The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) this afternoon opened its Operational Activities Segment, hearing a presentation of reports by the Secretary-General on overall progress in implementing General Assembly resolution 62/208, funding for operational activities for development, functioning of the resident coordinator system, and simplification and harmonization of the United Nations development system, which was followed by a panel discussion on the “2012 quadrennial comprehensive policy review of the General Assembly: Issues, process and outcome”.

Gonzalo Gutiérrez Reinel, Vice-President of the Economic and Social Council, opening the segment, said that this year the Council had the important responsibility to steer the preparations for the 2012 General Assembly Comprehensive Policy Review of United Nations operational activities. The United Nations had to demonstrate that it was able to produce development results in developing countries and should be more agile in responding to changes and to various country needs. Agility and flexibility were critical. The United Nations should be demand-driven in all circumstances. National priorities and ownership were the ultimate denominators.

Thomas Stelzer, Assistant Secretary-General for Policy Coordination and Inter-Agency Affairs, introducing the reports of the Secretary-General on overall progress in implementing General Assembly resolution 62/208, funding for operational activities for development, functioning of the resident coordinator system, and simplification and harmonization of the United Nations development system, said that the Operational Activities Segment provided a unique opportunity to take a broader look at emerging issues that were likely to affect United Nations operational activities in the near future. Although Member States had underscored that capacity development was a core function of the United Nations system operational activities for development, indicators to assess capacity development results had yet to be developed. The reflection on the post 2015 goals would also impact countries’ priorities and how emerging needs were addressed would be crucial to its continuous relevance in these countries. Demonstrating results at the country-level would be especially critical for the United Nations system.

Introducing the panel discussion on the 2012 quadrennial comprehensive policy review of the General Assembly, Mr. Gutiérrez Reinel said that next Comprehensive Policy Review of the United Nations system operational activities for development would allow Member States to give guidance to the United Nations system on how it should work in programme countries. The rapidly evolving development cooperation landscape had wide ranging implications for the operational activities of the United Nations system. Innovative approaches had come to the fore, such as south-south cooperation. The panel discussion intended to point to critical developments which should be addressed and spur reflection on how the United Nations’ current approaches and tools needed to be adjusted or changed in order to respond more effectively to emerging needs and situations.

Jane Stewart, International Labour Organization Special Representative to the United Nations and Director, International Labour Organization Office in New York, moderator of the panel discussion, reiterated the comment made by Mr. Gutiérrez concerning the importance of being coherent, agile and flexible in order to achieve the cost-effectiveness that the United Nations needed to reflect in its work, particularly in country offices. Being result-oriented could be challenging and there were questions about how to best report results, because there were some results, particularly in the context of development. There was work, currently under way, on a strategic plan that had been embraced at national, regional and global level and built upon the triennial comprehensive review and provided a lot of direction and guidance. As an organization, furthermore, comparative advantages should be recognized and effectively employed in order to make a difference and cater to countries’ needs and, on this basis, be agile and flexible.

Edward Sambili, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of State for Planning, National Development and Vision 2030, Kenya, speaking as a panellist, said that the ownership aspects of the United Nations were evolving and recent developments, which involved initiatives such as the United Nations Development Assistant Framework and the Delivering as One programme, had gone a long way to help Member States in responding to their priorities. The United Nations was becoming more effective and efficient by jointly developing plans and programmes with countries and reducing transaction costs. Countries’ institutional capacity to deliver was sometimes low and the United Nations needed to provide support in this regard at the country and regional level. Because this allocated autonomy to local units, the United Nations needed to support local capacity building.

Thomas Gass, Ambassador of Switzerland to Nepal and Facilitator of the 2007 triennial comprehensive policy review of the General Assembly, speaking as a panellist, stressed that before asking the question of ownership and leadership, it was important to ask how much leadership it was realistic to expect. On the other hand, it was clear that the United Nations system delivered products to countries and these needed to meet the demands at the local level. For these reasons, there was a need to strike a balance between these types of leadership and the demands on the ground. In this regard, the quadrennial comprehensive policy review had to be ambitious; otherwise there was a danger that decisions would be diluted and delegated to bureaucratic decision-making.

