POLITICS-UN: Third World Nations Wary Of UNDP Changes

By Thalif Deen Reprint | | Print |

Thalif Deen

UNITED NATIONS, Nov 23 1999 (IPS) - The 133-member Group of 77, the largest single coalition of developing nations, has expressed strong reservations over a proposed move to restructure the UN Development Programme (UNDP) fearing it may result in significant changes in its overall mandate.

Ambassador Samuel Insanally of Guyana, chairman of the Group of 77, has written the new UNDP Administrator Mark Malloch Brown urging him not to make any fundamental changes in UNDP’s mandate that would be detrimental to the interests of developing nations.

“The Group fully recognises your right, as Administrator, to make appropriate organisational changes within UNDP,” Insanally said.

“We feel, however, that such changes should safeguard the essential characteristics of the Programme and should also be in conformity with the relevant General Assembly resolution which established the mandate and overall structure of the Organisation.”

Insanally said that any proposed reform or restructuring of UNDP should be guided by two main objectives – an increase in the resources available to the organisation and improved delivery of services to the developing countries, in keeping with their national development objectives and priorities.

Malloch Brown, who began his four-year term as head of UNDP in July, has vowed to create “a new UNDP” leaner, more efficient and geared to meet the needs of developing nations.

Under the proposed new restructuring programme, he also plans to decentralise the organisation by shifting more staff to the field. A transition team, commissioned by Malloch Brown, put out a 91-page report proposing further far-reaching changes in UNDP.

Malloch Brown, who sought the views of various UNDP divisional heads and senior managers, in drawing up his plans was expected to submit a final version of the report to the UNDP Executive Board in January.

At a meeting of the Group of 77 last week, several developing nations cautioned the Administrator against making any radical changes that would damage the current relationship between the Group and the UNDP.

“The Group of 77 greatly values UNDP as a partner in the development process,” Insanally said.

In his letter, Insanally specifically cautioned the Administrator against placing a higher priority on “global governance” – a concept strongly advocated by Western donors that broadly encompasses multi-party democracy, free and fair elections, respect for human rights and corruption-free administrations.

Even before Malloch Brown took office, UNDP had spent a large proportion of its budget on helping Third World nations hold elections, establish courts, revamp judiciaries and create human rights organisations.

Insanally said the Group of 77 had “some concerns about the adoption by UNDP of a thematic focus for its work”.

“In this context, while we recognise the valuable work done by UNDP to assist countries at their request in the area of governance, we feel tha that the emphasis placed by the report on this aspect is problematic since there is no serious empirical evidence that this is the priority that the developing countries have identified, bearing in mind the rather loose definition of the term…” the letter said.

In any case, Insanally said, “governance, as you yourself explained, should be a broadly defined concept, and should not be limited to a narrow range of activities, such as the management of electoral processes.”

Rather, he said, it must encompass issues relevant to the management of economic and social processes, and seek to promote capacity development in order to equip governments to manage various aspects of the development process.

The Group wanted UNDP “to continue to be embedded in programmes and projects aimed at promoting growth and development in which poverty eradication and overall human development constitute important priorities.”

The letter warned that the adoption of too narrow a focus for its work is likely to make UNDP less capable of responding to current development realities and may in fact involve an implicit conditionality by excluding some types of assistance that are nevertheless quite relevant to the needs of a number of developing nations.

Some Third World nations have expressed the fear that a higher priority for global governance may eventually result in development aid being conditioned on multi-party democracy, transparency and accountability.

In the letter, the Group of 77 has also cautioned the UNDP against any large-scale involvement in post-conflict situations.

“We are concerned, however, that an over extension of its (UNDP) role in this area could lead to duplication of the work of other UN agencies such as the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF), not to mention a number of non-governmental entities that are active in this area.”

The Group has also said that while it supports the proposed establishment of “increased partnerships” between UNDP, the private sector and NGOs, “we wish to strongly urge that such partnerships should be in accordance with the established policies governing the activities of UNDP, and in keeping with the overall mandate of the Organisation.”

The letter concludes that the type of reforms being proposed for UNDP is premised on the notion that such changes will attract resources from donors.

“However, the recent experience of UNDP has not borne out this proposition,” the letter said. “In fact, despite five years of continuous and far reaching changes carried out at the behest of donors, there has instead been a significant reduction in the resources made available to UNDP.”

According to the report, UNDP’s core income has declined from 1.2 billion dollars in 1992 to about 700 million dollars in 1999.