Canada & the UN > Newton Bowles Reports

« Return to Table of Contents

UN Unique: Human Development

Turning from macro to micro, let us have a look at the resources entrusted to the U.N. for development, at what the U.N. goals are and at how the U.N. is going about ploughing these resources into developing countries. Assistance channeled through the U.N. system (including specialized Agencies) in 1997 amounted to $5.4 billion, nearly all as grants (not loans). This was over 10 percent of "official" (government) development assistance-- from the rich to the poor. Grant aid through the World Bank in 1997 was no more than $2 billion. U.N. and World Bank grant-aid together don't amount to much compared to the flow of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) into developing countries, about $149 billion in 1997. Less than 3 percent of this FDI went to the 48 really poor countries (the Least Developed-- 33 of them in Africa); and, of course, it is not directed to meeting social needs wherever it goes. U.N. aid is critically important because it is focused on neglected countries and on social goals. International goals and how to reach them were remarkably defined in several conferences in the past decade (World Conference on Education for All, World Summit for Children, U.N. Conference on Environment and Development, World Conference on Human Rights, International Conference on Population and Development, World Summit for Social Development, Fourth World Conference on Women, U.N. Conference on Human Settlements, World Food Summit). Taken together, these Conferences have set the moral standards, the tone and the specific goals (targets) for all in the international community. This is formally confirmed in the U.N. Agenda for Development, adopted in 1997. At first glance, this may look like a great mish-mash of uncoordinated goals, but in fact they all come together in addressing common basic social issues, approached from different perspectives. NGOs were important actors here. In setting the course for all of us, this is a stunning achievement. Without sustained will, drive, courage and funding to move along this grand highway, we are in for stunning failure.

Blind FDI can't see U.N. goals. External support oriented toward social goals comes mostly from ODA-- official development assistance, running at $57.9 billion in 1996, $49.6 billion in 1997. Most of this assistance went bilateral, government to government, and less than one-third went to the poorest countries. The share going through the U.N. is uniquely available for social advance among the poorest of the poor.

In this setting, the recent sharp decline in ODA is a disgrace, a betrayal of the international system and the needy. In 1970, the U.N. set the standard for ODA at 0.7 percent of GNP. On average, major donors' ODA stands at 0.22 percent, under one-third of that norm. Trade and investment expand, government revenues go up, ODA goes down. Only four countries (Denmark, Norway, Netherlands and Sweden) maintain their ODA at over 0.7% of GDP. In 1997, Canada's ODA/GDP ratio was 0.36%; while the U.S. was lowest of all at 0.08%.

It is true, of course, that external aid cannot do what national governments themselves can't do. Incompetent or corrupt autocracies require indigenous remedies. Bad apples don't condemn the whole barrel. There are 600 million people in the poorest countries.

The U.N. needs to make the most of its resources: coordination, convergence, efficiency, accountability, assessment. This has not been easy to achieve, given the higgledy-piggledy U.N. mansion built by its architects (mainly donor governments). Looking at their hydra, their ire went up as their ODA went down. Persistent pressure over several years is resulting in some "rationalization" in the sense that more policy direction has been elevated (hierarchically) to ECOSOC, while the subsidiary governing Boards (UNDP, UNICEF, UNFPA, etc.) are supposed to look mainly at "management." Fund raising is supposed to be coordinated in a common pledging conference. It looks good on paper, although how you can manage without understanding what you are managing (policy) escapes me.

When it comes to doing the job, putting the aid to work ("implementation"), convergence is proceeding in a constructive way. This was an important element of Kofi Annan's reform package, guided by Maurice Strong. At U.N. Headquarters, all development organizations and departments came together in the Development Group with its Executive Committee (the officials who run the show), all of this under the watchful eyes of the Secretary-General's weekly cabinet meeting. To cajole, entice the intransigent Specialized Agencies, the Secretary-General has created an Office for Inter-Agency Affairs.

More important is what happens in the countries where aid is translated into action. Here two things are in the works, one substantive, the other managerial. On substance (what and why), a U.N. Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF, of course-- not UNDAFT) as a guide to preparing a coherent U.N.-assisted "country programme" in the context of U.N. goals (the Agenda for Development). UNDAF has been tried out in 18 countries, and is now being revised a bit in the light (or dark) of those trials. I understand that the revision will give more emphasis to human rights, and be more flexible in adjusting to conditions in countries. All U.N. aid, including the Specialized Agencies (loosely autonomous) is supposed to be poured into this bucket.

On management, all U.N. representation in a country comes under the wise, benign and prestigious Country Coordinator, exercising parental authority (without coercion) over the whole family. Whenever feasible-- ideally, always-- everyone will be under one roof with the U.N. blue waving in a gentle breeze. There should be common administrative services. This is a good idea, long overdue; and it has the best chance of success if the Coordinator concentrates on programme rather than getting pumped up in the embassy circuit. A lot depends on getting good people in that job. So far, this looks like a success story in the making.