Susan McDade, United Nations Resident Coordinator and United Nations Development Programme Resident Representative in Uruguay, speaking as a panellist, said that United Nations Development Assistance Frameworks had served to focus the United Nations system around priorities defined by the country governments. Uruguay was a pilot country in the United Nations Development Assistance Framework and the process had been successful in coordinating among government agencies and United Nations organizations. The common fund from which priorities could be met empowered the countries to align United Nations work. The United Nations was able to be relevant by pooling resources and focusing on specific topics.

During the interactive discussion moderated by Ms. Stewart, speakers said that United Nations Resident Coordinators were calling for simplification and harmonization of systems and procedures. As lessons began to be drawn from the Deliver as One programme, programmes needed to continue to be demand-led and country-led. Flexibility, accountability and different approaches for different country settings were required. Once programmes had been successful, they could be scaled-up and replicated but expertise was key at the outset. Efficiency and effectiveness could improve the system but also support, through different funding measures, was needed so that cooperation could flourish. Speakers asked if the process constituted a radical reform to the United Nations development system. Speakers asked how indicators and measurable outcomes could be developed to be useful but also so that people could understand them. The United Nations development system was not being very prompt in responding to the needs on the ground, involving the partners for developing programmes and activities. The door to programming discussions was not yet open. While on the ground the involvement of all stakeholders was increasing day-by-day, consultation with development partners, but also with the government itself, was lacking. While the Resident Coordinators were doing a great job, they still considered the government as their competitors. Speakers asked whether United Nations processes related to national execution were going to be assessed.

In the interactive discussion, the United Nations Development Programme, Peru, Bangladesh, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Cameroon, Pakistan, Brazil, Uruguay, Spain and Germany, Nepal, the Russian Federation, the World Health Organization, and Norway took the floor.

ECOSOC will reconvene at 10 a.m. on Friday, 15 July to continue its Operational Activities Segment and will hold a dialogue with the Executive Heads of United Nations funds and programmes on “Looking to the future of operational activities for development of Funds and Programmes: Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats”.

Opening of Operational Activities Segment

GONZALO GUTIERREZ REINEL, Vice-President of the Economic and Social Council, said 38 years ago, the Economic and Social Council decided to carry out a comprehensive policy review of operational activities throughout the United Nations system. Over the years, the review had become a critical instrument to transform the United Nation’s work in the field. This year, the Council had the important responsibility to steer the preparations for the 2012 General Assembly Comprehensive Policy Review of United Nations operational activities. The task was daunting. The development landscape was changing fast and profoundly. Several years down the road, the United Nations would operate in a scenario very different from now. Many middle income countries were catching up fast with high-income countries. Meanwhile, climate change and other major challenges were affecting the world as a whole. There were signs that the commitment to aid was waning. These changes spurred the need for countries to develop a common agenda and joint responses. This opened up opportunities for multilateral institutions that were inclusive and representative. Multilateralism was slowing gaining ground.

The United Nations had to demonstrate that it was able to produce development results in developing countries. It should be more agile in responding to changes and to various country needs. Agility and flexibility were critical. The United Nations should anticipate challenges and help countries to stay ahead of the curve. At the same time, the United Nations should be demand-driven in all circumstances. National priorities and ownership were the ultimate denominators. Coherence should stay on top of the reform agenda. The cost of incoherence was too high to bear. It could undermine the hard gained trust in the United Nations, which had been built over generations. Inter-agency coordination that better fit the needs in developing countries should be spurred. Greater impact required a strengthened results orientation. Results frameworks could be further improved. Of equal importance was to cultivate a culture of results orientation by enhancing results-based performance management. The United Nations system had to maximize the share of resources that directly supported developing countries. The United Nations had to function in the most cost effective way. United Nations agencies had to invest in tracking and lowering transaction costs. As the famous Swiss proverb went, “Words are dwarfs, deeds are giants.” It was time to get down to the important work and make the segment a successful one.

