Governance of United Nations Development Recharging multilateral cooperation for the post-2015 era...

Governance of United Nations Development

Recharging multilateral cooperation

for the post-2015 era

New Jersey, 20 November 2014

Rutgers University

Kristinn Sv. Helgason

2

Governance of United Nations Development

A. Introduction

B. Current governance system

Major challenges

C. Changing functions of UN Development

D. Governance requirements

E. Possible reform options

Presentation outline


3

(a) United Nations Development

Composed of the 34 UN entities that receive contributions for operational

activities for development

UN Development is the largest multilateral partner of OECD/DAC countries, an

important indicator of the significant role played by the Organization in

global development cooperation

A. Introduction


4

(a) United Nations Development

A. Introduction


Funds &programmes

(12)

Specialized agencies

(13)

Otherentities

(9)

UNDP, (incl. UNV, UNCDF)

FAO, IAEA, UNESCO, ILO

ECA, ECE, ESCAP

UN-Women, UNFPA, WFP

ICAO, IMO, ITU, UNIDO

ESCWA

UNICEF, UNHCR, UNAIDS

UPU, WIPO, WHO, WMO

UNCTAD (incl. ITC), UNEP

UNWTO OCHA, DESA

UN-Habitat, UNODC

UNRWA IFAD, OHCHR

5

(b) Operational activities for development

UN operational activities for development include both development-related

activities as well as those with a humanitarian assistance focus

In 2012, operational activities for development of the UN system amounted to

some $24 billion and accounted for nearly two-thirds of all system-wide

activities of the Organization

Close to 95 per cent of all operational activities for development are funded

from voluntary contributions

A. Introduction


6

(c) Analytical framework

Strategic Triangle (Mark Moore, HKS)

What are the sources of legitimacy and support that allow the

governance system to take action and provide necessary support?

Is the action politically and legally feasible?

What is it that Member States want UN Development to accomplish?

Is the purpose publicly valuable?

What are the governance capacities that Member States have put in

place to enable UN Development to deliver on the desired results?

Is it operationally and administratively feasible to establish such

capacity?

A. Introduction


Authorizing

environment

Mission

Capacity

Political and legal feasibility

for UN Development to take

action

What to Member States

want UN Development to

achieve?

What governance capacity

is in place to deliver on

the desired results?

7

(a)Overview



System-wide Agency-specific Country-level

General Assembly

Economic and Social Council

Executive Boards of funds & programmes

Governing bodies of

specialized agencies &

other entities

Agency-specific programming

documents

United Nations Development

Assistance Framework

8

(b) System-wide



Bodies Main instruments

Primary task

General Assembly

Quadrennial comprehensive policy review

(QCPR)

High-level Political Forum on

Sustainable Development

Operational guidance

Normative guidance

Economic and Social Council

Operational Activities Segment

Integration Segment

Operational coordination

Substantive coordination

9

(c) Agency-specific



Key functions

Executive Boards of funds and programmes

Implement GA & ECOSOC guidance Approve country programmes Approve strategic plan & budget Monitor performance Allocate core resources

Informal joint meeting of EBs

Discuss issues of common concern

Governing bodies of specialized

agencies

Approve strategic plan & budget Monitor performance Allocate core resources

10

(d ) Country-level



Key tasks

Country programme

documents of funds and

programmes

Define programme priorities and present indicate allocation of non-core funding based on consultation between government and UN entity

United Nations Development

Assistance Framework

UNDAF is the strategic programme framework describing the collective response of the UN system as a whole to national development priorities

11

(e) Governing bodies: distribution of political power

Regional groupings (based on the principle of equitable geographical distribution)

Constituency-based groupings

Mixed regional and constituency-based groupings

Key question

What is an effective and equitable method for distributing political power for decision-

making in the area of operational activities for development?



12

(e) Governing bodies: distribution of political power



Regional groupings Constituency groupings

UNDP/UNFPA/UNOPS, UNICEF, WFP, UNHCR, UNCTAD, UNODC,

UN-Habitat, UNEP, UNRWA, FAO, ITU, UNESCO, UNIDO, UPU, WIPO, WHO, WMO,

UNWTO, OHCHR

GA, ECOSOC[political groupings negotiate resolutions on system-wide

policies on operational activities]

Regional commissions (5)OCHA, DESA

ICAO, IFAD, IMO

Mixed regional and constituency-based

groupingsUNAIDS, UN-Women, ILO,

13

(e) Major challenges

Governing bodies of UN Development entities operate in almost total isolation from

each other. Decisions and policies in one area are generally not known to or, or seen

as important by those operating in another

The ability of agency-specific governing bodies to provide regular, detailed guidance

on operational activities is affected by variation in their size and meeting frequency.

