- Email: [email protected]
The United Nations development system and environmental management
World Developnzer~r, Vol. 20. No. 4. pp. 619-626,
1992.
Printed in Great Britain.
0X35-750x/92 $5.00 + 0.00 Pcrgamon Press Ltd
The United Nations Development System and Environmental Management KONRAD VON MOLTKE World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC and Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire Summary. - Integration of environment and development tasks within the United Nations has the UN development system does not not occurred. Lacking the capacity for coordination, handle complex. cross-cutting issues such as the environment well. Changes in the relationship of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) with its executing agencies make a review of its environmental activities particularly urgent. As UNDP assumes greater direct responsibility for its project portfolio it must develop the technical skills to ensure that the environmental imperative is respected. UNDP’s current approach to these issues does not suffice to meet the needs of environmental management and the move to more substainable patterns of
development.
1. INTRODUCTION For several decades, the United Nations has struggled to establish its role in international development. The so-called UN development system, the UN agencies outside the World Bank family engaged in social and economic policy, have never achieved a coherent mission for their activity. It is paradoxical that there is any uncertainty about the role and importance of the UN development system. Next to international security, the need to rebuild the war-ravaged countries of Europe and the Far East and to integrate new sovereign countries emerging from colonial rule into the international economic system were the principal tasks facing the United Nations in the past 40 years. Long-standing uncertainties in the UN development system have been further accentuated by the challenges of “sustainable development,” a vision of economic and social policy reflecting environmental imperatives. This effort will require a dramatic reorientation of the priorities of the UN development system itself. In addition, the UN’s activities related to environmental management need to be reviewed: the environmental tasks facing the world, as it approaches the 21st century, can only be accomplished by a strong, competent, adequately staffed and funded agency whose primary mission is environmental management. That will require a redefinition of the role of the United Nations Environ-
ment Program (UNEP) an institution designed in the 1960s to confront critical problems of the next century - and its relationships with the UN development system. While the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), to be held in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992, should address these issues the preparatory process thus far does not augur well. In fact, neither UNEP nor the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) are prepared for the tasks ahead.
2. BACKGROUND The last 20 years have been marked by debate and reform within the UN agencies, organs and programs which contribute to social and economic policy and which comprise its “development system.” None of these agencies has had resources on a scale sufficient to actually fund major development projects; consequently their role has been to provide policy guidance, technical assistance and institution building, all of which are difficult without financial incentives. The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) is at the center of the UN development system. It gained its identity through the 1969 Capacity Study of the UN development system by Sir Robert Jackson. The Capacity Study recognized the desperate need for coordination and the failure of the Economic and Social
620
WORLD
DEVELOPMENT
Council to provide it. It also pinpointed the impossibility of achieving coordination without financial incentives. UNDP was designated as a conduit through which the specialized agencies, organs and programs would receive their voluntary contributions for technical development assistance. UNDP was to establish a network of resident representatives who could act as a “diplomatic corps” for the United Nations and become resident coordinators of all UN development activities in the respective countries. UNDP. however, was precluded from competing with the UN agencies for funds since they were the preferred executing agencies for its projects. Environmental affairs were emerging on the international agenda at about the same time UNDP acquired its central role in the UN development system. The Capacity Study was implemented by the 1970 UNDP Consensus Resolution of the General Assembly (GA 2688/ XXV) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) was created not long thereafter. The founders of UNEP still assumed that UNDP would play its projected coordinating role, so UNEP was given a strictly complementary role; it was to act as catalyst for environmental activities throughout the UN system. It was decided that it was not necessary to make UNEP part of the UN development system. since it was not to be an executing agency. UNEP’s defined role relied on there being effective coordination within the UN development system. As the Nordic UN Project states: “No issue has been discussed so much with so little result as coordination of the UN’s activities” (lYYla, p. 49). A catalyst can only be effective within a coherent system. In a structure lacking coordination. “catalytic” activities are an absurdity. UNDP may have fulfilled its coordinating functions briefly, but by the late 1970s two fiscal crises had reduced its financial leverage, and traditional agency independence was resurgent. Given inadequate resources initially, UNEP has suffered additionally from having an impossible mandate within the UN system.
3. THE UNITED NATIONS AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT In recent years, beginning with the Brundland Commission Report (World Commission on Environment and Development, 19X7) there have been countless discussions of the need to integrate environment and development. and that both are in reality two sides of the same coin. Anybody seeking dramatic change in UNDP
sustainable development policies, towards however, will be disappointed. While there are some indicators of changes to come, the central agenda of UNDP appears unaffected. UNDP is not alone in this attitude of neglect toward issues of environment and sustainability. It reflects a continuing consensus of development institutions. Four Nordic countries, the largest donors to UNDP and not suspected to be lacking in environmental commitment, have just completed the Nordic UN Project which aims to generate “ideas and proposals as to how the Nordic countries could make constructive contributions to discussion on reform of the United Nations in the economic and social fields” (The Nordic UN Project, 1990. IYYla, 1YYlb). This complements other studies which focus primarily on security policy and general governance of the United Nations. One might expect sustainable development to be a major focus of the Nordic UN Project. Yet environmental issues are hardly mentioned. Extensive discussion occurs only in two places in the multivolume study. First, an assessment of future scenarios includes discussion of several traditional environmental issues (global warming. hazardous wastes and toxics): apparently these are not considered to be of immediate concern. The UN capability in the environmental field is seen as quite adequate: “The UN offers an already existing and functioning platform for such urgent issues as major environmental issues such as climate change and biological diversity” (The Nordic UN Project IYYla, p. 32). This is not an assessment likely to be shared by most of those directly concerned with environmental issues. Second, a brief section of the summary report is devoted to the environment. It discusses the financing of global environmental measures, implying that this represents an opportunity to generate additional funding for development institutions. Yet the term “sustainable” rarely occurs if at all. Although the introduction states that “environmental threats and the necessity of creating conditions for sustainable development have risen to the top of the international agenda.” nothing in the reports follows up the issue. A report was prepared for the Nordic UN Project on sustainable energy development, but was not published with the other reports. The complex issue of how to balance environmental imperatives and development needs is not discussed at all. The environmental imperative continues to be seen as an external challenge to the real development agenda. Such an omission can send a powerful message to developing countries that environmental and sustainability issues are not very important.