Operational Activities of the United Nations for International Development Cooperation

Follow-up to Policy Recommendations of the General Assembly and the Council

Documentation

The Council has before it the report of the Secretary-General (E/2011/86) on Functioning of the resident coordinator system, including costs and benefits, which
highlights the progress made in improving the resident coordinator system. It shows that the organizations of the United Nations system have endeavoured to strengthen the role of the resident coordinators by: (a) institutionalizing their lead role; (b) establishing frameworks for cooperation in the United Nations country team; (c) creating incentives for collaboration; and (d) establishing clear lines of accountability. More, however, needs to be done. In particular, the management and accountability system, which is aimed at responding to mandates arising from the triennial comprehensive policy reviews of operational activities for development of the United Nations system, remains a work in progress.

The Council has before it the report of the Secretary-General (E/11/88) on Simplification and harmonization of the United Nations development system, which notes that simplification and harmonization in the United Nations development system have made considerable progress over the past three years. Within existing rules and regulations, a large number of innovations were initiated at the country level, leading to tangible efficiency gains and cost savings. Lessons learned informed inter-agency guidance, which is increasingly country driven. Nonetheless, there is limited scope for experimentation at the country-level without commensurate adjustment of headquarters procedures and practices, to be decided at the headquarters level. Procurement and human resource management are seen as the priority for simplification and harmonization. Evidence shows that there is potential for simplification and harmonization within existing business models, for example, in procurement and human resources management.

The Council has before it the report of the Secretary-General (E/11/112) on Results achieved and measures and processes implemented in follow-up to General Assembly resolution 62/208 on the triennial comprehensive policy review of operational activities for development of the United Nations system, which reviews progress in the implementation of General Assembly resolution 62/208 on the 2007 triennial comprehensive policy review of operational activities for development of the United Nations system. It is based on the report of the Secretary-General on the management process for the implementation of General Assembly resolution 62/208 (E/2008/49), which was submitted to the Economic and Social Council at its substantive session of 2008 and which represents the action plan of the United Nations development system to implement the resolution. Progress on actions taken and targets set by the United Nations system to implement the resolution are summarized in the annex.

And the Council has before it the report of the Secretary-General (E/11/107) on
Analysis of the funding of operational activities for development of the United Nations system for 2009, which says that concerning contributions, there were no real growth in overall contributions compared to 2008. Total contributions to operational activities for development of the United Nations system in 2009 amounted to some $21.9 billion, the same in real terms as in 2008 (deflation in 2009 accounted for lower nominal figures) and accounted for about 18 per cent of total official development assistance (ODA), excluding debt relief. A decline in humanitarian assistance-related funding was offset by an increase in development related funding.

Introduction of the Reports

THOMAS STELZER, Assistant Secretary-General for Policy Coordination and Inter-Agency Affairs, introducing the reports of the Secretary-General on overall progress in implementing General Assembly resolution 62/208, funding for operational activities for development, functioning of the resident coordinator system, and simplification and harmonization of the United Nations development system, said that the operational activities segment provided a unique opportunity to take a broader look at emerging issues that were likely to affect United Nations operational activities in the near future. The United Nations system particularly through the United Nations Development Group had taken some important steps to work closely to help countries accelerate progress towards their national development goals; there had been a better prioritization of activities within the United Nations Development Assistance Framework in compliance with the triennial comprehensive policy review guidance and a better division of labour between headquarters and regional mechanisms. However, some important weaknesses still remained. Although Member States had underscored that capacity development was a core function of the United Nations system operational activities for development, indicators to assess capacity development results had yet to be developed. A major effort had been made to clarify responsibilities and ensure accountability of the resident coordinator system and other actors within the United Nations through a management and accountability system. Among other issues, the resident coordinator was accountable for the United Nations country team results but lacked supervisory relations with team members and direct influence to ensure that agency programme documents were fully consistent with the United nations Development Assistance Framework; the resident coordinator wore multiple hats, but had no clear institutionalized access to technical and financial resources to discharge responsibilities.

