U.N. System Development Assistance: Issues for Congress
U.N. System Development Assistance:
Issues for Congress
Luisa Blanchfield
Specialist in International Relations
July 28, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41949
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
U.N. System Development Assistance: Issues for Congress
Summary
Members of Congress continue to demonstrate an ongoing interest in the efficiency and
effectiveness of United Nations (U.N.) development activities, both in the context of U.N. reform
and broader U.S. development and foreign assistance efforts. Thirty-two U.N. agencies, funds,
programs, and offices play a role in development. These entities, collectively referred to as the
U.N. development system (UNDS), are independent intergovernmental organizations with
distinct mandates, rules, membership, and financial resources. They work to help countries
achieve social and economic progress through a range of development activities—including
program implementation, technical assistance, providing forums for intergovernmental
cooperation, setting and facilitating international standards and norms, advocacy and awareness
raising, and research and data collection. In 2009, U.N. system development-related expenditures
were estimated at $14.7 billion and accounted for 41% of all U.N. system-wide contributions.
Many experts and policymakers recognize the unique role that the United Nations plays in
development. In their view, the United Nations’ universal membership provides it with a
neutrality, legitimacy, and convening power not enjoyed by countries and other development
organizations. At the same time, however, the United Nations has been criticized for lacking
effectiveness and cohesion in its development activities, particularly at the country level. Some
experts suggest that the decentralized nature of the U.N. system has had an unfavorable impact on
development coordination, accountability, and information-sharing efforts. To address these
issues, U.N. member states have implemented incremental reforms every 10 to 15 years. While
some of these reforms have shown progress, experts generally agree that additional changes are
needed for the UNDS to operate as effectively as possible.
The United States is the largest contributor to the U.N. system as a whole and is often one of the
top financial contributors to UNDS entities. It holds leadership roles in U.N. governance
mechanisms and annually appropriates funding to UNDS organizations. Given the extent of U.S.
participation in and funding of the UNDS, the 112th Congress may raise questions regarding:
• The overall effectiveness of the UNDS, particularly at the country level—A
2006 report on U.N. system-wide coherence found that U.N. development
assistance was “fragmented and weak,” contributing to inefficiencies and
duplication across the UNDS. Members of Congress may wish to consider ways
to improve UNDS activities by examining current challenges and reform efforts.
• The level and extent of U.S. contributions to the UNDS—During the past
decade, some U.S. policymakers have raised concerns about perceived lack of
transparency and accountability within the U.N. Development Program (UNDP)
and the UNDS. Consequently, some Members of Congress have debated whether
providing financial contributions to UNDP and, more broadly, other parts of the
UNDS, is an effective use of U.S. foreign assistance.
• The benefits and drawbacks of multilateral versus bilateral assistance—The
role of the United States in the UNDS plays into broader discussions about U.S.
foreign assistance and the role of multilateral and bilateral aid in achieving U.S.
foreign policy and national security goals. Some contend that bilateral aid
provides the government with control over how money is spent. On the other
hand, many argue that multilateral aid, including contributions to the UNDS,
allows the government to share development costs with other donors.
Congressional Research Service
U.N. System Development Assistance: Issues for Congress
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Setting the Context: Background, Role, and Perceptions.............................................................. 2
Origins.................................................................................................................................. 4
Role in Global Development ................................................................................................. 5
Criticism and Support ........................................................................................................... 6
Overview of U.N. Development System Activities ...................................................................... 7
Country Activities ................................................................................................................. 9
Regional Activities.............................................................................................................. 10
Headquarters Activities and U.N. System-wide Coordination .............................................. 11
Funding Structure and Trends.................................................................................................... 12
Distribution of Expenditures ............................................................................................... 12
Implications of Core and Non-core Contributions................................................................ 14
U.N. System Share of Multilateral Aid ................................................................................ 15
Obama Administration Perspectives .......................................................................................... 17
Options and Issues for Congress................................................................................................ 18
U.S. Funding of U.N. System Development Assistance ....................................................... 20
Bilateral Versus Multilateral Aid ......................................................................................... 21
Examples of Current Reform Efforts ......................................................................................... 22
Comprehensive Policy Reviews .......................................................................................... 23
U.N. System-wide Coherence: The Delivering As One Initiative ......................................... 24
Strengths and Weaknesses ............................................................................................. 25
Ongoing Challenges and Policy Issues ...................................................................................... 25
Different Member State Perspectives................................................................................... 26
