Seminar on
Reform of UN Operational Activities
Brussels, June 7^th 2006

 Welcome and introductory address by H.E. Armand de Decker,
Belgian Minister for Development Cooperation.

Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

First of all, allow me to express the sincerest apologizes of Minister De Decker for not being able to attend this seminar. On his behalf, I would like to share with you the following remarks.

Minister De Decker takes this opportunity to express his deepest appreciation for your presence here today at this seminar, and in particular to the representatives of our partner countries. He wishes all of you fruitful and interactive debates.

Belgium, in spite of its modest size, is a considerable player in the field of development cooperation. In terms of budget, with total ODA expenditures just under 2 billion US Dollars in 2005, Belgium is now firmly in the league of the medium size donors. In terms of ODA as a percentage of Gross National Product, it ranks now number 6 in the world.

Our general position in this specific framework is to be in favour of an “efficient multilateralism” able to guarantee not only equal access to basic goods and services but also to ensure a real equality of opportunities and respect for every human being.

A sound and coherent global governance requires a strengthening of the multilateral institutions and practises and mostly a common will and capacity to efficiently implementing rules and decisions taken by these multilateral institutions.

In every and any contemporary debates about globalization, the same diagnosis systematically comes back: there would be a lack of a global vision in order to adequately tackle the big economic, social and environmental challenges of our inter-dependant world.

Of course, many ”G groups” of many sizes and with different purposes do exist where concerned countries are able to discuss these global challenges and their implications for the citizens and the planet as a whole but it’s also true that the issue of the legitimacy of some of them might still remain an open question so far.

Reason why, we’re convinced that we’ve to strengthen UN’s ability in order to harmoniously balance the great issues of our time, starting with development and poverty reduction.

At the World summit in September last year, world leaders have decided on a wide range of reforms affecting different aspects of multilateral relationships. The reform of the United Nations Operational Activities currently being prepared by the High Level Panel - and co-financed by the Belgian Development Cooperation - is obviously only a part of this reform program.

But a significant part of it.

Indeed, in terms of budget, and without going into detailed definitions, one can say that development activities take for sure over 50% of the global United Nations budget. It does not come therefore as a surprise then that roughly half of the World Summit Outcome Document is dealing with development.

Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

We do not need to elaborate in detail on the need for a reform of the UN operational activities. The problems of fragmentation and partial overlapping mandates and activities in the System have sufficiently been highlighted and documented over the years.

Internal efforts, under the guidance of the Secretary-General have produced a number of improvements, and we appreciate the continued efforts of the UN Development Group for better harmonization and increased cooperation.

There remains much to be done however, if we are to reach a level where the whole UN-system is operating at the field level with “one office, one representative, one programme and one budget”. The operational activities of the Specialized Agencies are not yet part of such a unified approach, nor are the activities of the regional commissions and other Units outside the UN Development Group core programs.

Further Reform efforts are thus for us a must. The main reason for our insistence on this point is that we are deeply convinced of the added-value and potential of the UN in development. And we do fear that the system is now operating below its capacity and potential. Reform efforts are necessary so that the UN can reclaim its proper role and place. The UN should not be allowed to be marginalized by other multilateral actors.

We’re definitively in favour of an in-depth reform of the UN operational activities but, in any case, we’re neither in favour of a “big bang approach” nor a traumatic one. Our preferences are going to a sustainable, pragmatic and realistic reform process where costs/benefits will be clearly identified. With this respect, we do hope very much that, if possible, the current Panel or any other legitimate UN body will be able to come by end of 2006 the latest with a proposal of a kind of “Action Plan” presenting a clear timetable paving the way for constructive reform actions.

Excellencies,
Ladies and gentlemen,

In that context of high concern for the sake of development
cooperation, we have taken a number of initiatives intended at fostering the dialogue with our partner countries on the issues related to the work of the High Level Panel.

This seminar is one of these initiatives.

Belgium has issued a number of documents specifying its position in relation to the reforms. Some of them are included in the documentation you received for this seminar.