It had been a recurring subject of recent inter-governmental debate on system-wide coherence. The Secretary-General’s report on this issue showed that headquarters initiatives were increasingly driven by country-level needs, leading to significant efficiency gains and savings, especially in procurement and human resource management. Progress should continue to be tracked and analysed. Some further progress, however, might require more fundamental changes in terms of agency-specific practices and procedures that would require the involvement of the governing bodies of the various United Nations system organizations. Over the last 15 years, funding for operational activities for development had nearly doubled and about 65 per cent was directed to longer term development-related activities against 35 per cent directed to humanitarian activities. Pooled funding mechanisms such as thematic funds and multi-donor trust funds had shown the potential to promote predictability, concentration and coherence, though only about 12 per cent of non-core funding for development was provided in this way. The reflection on the post 2015 goals would also impact countries’ priorities and how emerging needs were addressed would be crucial to its continuous relevance in these countries. Demonstrating results at the country-level would be especially critical for the United Nations system.

Panel discussion on “2012 quadrennial comprehensive policy review of the General Assembly – What are the expectations: Issues, process and outcome?”

Opening Statements

GONZALO GUTIERREZ REINEL, Vice-President of the Economic and Social Council, said the first panel discussion of the Operational Activities Segment was starting with a challenging topic: the next Comprehensive Policy Review of the United Nations System Operational Activities for Development. The review would be conducted by the General Assembly in the fall of 2012. This allowed Member States to give guidance to the United Nations system on how it should work in programme countries. The 2012 review would be the first since 2007. It was expected to be grounded in solid analysis of the trends, changes and challenges in United Nations system operational activities over the last four years. The review should also enable the General Assembly to guide the United Nations system in responding to new issues that had emerged since 2007. The rapidly evolving development cooperation landscape had wide ranging implications for the operational activities of the United Nations system. Innovative approaches had come to the fore, such as south-south cooperation. Such broad issues necessarily affected thinking and planning on United Nations system operational activities. The panel discussion intended to point to critical developments which should be addressed in the next Quadrennial Comprehensive Policy Review of the General Assembly. This should spur reflection on how the United Nations’ current approaches and tools needed to be adjusted or changed in order to respond more effectively to emerging needs and situations.

JANE STEWART, International Labour Organization Special Representative to the United Nations and Director, International Labour Organization Office in New York, moderator of the panel discussion, reiterated the comment made by Mr. Gutiérrez concerning the importance of being coherent, agile and flexible in order to achieve the cost-effectiveness that the United Nations needed to reflect in its work, particularly in country offices. It was also important to recognize, while working in the context of continuous improvement, progress made. Being result-oriented could be challenging and there were questions about how to best report results, because there were some results, particularly in the context of development. There was work, currently under way on a strategic plan that had been embraced at national, regional and global levels and built upon the triennial comprehensive review and provided a lot of direction and guidance. The panel discussion would look at the United Nations Development Assistance Framework and issues of capacity development; as an organization, furthermore, comparative advantages should be recognized and effectively employed in order to make a difference and cater to countries’ needs and, on this basis, be agile and flexible. The first question the panel should answer was about the importance of a sense of national ownership and leadership at the country level.

Statements by Panellists

EDWARD SAMBILI, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of State for Planning, National Development and Vision 2030, Kenya, said the ownership aspects of the United Nations were evolving. Recent developments, which involved initiatives such as the United Nations Development Assistant Framework and the Delivering as One programme, had gone a long way to help Member States in responding to their priorities. The United Nations was becoming more effective and efficient by developing plans and programmes with countries. These jointly developed plans and programmes had been well received and reduced transaction costs. This needed to continue, although there was still room for evolution. The United Nations had provided positive support to countries with advisors and UN Volunteers, but these processes took a long time. These kinds of processes needed to be simplified to be more responsive to country needs. Experts needed to be sure to transfer skills. Countries’ institutional capacity to deliver was sometimes low. The United Nations needed to provide support in this regard at the country and regional level. The question of alignment with national strategies and priorities had improved with the United Nations Development Assistant Framework but this needed to be further simplified to enhance cooperation and build capacities. The United Nations was making progress but further steps forward were required. Kenya had gone through a constitutional process that established a devolved system. Because this allocated autonomy to local units, the United Nations needed to support local capacity building. The United Nations Resident Coordinator played an important role in providing a strategic overview and working together with country teams in advancing the interests of the country.

