|
|
| |
|
ECOSOC Substantive Session July 5, 2001 Mr. President, A great deal of progress has been made since the last Triennial Review. The UNDAF process continues to be refined leading to simplification and harmonization of UN procedures, especially program cycles. Collaboration with the Bretton Woods Institutions is becoming increasingly more focused on substantive issues. The Resident Coordinator system is being strengthened by the use of a competency assessment, inclusion of qualified candidates from UN organizations other than UNDP and a steady increase in the number of women Resident Coordinators. While serious challenges remain, the benefits of working together at headquarters and in the field are becoming more pronounced. Greater use of the Common Country Assessment (CCA) and UN Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF), as well as theme groups in the critical areas of HIV/AIDS, gender, poverty alleviation, education, and health and nutrition has the potential to lead to a more coherent policy dialogue with national governments and other partners. As many speakers this morning mentioned, the governments of program countries must be closely involved in coordination efforts. It is advisable that country teams do some internal capacity building to ensure that the purpose of the mechanism --strategic planning and collaborative programming -- remains the focus of the effort. Mr. President, the United States appreciates the detailed report from the Secretary-General on progress in implementation of General Assembly Resolution 53/192. We commend the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, the UN Development Group, and the Funds and Programs for their serious approach to implementation of the Resolution. The Triennial report leaves no doubt that strong leadership and good governance, good policies and accountable institutions, and intensive human and organizational capacity building, are crucial elements in the alleviation of poverty. The report also notes that case studies indicate that given the right environment, the UN system can be highly effective in helping recipient countries to improve the lives of all their citizens by reducing poverty. Strong political leadership in the country and a capable, unified, and well-led UN country team are essential ingredients for the creation of the right environment, one that demands that all operational agencies, no matter their specialization, see poverty alleviation as the overarching goal of their mandates. Mr. President, there are two recurring refrains in the Triennial report: first, if the UN is to remain relevant in the rapidly changing economic and political reality of the 21st Century , its many entities must work together with a singularity of purpose, to achieve the peaceful environment in which the alleviation of poverty becomes possible; and second, the issue of the separate institutional identities, cultures, and mandates of the UN organizations. There was indeed a time when the faith of many donors and program countries in the development arm of the UN wavered. We believe, however, that faith is now being restored, and that the reforms undertaken to date provide a solid foundation for further progress. The U.S. fully agrees with the Secretary-general's address to the UNDP Ministerial Conference in September of last year, that without development the rest of the UN mission would be impossible. Trying to prevent conflict without the promise of reconstruction and development would be a useless quest. But the UN's approach to development in any given country should be of a piece --an integrated response -and have the program country government fully engaged and on-board. As to the second issue --yes, it is important that the institutional identities of the UN development organizations remain distinct. Effective advocacy and issue-oriented focus depend on it. But individual organizational cultures should not be obstacles to the development of a common UN policy framework at the country-level. That framework should guide the formulation of a coherent UN response to the development priorities and needs as determined by a country's government in consultation with all relevant parties including civil society, the UN, the Bretton Woods Institutions, and regional and bilateral aid organizations. The progress made toward simplified and harmonized programming, budgets and administrative practices is encouraging and deserves our continuing support as the system addresses the remaining challenges for further harmonization. The United States appreciates the detailed discussion on the CCA and UNDAF. We consider these instruments of major importance in ensuring that the UN development agencies' contribution to a country's development plan is complementary, coherent and cohesive. The evaluation was frank and useful. Some findings were disappointing -- none more so than intermittent and inconsistent participation of developing countries in the process, surely a fundamental requirement to the success of overall development planning by the country and the UN organizations. The detailed and analytical nature of the evaluation provide ample direction, however, for improving both instruments. We continue to believe that they are indispensable to establishing a "UN system culture" that will enhance team building and reinforce the collective identity of the country teams. Additionally, the benefits of a technically and substantively excellent CCA are numerous, including its potential value in guiding policy dialogue, enhancing the ability of a country