UN DEVELOPMENT There are strong indications that the lack of attention to issues of sustainable development in the Nordic UN Project is the result of systemic attitudes which continue to prevail in institutions whose mission is development. At the 1991 UNDP Governing Council, the administrator made a brief reference to environmental matters in his report, the central policy document of the organization. The major donors with the exception of the United States - hardly considered it worth mentioning. Neither Sweden. Norway, Denmark, Germany, nor the Netherlands (speaking for the European Community) thought it necessary to mention environmental matters in more than a perfunctory manner. Environment is, however, now expected to be on the agenda every other year, in accordance with UNDP practice, and 1991 was an off year for the environment. But it is hard to conceive of sustainable practices which require attention only every other year. The argument may be that UNCED will provide an opportunity to deal with these issues, but even that was not being said. Many UN organs now point out that environmental issues will be dealt with at UNCED, implying that no actions are possible until then. Complaints are also increasingly heard that UNCED will be too focused on environmental matters and will not pay adequate attention to economic issues. This is, however, also due to the fact that few if any major economic actors have been willing to put their own agenda on the table for negotiation at UNCED, implying that the economic aspect of UNCED is unchanging and consequently the environmental agenda must adjust to accommodate it. There is a serious mismatch of perceptions: many active in environmental affairs are convinced that the very nature of the international economic system is under scrutiny while few of those responsible for managing that economic system share this perception. In this situation, it is hardly surprising that UNDP and the UN development system continue to address environmental matters only peripherally. In its attitude to environmental matters, UNDP appropriately reflects the views of the General Assembly of the United Nations. The 1989 reform resolution (44/211) on development activities of the UN system-adopted by the General Assembly during the same session which established the terms of reference for UNCED-barely mentioned the environment, and did not find it necessary to include UNEP among the agencies sharing responsibility for implementation of the resolution. Clearly much ground remains to be covered before environment and development are indeed two sides of
SYSTEM
621
the same coin within the UN development system. In the absence of leadership on environmental matters from those one might first expect to take on such a role, the UN development system, and UNDP in particular, have been left without guidance and with little support on this issue. Certainly recipient countries are unlikely to press for a focus on sustainability when so much of the “expert” advice they continue to get from donors, bankers, and representatives of the private sector in the developed world emphasizes the “grow first, worry about the environment later” attitude which created the environmental crisis of the developed world.
4. THE ROLE OF THE UNDP IN PROJECT MANAGEMENT Any assessment of the UN development system and its response to the environmental challenge must take these realities as its starting point. To the extent that an institution such as UNDP has been tardy and hesitant in its response to environmental needs, it properly reflects the low expectations which both donors and recipients have communicated to it. UNDP is a complex institution. It remains the largest single source of multilateral grant technical development assistance funding, although the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) provides more grant funding and the World Bank more technical assistance. Originally, however, its mission was to reform the UN development system rather than to provide direct assistance to recipient countries. For several years, UNDP appeared set to play this role, but in the 1970s a combination of factors negated the original reform concept. Currency fluctuation, triggered by the introduction of floating exchange rates, made the management of international organizations, which budget in dollars but receive voluntary commitments in many currencies, much more difficult. Mistakes made by UNDP in responding to this challenge exacerbated the situation. Simultaneously the permanent tendencies of the specialized agencies toward independence reasserted themselves. Some of these predate the United Nations to which they are bound by agreements signed with the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). one of the weakest links in the institutional structure created by the UN Charter. Moreover, all of them have their own governing bodies and strong independent rela-
622
WORLD
DEVELOPMENT
tionships with the relevant government agencies in both donor and recipient countries. UNDP now handles a steadily decreasing proportion of the total UN development budget (many projects are funded directly through the specialized agencies) and UNDP is passing a steadily decreasing share of its available resources to the specialized agencies. Two newer project execution “modalities” which do not require participation of the specialized agencies are rapidly becoming the preferred approach of UNDP: project execution through the office of Project Services (OPS), a UNDP division which handles project management, and “direct execution” by the recipient country government, i.e.. without participation of an executing agency. In addition, many of the projects funded by the Division for Global and Interregional Programs involve partners other than the specialized agencies. In a certain sense, UNDP is only now becoming an organization which provides technical assistance. Until recently, it funded technical assistance which was being provided by other agencies. This situation raises serious questions concerning the technical competence of UNDP itself in the wide range of areas for which it is providing support. As long as the agency was funding projects which were executed by others, it felt no need to develop substantive expertise in all areas it was funding; that was the domain of the executing agencies. UNDP thus provides technical assistance but has not invested in developing technical competence itself. This applies not only to environmental affairs but to the entire range of projects which are now funded through OPS or which are subject to direct execution. In some instances, such projects do not require technical expertise. Nevertheless there are many activities now funded without participation of the specialized agencies which imply a substantive evaluation of technical issues. UNDP is now heavily dependent on the services of consultants and other outside entities which provide technical services but are not subject to direct supervision and do not contribute to the development of institutional resources. As long as UNDP was acting a funding agent rather than executing projects, an unsatisfactory situation existed in which project responsibility was dissipated among agencies (Stein and Johnson, 1979, p.44). For example, UNDP could claim that the executing agency was responsible for the environmental consequences of projects which were being funded, while the executing agency could state that it was undertaking the project in accordance with conditions determined in negotiations among UNDP, the executing
agency and the recipient government. This lack of clear responsibility led to an avoidance of complex or controversial issues, such as the environment. Responsibility for environmental and other substantive aspects of projects now rests mainly with UNDP. That raises questions concerning the organization’s ability to manage these issues, that is, UNDP’s own commitment to environmental management and sustainable development. Every self-portrayal of UNDP emphasizes the decentralized nature of the organization. From the outset, UNDP has fulfilled a diplomatic and administrative function for the entire UN system through its network of more than 110 resident representatives. While the details may vary from one country to another, depending mainly on personalities and the degree of financial interdependence, resident representatives have a real measure of independence. They interact with the host government in a continuing manner not subject to detailed instructions. This independence is facilitated by the fact that within UNDP the recipient countries have certain rights, including a basic budget allocation and a crucial role in requesting and approving projects. Thus the resident representative is not only an emissary of UNDP headquarters but also is the only person capable of guiding projects through the approval process within the recipient country. The network of resident representatives provides UNDP with a unique role within the UN system. As the financial ties to the specialized agencies have loosened, representation in so many countries remains as the essential source of institutional strength in interagency relationships. It explains why hardly any development initiative is possible within the United Nations without the participation of UNDP. even when it does not contribute any funding of its own-as in the case of the Ozone Fund, a multilateral fund under the London Revisions to the Montreal Protocol (Benedick, 1990, pp. 253%255), the Global Environmental Facility (Helland Hansen. 1991), or the Tropical Forestry Action Plan. There is a wide range of styles and personalities among resident representatives. Many of them have been well ahead of headquarters in addressing environmental issues in their countries. Any evaluation of UNDP from a environmental perspective must keep this in mind. however, an unsystematic It remains, approach, and the role of the resident representatives is bound to shift as more projects are selfexecuted or managed by OPS, creating a centralizing dynamic from the perspective of the resident representatives.
