representative on new and emerging players in capacity building, Mr. LOPES said they were a sign that the United Nations had to change the nature of its interventions. Being agile gave stature to non-governmental organizations, philanthropists and individuals. The United Nations could not be too static; its specialization must be complemented by quality interventions with a level of efficiency that it was not yet providing.
Opening the panel, Mr. CHANTHABOURY said capacity-building was now seen as an endogenous, country-driven process at the core of development, requiring the involvement of all sectors. External support should not be limited to enhancing skills, but also to addressing institutional, organizational and social dimensions. Challenges to implementing results-based approaches included difficulty in credibly attributing results to an organization’s activities, especially if the amount of resources invested was modest compared to that of other actors. Performance measurement also focused on output delivery, rather than on contributions of those outputs made to the achievement of country results. Harmonization of results-based approaches and lack of accurate statistics were also obstacles. At the field level, country support required staff with technical skills in all areas of human activity, and the ability to reconcile competing demands for programmes in the context of scarce resources.
Mr. CHOESNI said the United Nations’ work was organized around policy advocacy support, used for strengthening national action plans; capacity-building, which supported individual skills and institutional competence; and knowledge-sharing, which improved the country’s global expertise. The United Nations should improve the quality of its support for Indonesia through a “catalytic feature”, he said, noting that there were 22 United Nations entities in his country. Among the outcomes was the Organization’s endorsement of a national early child development strategy, a democracy index and an early warning system for disasters. On the advantages and weaknesses of programmes implemented under the purview of the Government and UNDP, he said the United Nations could bridge the communication gap between the Government and other stakeholders. It also could provide capacity-building at national and sub-national levels. It was seen as impartial, able to advocate international standards. Its weaknesses included the coordination among its agencies, its complex bureaucracy, short-term programmes and lack of flexibility in programme implementation. He suggested it adjust its guidelines to the Indonesian context.
Mr. GASS said capacity-building was at the core of the post-2015 agenda. Draft sustainable development goal 17 — on strengthening the means of implementation — included three capacity development targets: one that supported national plans for implementing those Goals; one focused on increasing the availability of timely, disaggregated data; and a third on the importance of supporting statistical capacity-building. Eight of the remaining 16 Goals also referred to capacity-building, including three in the Goal on climate change. Outlining challenges, he said a non-core resource funded environment was not optimal for risk sharing. Resources were lacking in results-based management.
He said the Quadrennial Comprehensive Policy Review report outlined ways to improve support for national capacity-building. First, the development system must review its internal capacities to support countries in implementing the sustainable development goals. Coordinated responses to capacity development needs were also required. Different funding modalities had different policy implications for capacity-building.
Mr. JAVAN said capacity-building was a process by which society unleashed, adapted and created capability over time. He examined capacity development through the lens of national ownership, partnership, comparative advantage and maximum effectiveness and accountability, which were the four elements of “development effectiveness” among the United Nations country teams. National ownership required a range of national actors — State and non-State, formal and non-formal — that were committed to reform. Too many programmes focused on low-level issues or technical issues alone, rather than on capacity development. On partnership, joint efforts by the public, civil society and private actors were important. He believed there was insufficient understanding in the United Nations about what partnership development meant and equipping for it. On comparative advantage, he asked whether the United Nations’ programming tools were sufficiently geared towards transformative change. “The question is still open,” he said, noting that more balance was needed, as were catalytic tools to foster transformative change. On maximum effectiveness/accountability, development challenges had become more “horizontal” and inter-disciplinary, he said, requiring the United Nations to align its work accordingly.
Responding to a question by the representative of Norway on improving national capacities, Mr. CHANTHABOURY cited the importance of needs assessments and encouragement of local volunteers among others in the United Nations system framework.
Mr. CHOESNI said the United Nations was paid “to make my staff smarter”, an issue he regularly mentioned in meetings with United Nations consultants. Sustainability must be based on partnership. Even needs assessments must be jointly undertaken, as nationals might understand local realities better than the United Nations. Mr. GASS added that the United Nations had to measure capacity-building differently.
Rounding out the comments, Mr. JAVAN said that, in order for capacity-building to be sustainable, the United Nations must ensure it had the capacity to do what was expected of it. The other part was to support national institutions mandated to provide training to nationals — universities and management schools, for example.
The Council also concluded its general debate on operational activities for development, in which delegates echoed calls for “reinvigorated” structures of the United Nations development system, especially as it was expected to play a central role in the post-2015 agenda.
In that context, Brazil’s delegate pointed out that the promised structured dialogue with the Chief Executives Board thus far had been an “unfulfilled promise”. Arrangements for financial assistance should not lead to reduced developed country commitments, he said, noting that an integrated approach to financing for development should offer more coherence.
The representative of Viet Nam said United Nations entities should support countries in integrating the sustainable development goals into their development strategies. As such, the system should be more efficient and responsive at all levels. The “Green One United Nations House” was the new home for United Nations agencies in her country, a move expected to reduce operating costs by $500,000 per year. Going forward, United Nations agencies must better support country progress, while donors should provide increased and predictable funding.
On that point, the representative of Argentina said that equity once meant “equal opportunities”. Today, it also included fostering equal conditions and treatment. “We must achieve a world that is more fair, inclusive and equal,” she said, reiterating the need for coherence and efficiency amid stagnant funding from the regular budget and increased extra-budgetary funding. Support from the regular budget promoted the system’s alignment with country priorities, in sync with the principles of neutrality and national ownership.
In terms of harmonizing business practices, the representative of Germany said the system must find new ways to help countries transition from relief to development, including through support to recovery processes that bridged the gap between humanitarian interventions and longer-term development. Germany also supported the merit-based selection of Resident Coordinators and efforts to address Headquarter-level bottlenecks that prevented the “Delivering as One” approach from fully realizing its potential.
Removing those bottlenecks, said the representative of the European Union Delegation, required the streamlining of programming, funding, reporting and accountability mechanisms, especially through the full implementation of the Management and Accountability Framework. He also urged all funds, programmes and specialized agencies to monitor the cost-sharing arrangement in support of the resident coordinator system.
Following the debate, the representative of South Africa, on behalf of the Group of 77 developing countries and China, introduced a draft resolution on “Progress in the implementation of General Assembly resolution 67/226 on the quadrennial comprehensive policy review of operational activities for development of the United Nations system”, on which the Council would take action at a later date.