Let me be clear on that: these papers are only meant as background information. The main objective of this seminar is not to discuss them. Its purpose is in fact to listen to your positions and concerns, to enter into a dialogue on the problems currently faced by the UN-system and to explore together ways to identify common views and proposals for a more efficient UN system.

That being said, we would like to identify a few issues to reflect on, indicate a few tracks to guide our common reflection. With your permission, we would like to raise five points, not – I insist – in order of importance.

Our first point is about aid effectiveness.

Better effectiveness of the UN-system is, needless to say, the main objective of the reform. This is clearly stated in the World Summit Outcome Document. We would like to point out the link between this objective and the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness. In the past year or so, bilateral donors and several recipient countries have made considerable progress in the field of alignment and harmonisation. So the question is: how can we make sure that the reform puts the UN in a stronger position to comply with the Paris Declaration requirements? One could, and probably should, go even further: in view of its universal mission, shouldn’t the UN be a leader in the harmonisation and alignment process? If yes, what is needed to enable it to fulfil this role?

Our second point is about the distinction between the normative and the operational fields.

It is broadly accepted that the tasks and mandates of the UN Funds, Programs and Agencies in the field of development are wider than the delivery of ODA, wider than being just an operational actor. The UN Funds, Programs and Agencies clearly have a role to play in what is sometimes called “the global issues management” or “the normative field”. The questions we want to raise on this point are about the relationship between these two fields and about their respective importance. On a more fundamental level, there is the issue of universality. While we feel it is generally accepted that the UN-system has a universal role in the normative field, we’re not sure that the same conviction prevails for the operational field. Or to put this as a question on your table: should the UN Operational Activities, as actors of ODA-delivery, be active in all sectors, on all themes and in all countries? What should be the priorities?

Our third point is about the relationship between the humanitarian and the development fields.

It goes without saying that humanitarian actions, most of the time, require other methods and other field approaches than development activities. However, we observe today that most UN-bodies are involved in humanitarian actions as well as in development activities. Moreover, many of them are preparing strategies for the transition period in between crisis and development. Is the current set-up the most efficient one to deal with the complex range from humanitarian crises, over transition phases and into development programmes? Or would separate structures – some have talked about separate pillars – be preferable? If not, how can we assure professionalism and effectiveness in all these fields?

Our fourth point deals with the Specialised Agencies.

The UN-family is much more of course than the Funds and Programs that are accountable to the Secretary General. The so- called Specialised Agencies like FAO, UNESCO, WHO, UNIDO, ILO and many others, are vital members of the family. For many of these agencies their normative role is at least as important as their operational activities related to development. The composition of their governance bodies and, to some extend, their funding mechanisms, reflects this situation. On this point, we have the following questions: should the Specialised Agencies be part of the reform? If yes, should we try to integrate them into a smaller number of agencies or would it suffice to make them part of the consolidation effort at country level?

As our fifth point, there is the question of governance of the UN-bodies.

Currently, different UN-bodies are accountable to different governance structures: they have their own boards; some of them are accountable to ECOSOC and to the General Assembly. Our objective being enhanced effectiveness and coherence, is it enough to strife for it at the country level? Or should we also reform and unify the bodies supervising and governing the Funds, Programs and Agencies? If not, how shall we assure policy coherence? Is ECOSOC the right body to do this? Which role at the end of the day for the ECOSOC?


Excellencies,
Ladies and gentlemen,

Let us conclude here.

And, though we know that the above issues are probably more than enough to fill a one-day seminar, we still want to underline that our ambition was certainly not to be exhaustive. Many other points can – and we hope, will – be raised at this occasion.

We take also this opportunity to urge recipient countries of multilateral aid - and particularly our partner countries - to pro-actively participate to the current debate as well as to help to build up a pragmatic and ambitious consensus around the crucial question of reforming operational activities of the United Nations.

On behalf or Minister De Decker, let me reiterate our warmest welcome to all of you.

We do look forward and with great interest to the outcome of your common reflections.

Thank you.