UN DEVELOPMENT 5. UNDP’S RESPONSE TO ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS At an institutional level, it was not until 1989 that the administrator of UNDP addressed environmental affairs in a special report to the Governing Council, pursuant to a mandate given the year before. It is worth pausing to reflect on the date. The UN Conference on Man and the Environment was held in Stockholm in 1072; the relationship between environment and development was a controversial topic even then. Since the early 1980s the linkages between environment and development have been increasingly apparent. In 1985 the World Bank undertook a reorganization and created an environment division even while it was reducing the total size of its staff. The World Commission on Environment and Development worked during 1085-86 and produced its report in 1987. By early 1989, plans were coalescing for a second UN Conference on the environment, this time explicitly linking it to development. All of these events did not cause a rethinking of UNDP’s mission or approach to development. It is difficult not to put a bureaucratic interpretation on the administrator’s and the Governing Council’s decision to proceed when they did: since it was becoming apparent that environment issues were unlikely to disappear and since UNCED was looming, it was essential to stake out some territory on these issues. UNDP formulated a five-step plan to operationalize sustainable development in UNDP activities (UNDP, 1990). -Institutional adjustments and actions at headquarters. including “consolidation of the policy co-ordination and promotional role of the Environmental Action Team.” This fine phrase tends to obscure the continuing lack of institutional commitment to environmental issues. It represents a reorganization of the modest resources devoted to environmental matters under a new title. -Awareness promotion resulting in intensified action at the country and subregional levels, attained through Special Program Resources (SPR), indicative planning figures (IPF) and trust fund-supported Workshops on Environment and Sustainable Development and emphasis on field office cooperation with non-governmental organizations. -The establishment of the Sustainable Development Network (SDN) at the country level. -Formulation of Environmental Management Guidelines (EMG) in an interactive manner
SYSTEM
623
to provide a systematic framework for integrating the environmental dimension in programming and project design. -Introduction of EMG to field offices in a bottom-up process of training and participation in their actual use. This plan still represents the core of UNDP’s own institutional commitment to environmental affairs. Since then, however, new opportunities have opened up through the Montreal Protocol and its Ozone Fund and the establishment of the Global Environmental Facility (GEF). UNDP, always short of funds, has been quick to seize these opportunities. Indeed, the Nordic UN Project is evidence that the UN’s interest in environmental matters is also driven by the prospect of additional funding for the organization. It remains important to ask whether UNDP possesses the institutional capabilities and the technical expertise to actually contribute significantly to the success of these important financial innovations as well as control the environmental consequences of its own activities. For this reason, the five-step plan continues to be important. The first activity listed above is meant to identify the resources expended within the United Nations on environmental concerns. At the present time, the group of staff members who devote full-time attention to environmental affairs within UNDP headquarters has grown from seven to 10. In addition, there are staff in the regional bureaus and in the field. Thus no comprehensive figure for staffing levels for the environment is available, yet it IS unlikely that current levels are adequate, even taking into account UNDP’s practice of using consultants to carry out many substantive assignments. Consultants were used to analyze UNDP projects to determine those which are “environmental” in nature. Indeed, it appears that different consultants were used each year, illustrating how problematic this practice is. As a consequence, the definition of what are to be considered “environmental” projects has changed from year to year, reflecting a haphazard initial approach and resulting in questionable figures which cannot be compared from one year to the next. Thus claims which identify as many as half of all UNDP projects as “environmental” in nature must be viewed with extreme skepticism. It is certainly likely that a large number of projects concerning developing countries will involve natural resources since most of the economies concerned are heavily dependent on natural resource production. In addition, the needs of their citizens reflect the lack of basic necessities: food, clothing and shelter, water and
624
WORLD
DEVELOPMENT
sanitation, all of which have environmental implications. The identification of projects as “environmental,” however, says nothing about their design, effectiveness or appropriateness, and the statistical exercise undertaken thus far provides for no feedback between the analysis and project decision making. The second activity, “awareness and action of an environmental nature” is being implemented through workshops in several countries and at the subregional level where this is substantially justified. It is clear that this activity appropriately aims primarily at increasing the awareness of the staff of UNDP and in the recipient countries. rather than at a general public audience. It is difficult to judge the effectiveness of these seminars, particularly since they again involve the extensive use of consultants and there is no systematic record of their results or impacts. The third activity is the creation of dozens of Sustainable Development Networks (SDNs) which exist only at the conceptual stage thus far. The purpose is to establish a network which links “those governmental, non-governmental, grassroots and entrepreneurial organizations and institutions in the country that could benefit and/or contribute to economic and social development that is sustainable and environmentally sound.” (UNDP, 1990). While the goal is laudable. the question is whether such a network can be created by an external, international organization and whether UNDP’s resources are adequate for the task. Projections are for a budget of almost $11.6 million for these SDNs by 1996. This sum, however, will not provide for much more than a single staff salary and some operational funds in each of the 100 countries initially projected. UNDP is unlikely to be able to generate these sums from its own voluntary contributions. This means the SDNs are overly ambitious, or that UNDP is likely to join the ranks of “entrepreneurial” international organizations which define projects and then seek support for them from donors, recipients and other international organizations. Perhaps the most important activity envisaged by UNDP is the fourth activity - the formulation of environmental management guidelines (EMG) -which are to constitute the basis of the organization’s own response to environmental issues and to serve as a reference for project executants. With its limited staff. UNDP has again used consultants to draft the EMG. The resulting document, edited internally. has been circulated for review and a final version is due to be released soon. The draft version was flawed. reflecting UNDP’s lack of substantive environmental expertise. It appears unlikely that the
final product will be effective unless drastic and time-consuming revisions are undertaken. The EMG is to be used for an extensive program of training at the field level, called “bottom-up” in the administrator’s report, although it is hard to see how decentralized training based on centralized guidelines can be described in this manner. Undoubtedly training is of crucial importance within UNDP. Nevertheless it remains unclear whether the organization has the will or the capability to undertake such an effort in an effective manner. The difficulties of UNDP in addressing environmental issues are a reflection of a broader phenomenon among development agencies. They are compounded by the particular situation of an organization whose principal mission is the provision of technical assistance. While technical assistance is at the origin of most development investment projects, it is the projects themselves which engender the environmental consequences and therefore attract attention and are the focus of mitigation. At the same time, the design phase of technical assistance is clearly when the environmental consequences of projects can be assessed and avoided or mitigated. Good technical assistance is the most economical way to develop environmentally sound, sustainable projects. Most techniques which have been developed to cope with the environmental consequences of major development projects and notably environmental assessment techniques were originally designed for evaluating major projects. They may have been adapted to other uses, but their appropriateness is reduced. Yet there is no question that poor technical advice is the origin of most enviromnentally damaging. unsustainable projects. Hence the issue is the quality of technical advice, and how to ensure that it is environmentally sound - which is in many ways a more complex problem than the mitigation of specific consequences of specfic projects. The draft EMG takes some tentative steps toward addressing this novel and complex issue, but it does not go far enough. Assessing the quality of advice is a delicate matter, since it tends to impugn the professional competence of those providing the advice. Thus solutions need to be developed which respect the professional code of those involved. A number of techniques exist, but they are quite different from those traditionally used in relation to environment and development. The first is to ensure that the professional training of its staff and consultants respects the environmental imperative. The United Nations can have some influence on the education and