Some governing bodies meet only every two years, while others report to policy-

making bodies, not designed to provide guidance on operational activities



14


Central governing bodies are not able to hold entities accountable for the

implementation of system-wide mandates such as those relating to the quadrennial

comprehensive policy review and established by GA or ECOSOC

Central governing bodies do not have the capacity to further policy coherence and

interoperability in programming and operations across UN entities



15


The governance of key country-level coordination instruments such as the resident

coordinator system, UNDAF and business operations is left to voluntary agreements

established through inter-agency bodies such as UNDG, which operate on the basis

of consensus, with the final outcome often heavily dictated by the specific

mandates and business models of individual agencies



16


The significant fragmentation of the governance system is costly and reduces the

ability of UN Development entities to capitalize on opportunities for synergy in

programming and operations. It is estimated that synergy through enhanced

efficiency and reduction in duplication across entities could amount to some 20 per

cent of total operational activities for development



17



An example of lack of alignment between (a) the authorizing environment, (b)

the mission of UN Development (as reflected in QCPR mandates) and (c) the

governance capacity



18



No Executive Board of fund/programme formally discusses progress in QCPR

implementation – left to informal joint meeting of boards

QCPR implementation not on the agenda of governing bodies of other entities

Little evidence that entities measure performance in QCPR implementation (or

review of QCPR progress part of background documentation)

No governing body in UN Development adopts decisions on progress in QCPR

implementation



19

(a) Post-2015 development agenda

Integration of economic, social and environmental pillars of sustainable

development, requiring greater emphasis on pursuing activities in

combination rather than isolation as with MDGs

Broadening of development agenda to include global public goods, which to a

large extent will need to rely on country-level action

Growing concern about systemic risks associated with accelerating

globalization and interconnectedness of countries

C. Changing functions of UN Development


20

(a)Governing body design

The overarching principle of governing body design is that form should follow

functions

Over the years, the functions of most UN Development entities have changed

significantly but the form of governance has remained the same

D. Emerging governance requirements


21

(b) UN Development functional groupings



Entities with operational focus

(10)

Entities with normative focus

and major operational

programmes (11)

Entities with normative/analyti

cal focus (13)

UNDP, UNFPA, UNICEF, WFP, UN-Women, UNHCR, UNAIDS, UNRWA,

OCHA, IFAD

UNIDO, WHO, FAO, UNESCO, ILO, UNEP, UN-Habitat,

UNODC, IAEA, ICAO, OHCHR

IMO, ITU, UPU, WIPO, WMO,

UNWTO, UNCTAD, DESA, ECA, ECE, ECLAC, ESCAP,

ESCWA

22

(c) Strategic triangle concept (Mark Moore, HKS)

Firstly, what “public value” is the governance system expected to provide?

Secondly, what sources of legitimacy or support would be relied upon to

authorize the governance system to take action to create that value?

Thirdly, what operational capabilities would governance system rely on to

deliver the desired results?



23

(d) Critical governance capacities

Firstly, a post-2015 development agenda with significant focus on the

integration of country and global development action will require innovations

in the application of the principles of national sovereignty and global

responsibility, or what Kaul (2013) refers to as ‘smart sovereignty’

The ‘smart sovereignty’ principle recognizes policy cooperation among

countries as the best way to achieve national interest in the global public

domain



24


Secondly, UN Development will increasingly have to work as one in an

environment characterized by growing diversity of both national development

experiences and sources of financing. This will require UN Development to

develop strong governance capacity for internal and external

coordination



25


Thirdly, in the post-2015 era, UN Development will need to develop an

organizational capability anchored in integrated approaches that reduce

duplication and fragmentation and enable entities to exploit opportunities for

synergy in programming and operations



26

(e) Post-2015 era

What are the sources of legitimacy and support that allow the governance

system to take action and provide necessary support?

Is the action politically and legally feasible?