Competition Among U.N. Entities....................................................................................... 26
Limited Data Collection and Information-Sharing ............................................................... 27
Obstacles to Monitoring and Evaluation .............................................................................. 27
Role of the U.N. Resident Coordinator ................................................................................ 28
Transitioning from Humanitarian Relief to Development..................................................... 29
Relationships with Other Development Partners .................................................................. 30
International Financial Institutions ................................................................................ 30
NGOs ........................................................................................................................... 31
Private Sector................................................................................................................ 31
Looking Ahead ......................................................................................................................... 32
Effectiveness of U.S. Foreign Aid Structures ....................................................................... 32
Rise of Other Development Actors and Mechanisms ........................................................... 32
U.N. System Focus and Priorities ........................................................................................ 32
Reform and the Future of the U.N. Development System..................................................... 33
Figures
Figure 1. Primary Entities Involved in U.N. System Development-Related Activities .................. 8
Figure 2. Comparison of UNDS Activities by Sector, 1993 and 2008........................................... 9
Congressional Research Service
U.N. System Development Assistance: Issues for Congress
Figure 3. U.N. System Development-Related Expenditures, Core and Non-core, 2003-
2009 ...................................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 4. Use of Resources for Development-Related Expenditures by Major Cost
Groupings, 2009 .................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 5. Core and Non-core Contributions to UNDS Longer-Term Development
Activities, 1994-2009............................................................................................................. 15
Figure 6. Contributions to the U.N. Development System as a Share of Total Multilateral
Aid by OECD-DAC Countries, 2006-2009............................................................................. 16
Figure 7. Core Contributions to the U.N. Development System as a Share of Core
Multilateral Aid by OECD-DAC Countries, 1995-2009.......................................................... 17
Figure 8.U.S. Bilateral and Multilateral Official Development Assistance, 2000-2009 ............... 22
Tables
Table 1. U.S. Contributions to UNDP, UNICEF, WHO, and FAO, FY2009-FY2012 .................. 19
Table A-1. U.N. Development Group Membership: U.N. Entities that Play a Role in
Development.......................................................................................................................... 34
Table B-1. List of Abbreviations................................................................................................ 36
Table C-1. Top 10 Recipient Countries of Funding (Country Programmable Resources),
2009 ...................................................................................................................................... 38
Appendixes
Appendix A. U.N. Development Group Membership................................................................. 34
Appendix B. Abbreviations ....................................................................................................... 36
Appendix C. Top Recipients of UNDS Funding, 2009 ............................................................... 38
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 38
Congressional Research Service
U.N. System Development Assistance: Issues for Congress
Introduction
Since the United Nations (U.N.) was established in 1945, Congress has demonstrated a continued
interest in U.N. system development assistance. Thirty-two U.N. funds, programs, agencies,
departments, and offices play a role in international development. These entities, which are
referred to by many as the U.N. Development System (UNDS), conduct development-related
activities in 180 countries with expenditures estimated at $14.7 billion per year.1 The United
States generally supports these activities; it is often among the top donors to UNDS entities and
serves on various U.N. executive boards and other governance mechanisms. The United Nations
estimates that in 2009, the United States contributed $1.306 billion to U.N. development-related
activities, more than any other country.2 Congress appropriates funds to several U.N. entities
involved in development, and as such has demonstrated an ongoing interest in UNDS efforts,
including:
• the role and efficiency of the U.N. system, and multilateral assistance as a whole,
in international development;
• the U.N. system’s effectiveness in providing development assistance at the
country level; and
• the level of U.S. funding of such activities, most recently in light of the global
financial crisis, economic recession, and calls to reduce the U.S. budget deficit.
These issues have been discussed individually, as well as in the broader context of U.N. system
reform, U.S. and international efforts to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs),
and U.S. foreign aid reform.
This report discusses the origins and evolving role of the UNDS and its perceived strengths and
weaknesses. It examines the current UNDS structure, including country, regional, and global
activities, as well as funding levels and trends. It also discusses congressional perspectives,
Obama Administration policy, and current UNDS reform efforts. In addition, it analyzes possible
challenges and policy issues related to U.N. development assistance efforts, including:
• Lack of system-wide data collection and sharing mechanisms—The UNDS
lacks a central mechanism for collecting and disseminating information about its
activities. Consequently, donors, host governments, and in some cases U.N.
entities themselves, do not have a full picture of the range of activities occurring
in the countries where they operate. Many contend that this leads to a lack of
coordination and duplication within the UNDS. Moreover, it makes it more
difficult for donors, recipient governments, and the U.N. system to identify gaps
and areas for improvement.