UN DEVELOPMENT
training of development professionals and, indirectly, on the curriculum of the institutions providing this training. By indicating its own need for professional advice which is environmentally sound, it also creates incentives for developing the appropriate training methods. This approach should extend all the way to the formulation of appropriate criteria for employee and consultant hiring. The training efforts which are part of UNDP’s five-step plan are needed to confront the lack of environmental expertise on the part of existing staff. Such training needs to be of high quality and incorporate effective follow-up. That can only be expected if institutional priorities which reflect the need for such training are clearly articulated and supported through the incentive structure. Otherwise, implementation will remain dependent on the interests and capabilities of individual persons. Even more difficult to implement are procedures for the evaluation of technical advice which is provided. In an agency such as UNDP, there are few incentives to evaluate past projects. No institutional gains can be derived from documenting success since that is the presumption; documenting failure entails institutional penalties. It is consequently not surprising that the evaluation of past projects is not a priority. This applies equally to any attempt to review the appropriateness of assistance from an environmental point of view. Techniques have been developed in some professions to cope with these difficulties, which are widespread. They are the procedures of peer review. Situated on the border-line between helpful advice, constructive criticism and a move toward correcting error, peer review provides methods which have been found acceptable in many professions while significantly improving the performance of practitioners. An environmental peer review process with UNDP would need to be structured in special ways to reflect the character of the organization. The involvement of outside peers represents one of the most promising avenues for substantive reform of international organizations, which are frequently caught between donor and recipient clients and are controlled by the countries which govern them. Establishment of an environmental consultative group, including bilateral aid agencies, environmental agencies and independent experts from science, industry and nongovernmental organizations may provide an efficient avenue for overcoming some of the institutional obstacles to incorporating environmental change into an organization such as UNDP. It is interesting to note that a number of precedents are currently being created, several of
SYSTEM
625
them involving UNDP itself. The process for reforming the Tropical Forestry Action Plan (TFAP) has been slow and painful. It now rests on the creation of a Consultative Group much like the one which is proposed here. The Global Environmental Facility and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development have both provided for environmental scientific and technical advisory bodies from the outset. There is no reason such a structure could not also be created for the environmental aspects of UNDP’s work.
6. CONCLUSION UNDP and the entire UN development system stand at the very beginning of a lengthy process to incorporate environmental concerns. Unlike the multilateral development banks and some bilateral funding agencies, the UN development system has not yet come under significant pressure to adapt. The phases of this process are by now quite well known and can be observed in the adjustment of public and private institutions at all levels to environmental needs. In an initial phase, the institution undertakes a superficial reorganization, creates an environment unit long on responsibility and short on resources and decision-making authority, and claims to have been doing the right thing all along. UNDP is currently in this phase. When the next environmental crisis occurs, the weak structure which was created is seen to be insufficient and is radically reformed and much strengthened. This roughly describes the situation at the World Bank. Unfortunately this approach does not promise continuing success either: now there are open conflicts between established units and the new environmental “upstart” which has the ability to cause trouble and is viewed as a nuisance or a threat. Solutions emerge only when serious efforts are made on all sides to incorporate environmental considerations in all parts of the institution, and to regard the forceful specialized unit as the environmental conscience of the organization rather than as a competitor or gadfly. What applies to UNDP presumably also applies to the rest of the UN development systemand to its relationship to UNEP, an agency which is often held in low regard because it was given and impossible mission and was not provided with the necessary resources to even begin to fulfill it. At the larger level, the same process of integration is required, but it is not selfexecuting, and is unlikely to succeed without a
626
WORLD
DEVELOPMEN’l
strong institution - UNEP or some successor organization with environment as its sole mission. Until that happens, the dirge which was heard by a review group from ECOSOC will probably be heard more often: It was recognized that all sectoral institutions of the UN system (and of Governments) must be environmentally aware, but at the crucial analytical and planning stage this leaves a major vacuum. Team members heard such telling remarks as. “Everyone in the United Nations system seems to have a piece of environment now; but who has the whole view? - we must be able to get this, without conditions from the United Nations which is supposed to lead.” In another country the Government was confronted by “all sorts of
ideas from every donor on environment, and an argument among United Nations agencies.” There are no grounds for special indictment of a set of United Nations institutions created by Governments that have themselves only recently seen the domestic structural implications of environmental issues, but addressing the multilateral dimension of this problem is urgent. Impartial help from the United Nations system, free of conditionalities and in a fully integrated manner, is needed now in all environment-related fields (ECOSOC, 198Y. p. 3’)). To the extent that UNCED helps to address some of these difficulties, and ushers in a second of environmental responsiveness at phase UNDP, it will already have made an important contribution.
REFERENCES Bencdick, Richard, Ozww Diplomuc_v: New Dirrcrior~s in Sufefeguurdi~~g/he Ph7rf (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1YYl). Economic and Social Council, “Reporting to the Economic and Social Council” (New York: ECOSOC, 19X0). Helland-Hansen. Erik. “The Global Environmental Facility.” fr77rrr7u~ionrd Enviror7rt7er7rtrl Af$irs. Vol. 3, No. I (1YYl). pp. 137-144. Jackson. Robert. The Copacit~~ of the Utrired N~rror7.s D~velopmcv71 .~ys1cw7 (Geneva: United Nations, lY6Y). The Nordic UN Proicct. The Uui/ed Nrrfioro irl
The Nordic UN Projecl (S’tockholm: Alm&t & Wikscll International. 1YYla). The Nordic UN Project. The Unird N~tkms: 1.w1te.s wd Oprior7s. Five S1~7die.s 017/he Role of rhe UN irr rl7e
Ecor7omic ut7d Sociul Fields, cornrr7issiot7etl by Ti7e Nordic UN Project (Stockholm: Almqvist Kr Wikscll International. 1YYlb). The Nordic UN Project. Perspec/iws D,I Mulriluwrcrl Axsistu~rcr. A R&w by The Nordic UN Projecf (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International. lYY0). Stein, Robert E. and Brian Johnson. Bur~kir~,q 011 /lrc, Bios,d7rrcY G~virommwrul Procedutw cd Prtrc~iws of Niw Mul~il~~~~rl lkvrlopt77et7~Agc77cie.s(Lcxington, MA: Lexington Books. 1970). United Nations Development Program, “Environmcntal dimensions of development: Commitment and progress in IYNY. Report of the Administrator” (New York: UNDP. 1YYO). World Commission on Environment and Dcvclopmcnt. Our C’o~~r77or7 F7irmrc(Oxford: Oxcord University Press. IY87).