to monitor international goals, and building national capacity in statistical competence and data gathering. A word about the CCA/UNDAF and their relation to other frameworks. This area deserves close attention for the sake of synergy among the various processes, to avoid duplication and overlap, and to avoid placing an undue burden on country teams. The UN instruments, as well as the World Bank's Comprehensive Development Strategy (CDF) and the IMF's Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) are all recent, hence still open to adjustments and refinement. We encourage the UN to continue working closely with governments, the Bretton Woods Institutions and bilateral aid organizations to ensure that the diverse development efforts work toward a common purpose --the alleviation of poverty. Until recently, the UN development system remained aloof from immediate involvement in post-conflict situations to the detriment of conflict victims and rapid reconstruction. This is now changing under pressure from executive boards, the UN itself, and program countries. The tools and mechanisms, such as the CCA/UNDAF , the Consolidated Inter-Agency Appeal Process (CAP), and the Resident Coordinator system, are in place to implement a comprehensive recovery strategy. We are encouraged that the UN leadership, at the highest level, continues to work on clarifying the inter-relationships among relief, development, political, and peace operations as well as the Resident Coordinator, the Humanitarian Coordinator, and the Special Representative of the Secretary-general (SRSG), where present. Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in particular, provide unique opportunities for the UN as a whole to assist them effectively in their endeavor to restore equitable and accountable political, economic, and social systems, and to return them to fold of peaceful nations. We have been strong supporters of mainstreaming gender in the operational activities in the field and we are pleased that much good work is being done, especially in the area of sex-disaggregated data collection and analysis. We encourage further work in the areas of equitable access to financial and productive resources to ensure a reverse in the feminization of poverty. We encourage the Secretary-general to continue to explore the possibility of incorporating regional and sub-regional dimensions into UN operational activities. The traditional country-focused development structure of most agencies will not remain responsive if regional and sub-regional considerations are not taken into account. Economic and security concerns in many countries, especially those that are small, landlocked or in conflict, demand regional dialogue and close cooperation with regional commissions. Rivers, deserts, forests and mountain ranges do not recognize borders; neither do criminals who trade in human beings, weapons, and conflict diamonds. The changes being brought about in the UN development system --in the ACC, the UNDG, and the individual organizations --are beginning to manifest themselves in a more flexible system that can respond effectively and quickly to the changing development environment. More needs to be done. Institutional practices and divisions of labor that were efficient and cost-effective several years ago must be constantly reviewed to gauge their continuing value. This is already being done in decentralizing what were, heretofore, headquarters functions and decision-making powers. Yesterday's development delivery systems must be revisited and, when necessary, re-engineered to make them more responsive to today's need for speed, flexibility, expertise and accountability in program implementation. We encourage the UN development system to review all project delivery modalities, including national execution and direct execution, against the demands for accountability and capacity building. In this context, we can support Canada' s suggestion that the Council reconsider the role of pledging conferences. Finally, Mr. President, the Secretary-general, in the report before us, poses some searching questions about the future of the UN development organizations in terms of flagging donor funding and the growth of other institutions and channels in development cooperation. Unfortunately, many years of bad choices, indifferent management and disregard for accountability and results, put the UN development organizations at risk. The failure to ensure the sustainability of costly development initiatives because of inability or unwillingness to institute internal and external reforms that demand accountability and good governance of itself and program countries, caused a loss of trust in the UN --a trust that it is only now beginning to return. The strong leadership of the Secretary-general and the heads of the UN development system organizations, agencies, funds and programs, has been instrumental in rekindling that trust. The U .S. is confident that the increasing clarity and renewed commitment, evident in the reforms already put in place, have every potential of showing good results in the field in the near future. A clear focus based on the comparative advantages of the UN development system entities; a strengthened Resident Coordinator system; a diverse, expert but unified country team; effective theme groups; and, accountable and transparent development delivery systems will create the indispensable support to program countries that should enable them to implement the reforms needed to alleviate poverty and ensure economic growth. Thank you Mr. President.
|