Intervention by
Anne Kristin Sydnes
Minister of International Development
Norway

UNDP Ministerial Meeting New York, 11 September 2000

The UNDP: The Operational Arm of the United Nations

First, I would like to thank Mark Malloch Brown for calling this meeting. The challenge before us is clear. It concerns the making or breaking of the UNDP as a trusted and reliable partner in development. It concerns our ability to fight poverty.

But, as the Secretary General has underlined, it also concerns the future of a cohesive and relevant United Nations. Indeed, he claimed that it is through its work in development, its tangible results on the ground, that the idea of a UN is given meaning to many peoples of the world. I agree. It is the ability to produce results in terms of social and economic development and peace that gives the UN legitimacy.

This was echoed by the Administrator. It is also mirrored in the documentation we have been given, which shows that 70 per cent of the UN’s operational activities are related to development. It highlights the fact that sustainable development and durable peace are mutually reinforcing. Without the UNDP, the UN would abandon key elements of its core mandate. Without a strong and resilient UNDP, the UN's contribution to peace and security will remain flawed.

I sincerely hope that, through our deliberations today, we will succeed in mobilizing sufficient support for the UNDP to enable it to effectively fulfil its obligations.

The Administrator has raised some crucial questions about our views of where the organization is going.

Firstly, do we see the emergence of a new UNDP? Yes, I think we do.

Secondly, what key aspects of the reform process should have priority? I firmly believe that its renewed focus on advocacy, on institution- and capacity-building, and its insistence on UN coherence are of the essence as regards reform. In my opinion it is precisely the UNDP’s immediate access to, and partnership with, other parts of the UN and its Secretariat that makes the UNDP different from other development agencies.

These advantages, together with the UNDP's critical role at the operational level in fostering collaboration with the Bretton Woods institutions, are crucial in meeting the development challenges of the new millennium.

Thirdly, are there things the UNDP could do better? Certainly there are, and Norway wants to participate actively in the dialogue on how to reform and strengthen the UNDP. But a vigorous UNDP depends on our support – as political actors – for its efforts. We must follow a coherent strategy in the many institutions where we are represented. We must see to it that the activities of other institutions match the new UNDP.

We must also get rid of rigid procedures and encourage flexibility. We must allow for more creativity by the UNDP. To achieve this we must transfer resources and delegate more authority to those in the field. This is also crucial to ensure the relevance – and ownership – of the various activities.

The UNDP: Building on results

We have made a commitment to halve poverty by 2015. We know what it would take to make a difference. We have the resources if we want to put them to use. We are here to muster the necessary political will.

If we turn briefly to the latest Human Development Report for some salient figures, we quickly see why more concerted action is essential. In spite of all our riches, 790 million people go hungry and are food-insecure. Some 90 million children are not attending primary school. Two hundred and fifty million are child labourers, and 300 000 are being used as soldiers. In Africa AIDS is causing a socio-economic crisis that is threatening political stability and depriving people of any prospects of a future. This is not only unacceptable. It is intolerable.

There is no way that the UNDP itself can cover the range of development activities necessary to rectify the unacceptable and intolerable injustices of the world today. We all have to do our fair share. I am convinced, however, that the UNDP has a unique catalytic role to play in pro-poor advocacy, on governance issues, in identifying other actors and through new alliances mobilizing alternative resources to fill the gap between rich and poor – provided that we equip it with the necessary mandates and resources.

In June this year the UNDP presented us with its first Result Oriented Annual Report. It showed work still in progress. Yet it was an impressive achievement. It demonstrated the will to strengthen a unified corporate culture.

The report also gave a realistic assessment of strengths and weaknesses in the organization, as the Administrator has reminded us today. I am sure that more effective partnership with other actors such as the Bretton Woods institutions, civil society and the private sector will yield high returns in fighting poverty. Thus, I encourage the UNDP’s active engagement in the PRSP process. I hope it will help to overcome the territorial squabbles that can too often undermine effective support to programme countries.

Here I would like to focus on our responsibilities as member states and active participants in the creation of the new development architecture. We need stronger financial and development institutions. However, the importance of collaboration and coordination cannot be underestimated. Collaboration also means that roles and functions must be clear. We must promote better understanding of roles and functions and more self-discipline on the part of the various institutions, including the Bretton Woods institutions.

Cooperation and competition often go hand in hand in the field, and this is the way it has to be. But to safeguard the two key dimensions by which multilateral development efforts are judged – legitimacy and efficiency – we need to strike the right balance between the two poles of the UN and the Bretton Woods institutions. We must build on the comparative advantages of the individual institution to make our efforts as efficient as possible and to strengthen the legitimacy of and support for an international presence at the local level.

The reform process of the UNDP will only be successful if we see to it that necessary reforms also take place in other UN agencies and the Bretton Woods institutions. Since much closer cooperation is called for, the various institutions will be increasingly dependent on each other’s efficiency and reputation.

The UNDP and Universality

The Secretary General has pointed out that the main losers in today’s unequal world are not those who are too exposed to globalization, but those who are excluded from it. Those who have been left out.

I agree. I am convinced, therefore, that to respond effectively to the multitude of global challenges we are now facing we need more international cooperation. Not less.

Moreover, I believe the UNDP today has furnished us with convincing arguments that a universal UNDP is a crucial constituent for maintaining – in real and tangible terms – the inclusive idea of the UN. This is something we should do our utmost to preserve.

The figures on what upholding this principle would actually cost are interesting. The sums are small compared with what we stand to gain in enhanced learning and strengthened South-South cooperation.

The UNDP: The Financial Situation

I find the prevailing downward trend in contributions to the UNDP core resources disturbing. Norway has consistently contributed generously to its core and non-core activities. I am proud to say that we are by far the largest per capita contributor to the UNDP, and we are the fourth largest contributor in terms of general contributions to core resources. Our intention is to further increase our contributions to the UNDP.

It is my government’s clear ambition to increase the share of our GDP allocated to ODA as well as the proportion of ODA channelled through the multilateral system.

Norway attaches considerable importance to the UNDP both in its role as the development arm of the United Nations and as a particularly trusted partner for programme countries. This dual role is unique to the UNDP and provides it with added leverage. It is precisely to safeguard this advantage that we would like the momentum for reform to be kept up.

Better burdensharing in securing sound financing of the UNDP’s core budget is thus of concern to us. Let us therefore use this meeting to recommit ourselves collectively to rebuilding an efficient UNDP and, through it, to enabling the United Nations to better fulfill its development obligations. I can assure you that Norway stands ready to continue to shoulder more than its share.

The UNDP: The Challenge Ahead

I would like at this point to commend the Administrator and his staff for the tremendous effort they have made in putting UNDP on a firmer footing. I admire their audacity of vision and the fearlessness with which they have taken on this particular task.

You asked us whether we could see a new UNDP emerging, and I answered in the affirmative.

But I must emphasize that we should not only enable the UNDP to better meet the challenge of today. We should also enable it to produce tangible analyses, test ideas and invent formats for partnership in development that answer the needs of tomorrow.

Only then will the common values we have invested in yield results.

Only then can we begin to judge our efforts not by the prosperity of the few but by the needs of the many.

Only in this way can we fulfil our responsibility to future generations.