1992.
Printed in Great Britain.
0X35-750x/92 $5.00 + 0.00 Pcrgamon Press Ltd
The United Nations Development System and Environmental Management KONRAD VON MOLTKE World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC and Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire Summary. - Integration of environment and development tasks within the United Nations has the UN development system does not not occurred. Lacking the capacity for coordination, handle complex. cross-cutting issues such as the environment well. Changes in the relationship of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) with its executing agencies make a review of its environmental activities particularly urgent. As UNDP assumes greater direct responsibility for its project portfolio it must develop the technical skills to ensure that the environmental imperative is respected. UNDP’s current approach to these issues does not suffice to meet the needs of environmental management and the move to more substainable patterns of
development.
1. INTRODUCTION For several decades, the United Nations has struggled to establish its role in international development. The so-called UN development system, the UN agencies outside the World Bank family engaged in social and economic policy, have never achieved a coherent mission for their activity. It is paradoxical that there is any uncertainty about the role and importance of the UN development system. Next to international security, the need to rebuild the war-ravaged countries of Europe and the Far East and to integrate new sovereign countries emerging from colonial rule into the international economic system were the principal tasks facing the United Nations in the past 40 years. Long-standing uncertainties in the UN development system have been further accentuated by the challenges of “sustainable development,” a vision of economic and social policy reflecting environmental imperatives. This effort will require a dramatic reorientation of the priorities of the UN development system itself. In addition, the UN’s activities related to environmental management need to be reviewed: the environmental tasks facing the world, as it approaches the 21st century, can only be accomplished by a strong, competent, adequately staffed and funded agency whose primary mission is environmental management. That will require a redefinition of the role of the United Nations Environ-
ment Program (UNEP) an institution designed in the 1960s to confront critical problems of the next century - and its relationships with the UN development system. While the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), to be held in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992, should address these issues the preparatory process thus far does not augur well. In fact, neither UNEP nor the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) are prepared for the tasks ahead.
2. BACKGROUND The last 20 years have been marked by debate and reform within the UN agencies, organs and programs which contribute to social and economic policy and which comprise its “development system.” None of these agencies has had resources on a scale sufficient to actually fund major development projects; consequently their role has been to provide policy guidance, technical assistance and institution building, all of which are difficult without financial incentives. The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) is at the center of the UN development system. It gained its identity through the 1969 Capacity Study of the UN development system by Sir Robert Jackson. The Capacity Study recognized the desperate need for coordination and the failure of the Economic and Social
620
WORLD
DEVELOPMENT
Council to provide it. It also pinpointed the impossibility of achieving coordination without financial incentives. UNDP was designated as a conduit through which the specialized agencies, organs and programs would receive their voluntary contributions for technical development assistance. UNDP was to establish a network of resident representatives who could act as a “diplomatic corps” for the United Nations and become resident coordinators of all UN development activities in the respective countries. UNDP. however, was precluded from competing with the UN agencies for funds since they were the preferred executing agencies for its projects. Environmental affairs were emerging on the international agenda at about the same time UNDP acquired its central role in the UN development system. The Capacity Study was implemented by the 1970 UNDP Consensus Resolution of the General Assembly (GA 2688/ XXV) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) was created not long thereafter. The founders of UNEP still assumed that UNDP would play its projected coordinating role, so UNEP was given a strictly complementary role; it was to act as catalyst for environmental activities throughout the UN system. It was decided that it was not necessary to make UNEP part of the UN development system. since it was not to be an executing agency. UNEP’s defined role relied on there being effective coordination within the UN development system. As the Nordic UN Project states: “No issue has been discussed so much with so little result as coordination of the UN’s activities” (lYYla, p. 49). A catalyst can only be effective within a coherent system. In a structure lacking coordination. “catalytic” activities are an absurdity. UNDP may have fulfilled its coordinating functions briefly, but by the late 1970s two fiscal crises had reduced its financial leverage, and traditional agency independence was resurgent. Given inadequate resources initially, UNEP has suffered additionally from having an impossible mandate within the UN system.
3. THE UNITED NATIONS AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT In recent years, beginning with the Brundland Commission Report (World Commission on Environment and Development, 19X7) there have been countless discussions of the need to integrate environment and development. and that both are in reality two sides of the same coin. Anybody seeking dramatic change in UNDP
sustainable development policies, towards however, will be disappointed. While there are some indicators of changes to come, the central agenda of UNDP appears unaffected. UNDP is not alone in this attitude of neglect toward issues of environment and sustainability. It reflects a continuing consensus of development institutions. Four Nordic countries, the largest donors to UNDP and not suspected to be lacking in environmental commitment, have just completed the Nordic UN Project which aims to generate “ideas and proposals as to how the Nordic countries could make constructive contributions to discussion on reform of the United Nations in the economic and social fields” (The Nordic UN Project, 1990. IYYla, 1YYlb). This complements other studies which focus primarily on security policy and general governance of the United Nations. One might expect sustainable development to be a major focus of the Nordic UN Project. Yet environmental issues are hardly mentioned. Extensive discussion occurs only in two places in the multivolume study. First, an assessment of future scenarios includes discussion of several traditional environmental issues (global warming. hazardous wastes and toxics): apparently these are not considered to be of immediate concern. The UN capability in the environmental field is seen as quite adequate: “The UN offers an already existing and functioning platform for such urgent issues as major environmental issues such as climate change and biological diversity” (The Nordic UN Project IYYla, p. 32). This is not an assessment likely to be shared by most of those directly concerned with environmental issues. Second, a brief section of the summary report is devoted to the environment. It discusses the financing of global environmental measures, implying that this represents an opportunity to generate additional funding for development institutions. Yet the term “sustainable” rarely occurs if at all. Although the introduction states that “environmental threats and the necessity of creating conditions for sustainable development have risen to the top of the international agenda.” nothing in the reports follows up the issue. A report was prepared for the Nordic UN Project on sustainable energy development, but was not published with the other reports. The complex issue of how to balance environmental imperatives and development needs is not discussed at all. The environmental imperative continues to be seen as an external challenge to the real development agenda. Such an omission can send a powerful message to developing countries that environmental and sustainability issues are not very important.