What is it that Member States want UN Development to accomplish?

Is the purpose publicly valuable?

What are the governance capacities that Member States have put in place to

enable UN Development to deliver on the desired results?

Is it operationally and administratively feasible to establish such capacity?



Authorizing

environment

Mission

Capacity

Post-2015 agenda

Rise of global challenges

Emerging economies

Diversification of development

experiences and funding sources

Management of interdependence

‘Smart sovereignty’

Universal SDGs

Global public goods

Integrated solutions

Pooling of knowledge and expertise

Broadening of funding base

System-wide and agency efficiency

and accountabilityPolicy coherence and

interoperability across entities

Coordination with authority

Balancing of agency and system-

wide governance

More precise criteria for

participation in governing

bodies

27

(e) Legitimacy in governance

The major changes needed in governance capacity of UN Development in the post-

2015 era will require Member States to rethink what constitutes political and

performance legitimacy of governing bodies

A governance system dominated by agency-specific considerations no longer able

to meet the emerging mission of UN Development

Rebalancing authority of agency-specific & system-wide governing bodies will

require more effective and equitable distribution of political power in decision-

making in the governance system



28


A governance system aimed at furthering policy cooperation among Member

States will require decision-making processes characterized by high degree of

legitimacy of representation

Operational activities, however, are not of equal importance to Member States

and the adoption of more precise criteria for selecting members of governing

bodies rather than relying only on regional groupings and the principle of

equitable geographical distribution could enhance legitimacy in governance



29


A key message of the paper is that a more effective and equitable method of

distributing political power in decision-making on operational activities of UN

Development in the post-2015 era will be a governance system based on:

a) Constituency-based selection, or

b) Mixed regional grouping and constituency-based criteria



30


Possible criteria to enhance the legitimacy of representation in governance of UN

Development entities could include:

Income groupings (to better reflect the socio-economic profile of

members of regional groupings)

Expenditure level in different regions

Contribution level

Other



31


Constituency-based selection of members of governing bodies and “variable

geometry” to enable rotational representation may be particularly important

innovations to further a culture of policy cooperation among Member States

and governing bodies of UN Development entities in the post-2015 era



32


Intergovernmental negotiations on operational activities in central governing bodies

conducted by political groupings should ideally be replaced by constituency groupings

with a view to:

a) Reducing incentives for proliferation of system-wide mandates that cannot be

realized due to capacity constraints in system-wide governing bodies and inter-

agency mechanisms, and

b) Helping to ensure alignment of objectives of decision-making processes of agency-

specific and system-wide governing bodies



33

The primary objective of reform would be to enhance legitimacy in governance of

UN Development:

Performance

Increased system-wide coherence, including high-degree of synergy in programming

and operations, enhanced accountability for implementation of agency-specific and

system-wide mandates and greater transparency and cost-effectiveness in governance

Political

More effective and equitable distribution of political power in decision-making that

better reflects the interests of those Member States that are core stakeholders of

operational activities for development



34

(a)Development Board (fulltime)

For operational activities of 19 funds, programmes and other entities reporting to

General Assembly

Four Executive Boards of six major funds and programmes would be merged in new

DB

DB would regulate operational activities of other funds and programmes reporting to

GA but existing governing bodies perform norm- and standard-setting and policy-

making roles

Composition of DB based on mixture of equitable geographical distribution and

constituency-based selection criteria along with “variable geometry”



35

(b) Joint Executive Board of Fs/Ps (fulltime)

Four Executive Boards of six major funds and programmes UNDP/UNFPA/UNOPS,

UNICEF, UN-Women and WFP would be merged in new JEB

JEB organized around segments for each F/P and sessions to discuss issues of

common interest

Composition of DB based on mixture of equitable geographical distribution and

constituency-based selection criteria along with “variable geometry”



36

(c) ECOSOC as system-wide governing body

Role of ECOSOC firmly recast as central coordinating body for operational

activities of UN system

QCPR resolution upgraded into system-wide strategy

UNDG established as legal entity and made formally accountable to ECOSOC

for implementation of system-wide mandates such as those established in

QCPR resolution



Governance of United Nations Development Recharging multilateral cooperation for the post-2015 era...

Documents

Transcript of Governance of United Nations Development Recharging multilateral cooperation for the post-2015 era...