Broader support for the UN

 

Translated from the Norwegian

Do we place too little emphasis on the UN itself in our efforts to build a world more influenced by the organisation’s values?

Veslemøy Lothe Salvesen, the head of information at the UNDP Nordic Office, provided an insightful discussion of this question in her article in Dagbladet on 15 September 2007. She pointed out that, in recent years, the UN has become more relevant and respected, not least because the world has had painful experience of the alternative forms of international cooperation.

On the other hand, she sees a paradox in the fact that parts of the multilateral peace and development system are being challenged by new actors, such as national resource centres, global funds and programmes, and large, new, private foundations, which at times compete with the UN. Do we jeopardise our ambitions for the UN when we choose to cooperate with these actors?

To answer this question, I would first like to relate something I noted while working at the World Health Organisation (WHO) from 1998 to 2000. For example, the mandate contained in WHO’s 1948 constitution, namely that it should be the leading organisation in the area of world health is deeply ingrained within the organisation.

Many people observed vaccination efforts stagnate in the 1990s, and saw that the traditional UN system was incapable of mobilising new forces and new resources. As a result, the end of the 1990s saw an increasing number of new actors in the health sector. These included the World Bank’s many health programmes, the international pharmaceuticals industry, a growing number of private companies, and new, large-scale, private donors like Ted Turner and Bill Gates. As Ms Lothe Salvesen points out, many of these non-UN actors look for rapid results. This is not necessarily negative.

Some parts of the UN appeared cumbersome, very little open to change, and a little too concerned with the status and roles conferred by their mandates.

Gro Harlem Brundtland’s strategy for dealing with the array of new actors was to build broader alliances. She sought to secure a central place for the UN organisations’ normative and democratic functions in these new alliances.

The GAVI Alliance is perhaps the best example of a focused partnership of this kind. WHO and UNICEF have key roles in the alliance, and actors such as Bill Gates and Ted Turner, vaccine manufacturers and countries like Norway have joined forces with them in this all-out effort to provide vaccines for the world’s children.
 
Ideally, the UN organisations should have sole responsibility, and donors, whether private individuals or governments, should channel their funds and efforts through them. The UN organisations play an important role in adopting resolutions that are widely accepted because their governing bodies represent the member states, both rich and poor. When the UN’s role is weakened, we run the risk that efforts will be less representative, more donor-controlled and more often guided by priorities other than helping those who need it most.

I believe that the consequence of not forging new alliances will be the extensive marginalisation of UN organisations. Insisting that UN coordination is the only appropriate framework for new initiatives, not least as regards fundraising, is likely to alienate new actors. The result would be competing initiatives that are entirely independent of the UN. We would risk achieving much less than we could if we cooperated.

Kofi Annan also recognised these dangers. That is why he so strongly emphasised that private actors, who have become so much richer through globalisation and who have vital expertise, have an obligation to become involved. He invited them to join partnerships and cooperation projects, and supported the establishment of the GAVI Alliance.

Mr Annan stated at the turn of the millennium that at least USD 10 billion per year were needed to fight AIDS. He recognised, however, that the traditional system was unable to raise such large amounts of money. That is why he drove forward the establishment of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. The Fund was yet another new initiative with new actors, but with a central role for the UN organisations.

It is important to remember that the most significant new alliances are the ones that provide funding for developing countries while at the same time safeguarding and strengthening the UN’s role as a norm-setter and capacity-builder. We should not forget that the UN is a relatively minor source of funds, accounting for less than 10 per cent of global transfers. The establishment of the various global health funds, on the other hand, has resulted in a trebling of transfers in this sector since 2000.

We must seek to find the right balance. Norway will continue to be among the UN’s strongest supporters but, as a friend of the UN, will also offer constructive criticism when necessary. Those of us who want to see an increase in the UN’s influence must not leave criticism to those who want to reduce it.

Norway is the sixth-largest contributor to the UN in absolute terms. We seek to participate wherever we can in boards and councils. Our aim is to ensure that the wider development and climate change efforts are based on UN-approved goals, not least in order to meet the concern highlighted by Ms Lothe Salvesen: that developing countries have to deal with overlapping initiatives and an over-abundance of actors.
 
This has been the central issue in the reform efforts led by Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg: ensuring that there is one UN that coordinates programmes at country level, rather than many. Fragmentation is not only caused by new initiatives and actors. The UN itself at times contributes to this through a lack of cooperation and coordination between its specialised agencies.
 
I believe that we have found a good balance between the established organisations and the new initiatives. Norway currently provides approximately NOK 1 billion a year in support to global funds. That is a lot of money, but is still less than 15 per cent of the funding Norway provides for the UN and the international financial institutions. Together, these received over NOK 9 billion in 2006. At the 62nd UN General Assembly next week, Prime Minister Stoltenberg will be presenting a new, all-out campaign to achieve the UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) relating to health, with a particular focus on MDGs 4 and 5. This global campaign has been developed in close cooperation with WHO and UNICEF. The GAVI Alliance has facilitated the vaccination of between 150 and 200 million more children, and probably saved over two million lives. This accords with the UN’s own targets.