UN DEVELOPMENT There are strong indications that the lack of attention to issues of sustainable development in the Nordic UN Project is the result of systemic attitudes which continue to prevail in institutions whose mission is development. At the 1991 UNDP Governing Council, the administrator made a brief reference to environmental matters in his report, the central policy document of the organization. The major donors with the exception of the United States - hardly considered it worth mentioning. Neither Sweden. Norway, Denmark, Germany, nor the Netherlands (speaking for the European Community) thought it necessary to mention environmental matters in more than a perfunctory manner. Environment is, however, now expected to be on the agenda every other year, in accordance with UNDP practice, and 1991 was an off year for the environment. But it is hard to conceive of sustainable practices which require attention only every other year. The argument may be that UNCED will provide an opportunity to deal with these issues, but even that was not being said. Many UN organs now point out that environmental issues will be dealt with at UNCED, implying that no actions are possible until then. Complaints are also increasingly heard that UNCED will be too focused on environmental matters and will not pay adequate attention to economic issues. This is, however, also due to the fact that few if any major economic actors have been willing to put their own agenda on the table for negotiation at UNCED, implying that the economic aspect of UNCED is unchanging and consequently the environmental agenda must adjust to accommodate it. There is a serious mismatch of perceptions: many active in environmental affairs are convinced that the very nature of the international economic system is under scrutiny while few of those responsible for managing that economic system share this perception. In this situation, it is hardly surprising that UNDP and the UN development system continue to address environmental matters only peripherally. In its attitude to environmental matters, UNDP appropriately reflects the views of the General Assembly of the United Nations. The 1989 reform resolution (44/211) on development activities of the UN system-adopted by the General Assembly during the same session which established the terms of reference for UNCED-barely mentioned the environment, and did not find it necessary to include UNEP among the agencies sharing responsibility for implementation of the resolution. Clearly much ground remains to be covered before environment and development are indeed two sides of
SYSTEM
621
the same coin within the UN development system. In the absence of leadership on environmental matters from those one might first expect to take on such a role, the UN development system, and UNDP in particular, have been left without guidance and with little support on this issue. Certainly recipient countries are unlikely to press for a focus on sustainability when so much of the “expert” advice they continue to get from donors, bankers, and representatives of the private sector in the developed world emphasizes the “grow first, worry about the environment later” attitude which created the environmental crisis of the developed world.
4. THE ROLE OF THE UNDP IN PROJECT MANAGEMENT Any assessment of the UN development system and its response to the environmental challenge must take these realities as its starting point. To the extent that an institution such as UNDP has been tardy and hesitant in its response to environmental needs, it properly reflects the low expectations which both donors and recipients have communicated to it. UNDP is a complex institution. It remains the largest single source of multilateral grant technical development assistance funding, although the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) provides more grant funding and the World Bank more technical assistance. Originally, however, its mission was to reform the UN development system rather than to provide direct assistance to recipient countries. For several years, UNDP appeared set to play this role, but in the 1970s a combination of factors negated the original reform concept. Currency fluctuation, triggered by the introduction of floating exchange rates, made the management of international organizations, which budget in dollars but receive voluntary commitments in many currencies, much more difficult. Mistakes made by UNDP in responding to this challenge exacerbated the situation. Simultaneously the permanent tendencies of the specialized agencies toward independence reasserted themselves. Some of these predate the United Nations to which they are bound by agreements signed with the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). one of the weakest links in the institutional structure created by the UN Charter. Moreover, all of them have their own governing bodies and strong independent rela-
622
WORLD
DEVELOPMENT
tionships with the relevant government agencies in both donor and recipient countries. UNDP now handles a steadily decreasing proportion of the total UN development budget (many projects are funded directly through the specialized agencies) and UNDP is passing a steadily decreasing share of its available resources to the specialized agencies. Two newer project execution “modalities” which do not require participation of the specialized agencies are rapidly becoming the preferred approach of UNDP: project execution through the office of Project Services (OPS), a UNDP division which handles project management, and “direct execution” by the recipient country government, i.e.. without participation of an executing agency. In addition, many of the projects funded by the Division for Global and Interregional Programs involve partners other than the specialized agencies. In a certain sense, UNDP is only now becoming an organization which provides technical assistance. Until recently, it funded technical assistance which was being provided by other agencies. This situation raises serious questions concerning the technical competence of UNDP itself in the wide range of areas for which it is providing support. As long as the agency was funding projects which were executed by others, it felt no need to develop substantive expertise in all areas it was funding; that was the domain of the executing agencies. UNDP thus provides technical assistance but has not invested in developing technical competence itself. This applies not only to environmental affairs but to the entire range of projects which are now funded through OPS or which are subject to direct execution. In some instances, such projects do not require technical expertise. Nevertheless there are many activities now funded without participation of the specialized agencies which imply a substantive evaluation of technical issues. UNDP is now heavily dependent on the services of consultants and other outside entities which provide technical services but are not subject to direct supervision and do not contribute to the development of institutional resources. As long as UNDP was acting a funding agent rather than executing projects, an unsatisfactory situation existed in which project responsibility was dissipated among agencies (Stein and Johnson, 1979, p.44). For example, UNDP could claim that the executing agency was responsible for the environmental consequences of projects which were being funded, while the executing agency could state that it was undertaking the project in accordance with conditions determined in negotiations among UNDP, the executing
agency and the recipient government. This lack of clear responsibility led to an avoidance of complex or controversial issues, such as the environment. Responsibility for environmental and other substantive aspects of projects now rests mainly with UNDP. That raises questions concerning the organization’s ability to manage these issues, that is, UNDP’s own commitment to environmental management and sustainable development. Every self-portrayal of UNDP emphasizes the decentralized nature of the organization. From the outset, UNDP has fulfilled a diplomatic and administrative function for the entire UN system through its network of more than 110 resident representatives. While the details may vary from one country to another, depending mainly on personalities and the degree of financial interdependence, resident representatives have a real measure of independence. They interact with the host government in a continuing manner not subject to detailed instructions. This independence is facilitated by the fact that within UNDP the recipient countries have certain rights, including a basic budget allocation and a crucial role in requesting and approving projects. Thus the resident representative is not only an emissary of UNDP headquarters but also is the only person capable of guiding projects through the approval process within the recipient country. The network of resident representatives provides UNDP with a unique role within the UN system. As the financial ties to the specialized agencies have loosened, representation in so many countries remains as the essential source of institutional strength in interagency relationships. It explains why hardly any development initiative is possible within the United Nations without the participation of UNDP. even when it does not contribute any funding of its own-as in the case of the Ozone Fund, a multilateral fund under the London Revisions to the Montreal Protocol (Benedick, 1990, pp. 253%255), the Global Environmental Facility (Helland Hansen. 1991), or the Tropical Forestry Action Plan. There is a wide range of styles and personalities among resident representatives. Many of them have been well ahead of headquarters in addressing environmental issues in their countries. Any evaluation of UNDP from a environmental perspective must keep this in mind. however, an unsystematic It remains, approach, and the role of the resident representatives is bound to shift as more projects are selfexecuted or managed by OPS, creating a centralizing dynamic from the perspective of the resident representatives.