THOMAS GASS, Ambassador of Switzerland to Nepal and Facilitator of the 2007 triennial comprehensive policy review of the General Assembly, stressed that before asking the question of ownership and leadership it was important to ask how much leadership it was realistic to expect. On the other hand, it was clear that the United Nations system delivered products to countries and these needed to meet the demands at the local level. For these reasons, there was a need to strike a balance between these types of leadership and the demands on the ground. In this regard, the quadrennial comprehensive policy review had to be ambitious; otherwise there was a danger that decisions would be diluted and delegated to bureaucratic decision-making.

SUSAN MCDADE, United Nations Resident Coordinator and United Nations Development Programme Resident Representative in Uruguay, said the United Nations Development Assistance Framework had served to focus the United Nations system around priorities defined by the country governments. Uruguay was a pilot country in the United Nations Development Assistance Framework and the process had been successful in coordinating among government agencies and United Nations organizations. Uruguay had 16 joint programmes, which enhanced inter-ministerial and inter-agency effectiveness. The One Fund was an important financial incentive for the ministries to work together. The common fund from which priorities could be met empowered the countries to align United Nations work. Uruguay, despite being a sort of “aid orphan”, was able to benefit from donors that had the same priorities as the Government. United Nations Country Teams were important fora for exchanging views and looking for opportunities for joint programming, including the use of core funding. Because it was a pilot country, the United Nations Country Team in Uruguay was able to move farther upstream in terms of policies, reforms and programmes. Care for the aging and prison reforms were notable areas in which the United Nations Country Team was able to work. Prison reform was a complex topic, but the Government of Uruguay chose to work on it with the United Nations Country Team, because it provided wide-ranging abilities and expertise. The United Nations was able to be relevant by pooling resources and focusing on specific topics. The United Nations Country Team was able to utilize the expertise of non-resident agencies because of this cooperation and focus. It was early days in the Deliver as One programme, which was beginning to show the fruits of the experience. The General Assembly’s investigation would shed much light on these developments. Country ownership in Uruguay had grown since the start of the Deliver as One programme.

EDWARD SAMBILI, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of State for Planning, National Development and Vision 2030, Kenya, said the United Nations must remain dynamic, focusing on resources, as the United Nations system did not always have enough resources, nor core resources; the need to obtain resources from other partners reduced its bargaining power.

THOMAS GASS, Ambassador of Switzerland to Nepal and Facilitator of the 2007 triennial comprehensive policy review of the General Assembly, said that the emphasis should be on the challenges and sore points and some of the thematic challenges that would be faced in the following years. The United Nations had evolved too slowly and globalization and many of the issues driving the world were moving with an increasing speed and there was no time for complexity and bureaucratic processes. There was a weakness in the system and Members States were part of the weakness since it took them so long to negotiate and reach consensus and agree to act. This morning everybody welcomed the creation of UN Women yet this body took several years to be negotiated. Some decisions at the General Assembly and the Council were pushed back and not promptly addressed, and this issue should be brought up because it constituted a considerable part of the challenge. Already many years ago it was suggested that implementing agencies should have a triennial comprehensive review and a quadrennial comprehensive policy review in order facilitate monitoring and accountability. It was however likely that many of them would have no idea today of what the acronyms meant let alone the contents.

SUSAN MCDADE, United Nations Resident Coordinator and United Nations Development Programme Resident Representative in Uruguay, said that there was an urgent need to harmonize operational requirements for funds and programmes. The need to take on several audits and other duplication was not a good use of resources and took away from resources available for development. Back office work could be diminished if further harmonization proceeded. Common procurement guidelines and common human resources guidelines now governed some operations, but business practices were not yet unified. Member States needed to demand that governing boards made changes to harmonize practices. Getting incentive structures and mutual accountability frameworks in place should also be priorities. The United Nations worked based on global goals and thus needed a system for working in a diversity of countries. A one-size fits all approach did not work for operations and management at the country level. It was a time of budget scarcity worldwide and so United Nations Country Teams needed to be more ambitious in attaining economies of scale while also maintaining the substantive diversity of programmes and knowledge.