1 There are many definitions of the UNDS. For the purposes of this report, the UNDS refers to the 32 members of the
U.N. Development Group (UNDG), the main U.N. system coordinating mechanism for development. (See “A Note
About U.N. Development System Definition and Data Sources,” text box for further explanation.) Appendix A lists
UNDG members, including type of U.N. entity and primary funding source. Appendix B lists UNDS-related
abbreviations.
2 Table A-5 of the Statistical Annex to U.N. document, A/66/79-E/2011/107, Analysis of the Funding of Operational
Activities for Development of the United Nations System, 2009 (hereafter referred to as The Secretary-General’s Report
on U.N. System Operational Activities for Development, 2009), May 6, 2011. (Drawn from the “development-related
activities only,” columns of Table A-5, which include core, non-core, and local resources.)
Congressional Research Service
1
U.N. System Development Assistance: Issues for Congress
• Competition among and within U.N. system entities—Many in the
development community debate the impact of competition among U.N. entities
on overall UNDS efforts. Generally, experts agree that competition can benefit
U.N. development activities by encouraging organizations to improve the quality
of their services. At the same time, some have questioned whether the
decentralized nature of the U.N. system creates an environment where U.N.
entities act in their own best interest rather than that of the host government or of
the UNDS as a whole.
• The impact of different funding flows on UNDS activities—Non-core (or
earmarked) funding has become the largest source of development-related
expenditures in the UNDS.3 Some experts are concerned that such funding may
limit the degree to which host countries are involved in the design of programs in
their countries. Some also worry that an increase in non-core funding, which is
often unpredictable, may impact the ability of organizations to fund their
mandates and missions and could affect long-term planning. Others, however,
argue that non-core funding allows donors to contribute to activities in sectors
and countries that align with their development priorities and therefore
encourages donor participation.
Setting the Context: Background, Role, and
Perceptions
The 32 U.N. entities that comprise the UNDS include seven Secretariat offices or departments,
nine specialized agencies, nine funds and programs, five regional commissions, and two
additional U.N. bodies. (See Appendix A for a list of these U.N. entities by type and primary
funding source.) The UNDS aims to help countries achieve social and economic progress by
undertaking or supporting a range of operational and normative development activities—
including technical assistance, setting and facilitating technical standards and norms, providing
forums for intergovernmental cooperation and policy-sharing, advocacy and awareness raising,
and research and data collection. These activities are guided by the priorities of the national
governments as well as by various international laws, norms, and standards such as treaties, U.N.
resolutions and decisions, and the MDGs.
For the past several decades, the international community has repeatedly acknowledged the need
to improve U.N. development efforts through enhanced coordination and substantive reform.
Various expert panels, commissions, and U.N. Secretaries-General have made recommendations
on how to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the UNDS. Many of their proposed reforms
have been markedly similar, calling for more integrated planning and budgeting systems,
strengthening coordination at the country level, and harmonizing the activities of U.N. specialized
agencies. In 1966, for example, the U.N. Development Program (UNDP) commissioned A Study
of the Capacity of the United Nations Development System (Capacity Study), which found that “at
3 There are two main types of donor contributions to the U.N. system: “core” and “non-core.” Non-core resources are
determined by donors. They are restricted in their use and application to specific projects, funds, programs, regions, or
sectors. Core resources include those that may be commingled with no restrictions; their use and application is directly
linked to the mandates, guidelines, and priorities established by U.N. entities. For more information, see the “Funding
Structure and Trends” section.
Congressional Research Service
2
U.N. System Development Assistance: Issues for Congress
the country level capacity suffers because the U.N. development system is not presented in an
integrated fashion.”4 It recommended that governments and the United Nations take steps to
address lack of governance, coordination, interagency competition, and administrative barriers
within the UNDS.
In 2006, nearly 40 years later, then-U.N.