UN DEVELOPMENT 5. UNDP’S RESPONSE TO ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS At an institutional level, it was not until 1989 that the administrator of UNDP addressed environmental affairs in a special report to the Governing Council, pursuant to a mandate given the year before. It is worth pausing to reflect on the date. The UN Conference on Man and the Environment was held in Stockholm in 1072; the relationship between environment and development was a controversial topic even then. Since the early 1980s the linkages between environment and development have been increasingly apparent. In 1985 the World Bank undertook a reorganization and created an environment division even while it was reducing the total size of its staff. The World Commission on Environment and Development worked during 1085-86 and produced its report in 1987. By early 1989, plans were coalescing for a second UN Conference on the environment, this time explicitly linking it to development. All of these events did not cause a rethinking of UNDP’s mission or approach to development. It is difficult not to put a bureaucratic interpretation on the administrator’s and the Governing Council’s decision to proceed when they did: since it was becoming apparent that environment issues were unlikely to disappear and since UNCED was looming, it was essential to stake out some territory on these issues. UNDP formulated a five-step plan to operationalize sustainable development in UNDP activities (UNDP, 1990). -Institutional adjustments and actions at headquarters. including “consolidation of the policy co-ordination and promotional role of the Environmental Action Team.” This fine phrase tends to obscure the continuing lack of institutional commitment to environmental issues. It represents a reorganization of the modest resources devoted to environmental matters under a new title. -Awareness promotion resulting in intensified action at the country and subregional levels, attained through Special Program Resources (SPR), indicative planning figures (IPF) and trust fund-supported Workshops on Environment and Sustainable Development and emphasis on field office cooperation with non-governmental organizations. -The establishment of the Sustainable Development Network (SDN) at the country level. -Formulation of Environmental Management Guidelines (EMG) in an interactive manner
SYSTEM
623
to provide a systematic framework for integrating the environmental dimension in programming and project design. -Introduction of EMG to field offices in a bottom-up process of training and participation in their actual use. This plan still represents the core of UNDP’s own institutional commitment to environmental affairs. Since then, however, new opportunities have opened up through the Montreal Protocol and its Ozone Fund and the establishment of the Global Environmental Facility (GEF). UNDP, always short of funds, has been quick to seize these opportunities. Indeed, the Nordic UN Project is evidence that the UN’s interest in environmental matters is also driven by the prospect of additional funding for the organization. It remains important to ask whether UNDP possesses the institutional capabilities and the technical expertise to actually contribute significantly to the success of these important financial innovations as well as control the environmental consequences of its own activities. For this reason, the five-step plan continues to be important. The first activity listed above is meant to identify the resources expended within the United Nations on environmental concerns. At the present time, the group of staff members who devote full-time attention to environmental affairs within UNDP headquarters has grown from seven to 10. In addition, there are staff in the regional bureaus and in the field. Thus no comprehensive figure for staffing levels for the environment is available, yet it IS unlikely that current levels are adequate, even taking into account UNDP’s practice of using consultants to carry out many substantive assignments. Consultants were used to analyze UNDP projects to determine those which are “environmental” in nature. Indeed, it appears that different consultants were used each year, illustrating how problematic this practice is. As a consequence, the definition of what are to be considered “environmental” projects has changed from year to year, reflecting a haphazard initial approach and resulting in questionable figures which cannot be compared from one year to the next. Thus claims which identify as many as half of all UNDP projects as “environmental” in nature must be viewed with extreme skepticism. It is certainly likely that a large number of projects concerning developing countries will involve natural resources since most of the economies concerned are heavily dependent on natural resource production. In addition, the needs of their citizens reflect the lack of basic necessities: food, clothing and shelter, water and
624
WORLD
DEVELOPMENT
sanitation, all of which have environmental implications. The identification of projects as “environmental,” however, says nothing about their design, effectiveness or appropriateness, and the statistical exercise undertaken thus far provides for no feedback between the analysis and project decision making. The second activity, “awareness and action of an environmental nature” is being implemented through workshops in several countries and at the subregional level where this is substantially justified. It is clear that this activity appropriately aims primarily at increasing the awareness of the staff of UNDP and in the recipient countries. rather than at a general public audience. It is difficult to judge the effectiveness of these seminars, particularly since they again involve the extensive use of consultants and there is no systematic record of their results or impacts. The third activity is the creation of dozens of Sustainable Development Networks (SDNs) which exist only at the conceptual stage thus far. The purpose is to establish a network which links “those governmental, non-governmental, grassroots and entrepreneurial organizations and institutions in the country that could benefit and/or contribute to economic and social development that is sustainable and environmentally sound.” (UNDP, 1990). While the goal is laudable. the question is whether such a network can be created by an external, international organization and whether UNDP’s resources are adequate for the task. Projections are for a budget of almost $11.6 million for these SDNs by 1996. This sum, however, will not provide for much more than a single staff salary and some operational funds in each of the 100 countries initially projected. UNDP is unlikely to be able to generate these sums from its own voluntary contributions. This means the SDNs are overly ambitious, or that UNDP is likely to join the ranks of “entrepreneurial” international organizations which define projects and then seek support for them from donors, recipients and other international organizations. Perhaps the most important activity envisaged by UNDP is the fourth activity - the formulation of environmental management guidelines (EMG) -which are to constitute the basis of the organization’s own response to environmental issues and to serve as a reference for project executants. With its limited staff. UNDP has again used consultants to draft the EMG. The resulting document, edited internally. has been circulated for review and a final version is due to be released soon. The draft version was flawed. reflecting UNDP’s lack of substantive environmental expertise. It appears unlikely that the
final product will be effective unless drastic and time-consuming revisions are undertaken. The EMG is to be used for an extensive program of training at the field level, called “bottom-up” in the administrator’s report, although it is hard to see how decentralized training based on centralized guidelines can be described in this manner. Undoubtedly training is of crucial importance within UNDP. Nevertheless it remains unclear whether the organization has the will or the capability to undertake such an effort in an effective manner. The difficulties of UNDP in addressing environmental issues are a reflection of a broader phenomenon among development agencies. They are compounded by the particular situation of an organization whose principal mission is the provision of technical assistance. While technical assistance is at the origin of most development investment projects, it is the projects themselves which engender the environmental consequences and therefore attract attention and are the focus of mitigation. At the same time, the design phase of technical assistance is clearly when the environmental consequences of projects can be assessed and avoided or mitigated. Good technical assistance is the most economical way to develop environmentally sound, sustainable projects. Most techniques which have been developed to cope with the environmental consequences of major development projects and notably environmental assessment techniques were originally designed for evaluating major projects. They may have been adapted to other uses, but their appropriateness is reduced. Yet there is no question that poor technical advice is the origin of most enviromnentally damaging. unsustainable projects. Hence the issue is the quality of technical advice, and how to ensure that it is environmentally sound - which is in many ways a more complex problem than the mitigation of specific consequences of specfic projects. The draft EMG takes some tentative steps toward addressing this novel and complex issue, but it does not go far enough. Assessing the quality of advice is a delicate matter, since it tends to impugn the professional competence of those providing the advice. Thus solutions need to be developed which respect the professional code of those involved. A number of techniques exist, but they are quite different from those traditionally used in relation to environment and development. The first is to ensure that the professional training of its staff and consultants respects the environmental imperative. The United Nations can have some influence on the education and