Discussion

Speakers said it was important that the discussion was taking place in a very free and frank manner. United Nations Resident Coordinators were calling for simplification and harmonization of systems and procedures. As lessons began to be drawn from the Deliver as One programme, programmes needed to continue to be demand-led and country-led. Flexibility, accountability and different approaches for different country settings were required. Many United Nations agencies did not have non-resident agencies and had found it difficult to participate on the ground. Speakers looked forward to results of an independent evaluation of the Deliver as One programme. Speakers asked what could be done to replicate the processes implemented, utilize the conclusions drawn in the pilot countries and take advantage of best practices. Further mechanisms and other incentives to allow the country team to deliver as one were required. Speakers asked whether it was time to consider the United Nations Country Teams as sort of self-directing units.

Speakers said some of the issues on the table were difficult and political, including the issue of funding. Better burden-sharing among developed countries and emerging countries was required. Member States either needed to find a way to raise core funding or raise funds beyond the core funding to meet needs that were traditionally supported with core funds. The difficult economic situation had aggravated the situation of developing countries. Speakers asked for proposals for enhancing the impact of United Nations activities in a time of scarce resources. Developing countries needed attention to be paid to the economic side of their development, and thus speakers asked for the views of panellists as to how the United Nations operational activities could contribute to these goals. Efficiency and effectiveness could improve the system but also support, through different funding measures, was needed so that cooperation could flourish. Simplification of procedures was required. Regarding the use of government resources, some agencies preferred to use civil society resources but these bodies were sometimes not skilled enough, and thus required information from the government. This slowed down processes. It was crucial to maintain close contact with national authorities. The United Nations Resident Coordinator’s role was crucial in ensuring these funds were used to achieve national objectives.

Speakers noted that the cost of coordination was important and needed to be acknowledged. Transaction costs led to lesser development outcomes. The multiplication of procedures hampered matters, including the disbursement of funds. Speakers asked what could be done to promote simplification of processes. Coherence and synergies needed to be assessed. It was essential to create and take advantage of efficiency savings. If cooperation resulted in benefits, the costs of coordination were understandable, but the benefits did not always rise to the forefront. Results were difficult to see. Speakers asked how indicators and measurable outcomes could be developed to be useful but also so that people could understand them.

Speakers asked which elements should be included in the comprehensive policy review, particularly in regards to operational activities of the United Nations. Speakers asked how the review would impact middle income countries. The United Nations development system was not being very prompt in responding to the needs on the ground, involving the partners for developing programmes and activities. The door to programming discussions was not yet open. While on the ground the involvement of all stakeholders was increasing day-by-day, consultation with development partners, but also with the government itself, was lacking. While the Resident Coordinators were doing a great job, they still considered the government as their competitors. Speakers asked whether United Nations processes related to national execution were going to be assessed. They asked if the process underway constituted a radical reform to the United Nations development system. Existing efforts for reforms needed to be pursued. Speakers asked where room for improvement could be seen. They asked whether it had come a point of saturation when it came to comprehensive reviews. It would be interesting to have a compilation of all information on United Nations programmes and policies to have a better picture of development programmes and advance the review process.

In the interactive discussion, the United Nations Development Programme, Peru, Bangladesh, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Cameroon, Pakistan, Brazil, Uruguay, Spain, Germany, Nepal, the Russian Federation, the World Health Organization, and Norway took the floor.

Concluding Remarks

GONZALO GUTIERREZ REINEL, Vice-President of the Economic and Social Council,, said the cost of projects depended on the agency executing the projects, which created different perspectives in the countries. He asked how these costs could be standardized.

