UNITED NATIONS: Four U.N. Agencies To Become One ‘Development Group’

By Thalif Deen Reprint | | Print |

Thalif Deen

UNITED NATIONS, May 30 1997 (IPS) - The United Nations is proposing to consolidate the functions of four of its bodies into a single U.N. Development Group (UNDG) under a radical restructuring and cost- cutting exercise.

The UNDG is expected to incorporate the U.N. Development Programme (UNDP), the U.N. Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA), and the World Food Programme (WFP).

“The proposed reforms are intended to create a more unified development system within the United Nations,” says the Executive Coordinator for U.N. Reform Maurice Strong.

The entire exercise is intended to cut costs, avoid duplication, and eliminate mismanagement in the U.N. system.

These four bodies currently have separate executive boards, separate staff in the field, and in most cases, separate offices housed in the same building in various Third World capitals. Under the new plan, the four bodies would share common premises and common staff at all field stations. The UNDG would have a unified structure at the secretariat level and a single executive board, reporting to the U.N. Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). It would produce a single report to the 185-member General Assembly.

Strong, who was once quoted as saying that the United Nations “could work better than it does today with less than half as many people,” says the intention was not to create a “homogeneous organisation” but to make sure that the essential qualities of each of the bodies are maintained.

“What has happened over the years is that…we evolved a system that was very fragmented,” said Strong, who was Secretary- General of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio and the first Executive Director of the U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP). “We have a whole series of different organisations, and they are all very valuable and useful. But it is a costly system. A great deal of money is spent in servicing these different organisations.”

“They are all very fine organisations. They have personalities, they have qualities, and they have character,” he added. “These are all very important bodies. We are not trying to get rid of them. We are only trying to ensure that they operate within a family structure. Each one will be doing its job but within a more unified structure, both in the field and at headquarters.”

Secretary-General Kofi Annan is expected to announce the plan in July, when he introduces additional cost-cutting measures as part of his U.N. reforms.

But he will have to do a hard sell to get the proposal accepted by the four U.N. bodies, say observers here.

“These bodies are used to exercising independence and presiding over their own territories,” one diplomat told IPS. “The resistance to change will come from inside these organisations.”

“It is a jungle out there, and the ongoing war is over turf,” he said.

In March, Annan announced the merger of three departments into a single unit “to eliminate overlap and achieve greater efficiency and focus.”

Referring to the multiplicity of offices in the field, Annan said, “I would like the United Nations to be a country team with a single leader and common objectives.”

Early this year, he brought together some 30 U.N. departments, offices, funds, programmes and other entities into four Executive Committees that correspond with the main areas of U.N. work: peace and security, economic and social affairs, and development operations and humanitarian affairs.

“Since a growing number of the challenges we face cut across traditional sectors and organisational boundaries, the Executive Committees are already helping to improve coordination, avoid duplication, and best utilise each entity’s comparative advantages,” he said.

Strong said a unified structure also meant more funds could move from administration into true development. It also meant that developing countries would find it much simpler to deal with the U.N. family.

“The donors will hopefully trust the United Nations with more money when they see that it is more effective,” he said. “So it is really a movement, not towards homogenising the system but, ensuring that we act towards a common framework.”