UN DEVELOPMENT
training of development professionals and, indirectly, on the curriculum of the institutions providing this training. By indicating its own need for professional advice which is environmentally sound, it also creates incentives for developing the appropriate training methods. This approach should extend all the way to the formulation of appropriate criteria for employee and consultant hiring. The training efforts which are part of UNDP’s five-step plan are needed to confront the lack of environmental expertise on the part of existing staff. Such training needs to be of high quality and incorporate effective follow-up. That can only be expected if institutional priorities which reflect the need for such training are clearly articulated and supported through the incentive structure. Otherwise, implementation will remain dependent on the interests and capabilities of individual persons. Even more difficult to implement are procedures for the evaluation of technical advice which is provided. In an agency such as UNDP, there are few incentives to evaluate past projects. No institutional gains can be derived from documenting success since that is the presumption; documenting failure entails institutional penalties. It is consequently not surprising that the evaluation of past projects is not a priority. This applies equally to any attempt to review the appropriateness of assistance from an environmental point of view. Techniques have been developed in some professions to cope with these difficulties, which are widespread. They are the procedures of peer review. Situated on the border-line between helpful advice, constructive criticism and a move toward correcting error, peer review provides methods which have been found acceptable in many professions while significantly improving the performance of practitioners. An environmental peer review process with UNDP would need to be structured in special ways to reflect the character of the organization. The involvement of outside peers represents one of the most promising avenues for substantive reform of international organizations, which are frequently caught between donor and recipient clients and are controlled by the countries which govern them. Establishment of an environmental consultative group, including bilateral aid agencies, environmental agencies and independent experts from science, industry and nongovernmental organizations may provide an efficient avenue for overcoming some of the institutional obstacles to incorporating environmental change into an organization such as UNDP. It is interesting to note that a number of precedents are currently being created, several of
SYSTEM
625
them involving UNDP itself. The process for reforming the Tropical Forestry Action Plan (TFAP) has been slow and painful. It now rests on the creation of a Consultative Group much like the one which is proposed here. The Global Environmental Facility and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development have both provided for environmental scientific and technical advisory bodies from the outset. There is no reason such a structure could not also be created for the environmental aspects of UNDP’s work.
6. CONCLUSION UNDP and the entire UN development system stand at the very beginning of a lengthy process to incorporate environmental concerns. Unlike the multilateral development banks and some bilateral funding agencies, the UN development system has not yet come under significant pressure to adapt. The phases of this process are by now quite well known and can be observed in the adjustment of public and private institutions at all levels to environmental needs. In an initial phase, the institution undertakes a superficial reorganization, creates an environment unit long on responsibility and short on resources and decision-making authority, and claims to have been doing the right thing all along. UNDP is currently in this phase. When the next environmental crisis occurs, the weak structure which was created is seen to be insufficient and is radically reformed and much strengthened. This roughly describes the situation at the World Bank. Unfortunately this approach does not promise continuing success either: now there are open conflicts between established units and the new environmental “upstart” which has the ability to cause trouble and is viewed as a nuisance or a threat. Solutions emerge only when serious efforts are made on all sides to incorporate environmental considerations in all parts of the institution, and to regard the forceful specialized unit as the environmental conscience of the organization rather than as a competitor or gadfly. What applies to UNDP presumably also applies to the rest of the UN development systemand to its relationship to UNEP, an agency which is often held in low regard because it was given and impossible mission and was not provided with the necessary resources to even begin to fulfill it. At the larger level, the same process of integration is required, but it is not selfexecuting, and is unlikely to succeed without a
626
WORLD
DEVELOPMEN’l
strong institution - UNEP or some successor organization with environment as its sole mission. Until that happens, the dirge which was heard by a review group from ECOSOC will probably be heard more often: It was recognized that all sectoral institutions of the UN system (and of Governments) must be environmentally aware, but at the crucial analytical and planning stage this leaves a major vacuum. Team members heard such telling remarks as. “Everyone in the United Nations system seems to have a piece of environment now; but who has the whole view? - we must be able to get this, without conditions from the United Nations which is supposed to lead.” In another country the Government was confronted by “all sorts of
ideas from every donor on environment, and an argument among United Nations agencies.” There are no grounds for special indictment of a set of United Nations institutions created by Governments that have themselves only recently seen the domestic structural implications of environmental issues, but addressing the multilateral dimension of this problem is urgent. Impartial help from the United Nations system, free of conditionalities and in a fully integrated manner, is needed now in all environment-related fields (ECOSOC, 198Y. p. 3’)). To the extent that UNCED helps to address some of these difficulties, and ushers in a second of environmental responsiveness at phase UNDP, it will already have made an important contribution.
REFERENCES Bencdick, Richard, Ozww Diplomuc_v: New Dirrcrior~s in Sufefeguurdi~~g/he Ph7rf (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1YYl). Economic and Social Council, “Reporting to the Economic and Social Council” (New York: ECOSOC, 19X0). Helland-Hansen. Erik. “The Global Environmental Facility.” fr77rrr7u~ionrd Enviror7rt7er7rtrl Af$irs. Vol. 3, No. I (1YYl). pp. 137-144. Jackson. Robert. The Copacit~~ of the Utrired N~rror7.s D~velopmcv71 .~ys1cw7 (Geneva: United Nations, lY6Y). The Nordic UN Proicct. The Uui/ed Nrrfioro irl
The Nordic UN Projecl (S’tockholm: Alm&t & Wikscll International. 1YYla). The Nordic UN Project. The Unird N~tkms: 1.w1te.s wd Oprior7s. Five S1~7die.s 017/he Role of rhe UN irr rl7e
Ecor7omic ut7d Sociul Fields, cornrr7issiot7etl by Ti7e Nordic UN Project (Stockholm: Almqvist Kr Wikscll International. 1YYlb). The Nordic UN Project. Perspec/iws D,I Mulriluwrcrl Axsistu~rcr. A R&w by The Nordic UN Projecf (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International. lYY0). Stein, Robert E. and Brian Johnson. Bur~kir~,q 011 /lrc, Bios,d7rrcY G~virommwrul Procedutw cd Prtrc~iws of Niw Mul~il~~~~rl lkvrlopt77et7~Agc77cie.s(Lcxington, MA: Lexington Books. 1970). United Nations Development Program, “Environmcntal dimensions of development: Commitment and progress in IYNY. Report of the Administrator” (New York: UNDP. 1YYO). World Commission on Environment and Dcvclopmcnt. Our C’o~~r77or7 F7irmrc(Oxford: Oxcord University Press. IY87).