NIKHIL SETH, Director Office of the Economic and Social Council Support and Coordination, said when it came to practical use of funds at the country level, there were limitations. Mr. Seth said it would be practical to think of language for the quadrennial comprehensive policy review which would make it a more important instrument that was easy to monitor. The quadrennial comprehensive policy review would always have language on south-south cooperation, for example. Mr. Seth asked if benchmarks could be established by the annual review and whether more precision, in terms of benchmarks or guidelines, to frame the work of the United Nations could be established. Mr. Seth asked whether the system was flexible enough to consider the orientations of the Rio +20 conference and inquired how the next generation of thinking about operational activities for development could influence the quadrennial comprehensive policy review.

SUSAN MCDADE, United Nations Resident Coordinator and United Nations Development Programme Resident Representative in Uruguay, responding to questions about key elements from the middle income perspective, said that the key dimensions were people and money. Concerning people, United Nations’ universal principles meant that in a rights-based agenda, human beings had the same rights everywhere. Wherever workers, children, or migrants were found the United Nations should be there to address their rights and offer necessary assistance, regardless of the gross domestic product of the country. The real question was about money and the responsibility for financing these agendas. The question was not if the United Nations should fund all the alleviation of poverty in, say, a fast-growing economy such as Peru; it should not be a question of how to finance it as much as a question of how to provide the technical expertise and the experience and best practices. So summarizing people and money, people had the rights and the solutions to provide the funding should be found innovatively. Concerning the issue of national execution, Ms. McDade said that commitment to build national capacity implied the need to work through national execution; the United Nations should not set up parallel public sector capacity, which would be expensive and inefficient.

EDWARD SAMBILI, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of State for Planning, National Development and Vision 2030, Kenya, speaking on the issue of national execution, indicated that the issue was about capacity and ensuring that these countries could successfully operate; middle income countries might still lack capacity and human resources. Sometimes support would be equally needed. In the case of Kenya and the 2030 Vision, the United Nations had come along and aligned with the plan and prioritized but there had been a bit of a struggle because the United Nations looked at its mandate first and then at how the national priorities fitted in. This was the important question on flexibility, and the mandates coming from the United Nations system should provide enough room in order to address the specificities of each case. This was where you could say the United Nations was still struggling to align itself.

THOMAS GASS, Ambassador of Switzerland to Nepal and Facilitator of the 2007 triennial comprehensive policy review of the General Assembly, said in the past 10 to 15 years, or even before, the United Nations was at the forefront in leading national execution. The United Nations Development Programme was a pioneer in national execution, while other agencies had put their foot on the brakes. Because of budget support, donors had previously wanted to execute their own bilateral programmes. The United Nations had a difficult time managing this direct budget support. The United Nations had to find a way to manage this new mode of operation. Mr. Gass said the cost of coordination was inversely proportional to the willingness to be coordinated. If the top coordinator was willing to be coordinated, these costs could be cut. It had to do with willingness, which had to come from the top management of specialized funds and agencies. If the UN Resident Coordinator was doing a proper job and a common back office had been established, there would be no such thing as a non-resident agency.

EDWARD SAMBILI, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of State for Planning, National Development and Vision 2030, Kenya, said, concerning the issue of involving countries, when the United Nations was going to deliver as one, sometimes communication needed to flow down to the Government concerning how structures would deliver. In terms of how the operating units delivered, they might end up doing the same as they had always operated. Very clear guidelines were necessary, in order to avoid repetition. Maybe the resident representatives could be empowered to engage countries in order to outline some of the issues that they would like to bring up during upcoming discussions.

SUSAN MCDADE, United Nations Resident Coordinator and United Nations Development Programme Resident Representative in Uruguay, said that what emerged out of the reviews of the Deliver as One programme was that countries expressed support for never turning back from that programme. If governing bodies of United Nations funds and specialized agencies did not take the reviews into consideration, there would continue to be a disconnect between the global and operational levels. Costs of coordination were not only the costs of coordinating of operational activities in the field of development. The Resident Coordinator hosted visits of the Secretary-General, Special Rapporteurs and others. The costs of these coordination efforts fell on the shoulders of the Resident Coordinator and the United Nations Development Programme. There had to be burden-sharing on this.


For use of the information media; not an official record

ECOSOC11/016E