The U.N. Millennium Development
Secretary-General Kofi Annan appointed a
Goals
high-level expert panel on system-wide
Development assistance today is often viewed in the
coherence to evaluate U.N. system
context of the U.N. Millennium Development Goals
development activities. The panel found that
(MDGs). In 2000,189 U.N. member states, including the
United States, adopted the U.N. Millennium Declaration,
U.N. development assistance was “fragmented
committing themselves to achieving a series of
and weak,” contributing to inefficiencies and
measurable development targets by 2015 known as the
duplication across the U.N. development
MDGs.
system, particularly at the country level. The
The goals are (1) eradicating extreme hunger and
similarities between the high-level panel’s
poverty; (2) achieving universal primary education; (3)
observations and those made decades earlier in
promoting gender equality; (4) reducing the under-five
the Capacity Study illustrate the continued
child mortality rate; (5) reducing the maternal mortality
challenges to institutional reform faced by the
rate; (6) combating HIV/AIDS and other diseases; (7)
ensuring environmental sustainability; and (8) developing
U.N. system and governments, including the
a Global Partnership for Development.
United States, as they try to improve UNDS
Governments have worked to achieve the MDGs with
efficiency and effectiveness.
mixed results. Experts general y agree that while some
goals are on track to be met, the majority are unlikely to
Despite what many view as the slow pace of
be achieved by 2015. Many have also found that progress
development reform, U.N. member states and
toward the goals is unevenly distributed across regions
the U.N. Secretary-General have made
and countries.
incremental efforts to improve the UNDS. In
1997, for example, Secretary-General Annan established the U.N. Development Group (UNDG)
to help coordinate the activities of U.N. entities that play a role in development. In 2006, at the
recommendation of the high-level panel on system-wide coherence, U.N. member states
established the Delivering as One (DAO) initiative, which aims to enhance coordination and
coherence among U.N. agencies at the country level by consolidating all U.N. entities into one
building with one budget and management structure. DAO, which is generally supported by the
Obama Administration, has been implemented as a pilot program in several countries with varied
degrees of progress.5
4 A Study of the Capacity of the United Nations Development System, Volumes I and II Combined, United Nations,
Geneva, September 30, 1969.
5 For a more detailed discussion of UNDS reform activities, see the “Examples of Current Reform Efforts” section.
Congressional Research Service
3
U.N. System Development Assistance: Issues for Congress
A Note About U.N. Development System Definitions and Data Sources
Definitions. Development organizations, academics, governments, and the U.N. system itself define the U.N.
development system (UNDS) differently. Some, for example, consider international financial institutions (IFIs) and
U.N. entities that focus on humanitarian operations to be part of the UNDS. For the purposes of this report, the
UNDS refers to the 32 U.N. agencies, funds, programs and offices that are part of the U.N. Development Group
(UNDG), the primary U.N. system mechanism for development coordination. UNDG membership does not include
IFIs such as the World Bank or International Monetary Fund or U.N. entities that primarily engage in humanitarian
efforts, such as the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) or the U.N. Relief and
Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).
Data Sources. The majority of UNDS-related data in this report are drawn from U.N. system sources. However,
the data have some limitations because the U.N. system lacks a centralized mechanism for collecting and
disseminating information on its development activities. Each year, for example, the U.N. Secretary-General provides
the U.N. Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) with an annual report that analyzes U.N. system funding of
operational activities for development. The report, which is a key source for annual data on U.N. development
efforts, highlights UNDS activities, expenditures, contributions, and any emerging UNDS-related issues. It does not,
however, always paint a clear picture of UNDS activities over time because the definitions of development and the
data itself are often inconsistent and not comparable from year to year.6 For example, some data from the 2008
report were not updated or included in the 2009 report.
This report refers to information cited in both the 2008 and 2009 U.N. reports on operational activities for
development. Although some of the 2008 data are not updated for 2009, it provides a valuable snapshot of UNDS
activities—including distribution by sector, funding type, entity, and location—during a specific year or group of years.
Origins
When the United Nations was first established in 1945, many people did not foresee the role that
it would eventually play in global, long-term development efforts. During the United Nations’
first few years, there were no mechanisms for addressing overall development activities. The
founders of the U.N. specialized agencies viewed development operations as secondary to the
primary goals of encouraging international cooperation in focus areas such as agriculture,
education, health, and aviation, and dealing with more acute crises in the aftermath of World War
II. In 1948, the General Assembly began to recognize the role the United Nations could play in
development and decided that in addition to the programs already undertaken by the specialized
agencies, U.N. activities should be expanded to include technical assistance carried out under the
U.N. Secretary-General.7 It established the Expanded Program of Technical Assistance (EPTA) in
1949 to provide technical assistance to developing nations. In 1958, it created the Special U.N.
Fund for Economic Development, which was charged with conducting surveys and analysis for
major development projects. In 1965, in response to increased U.N. membership and to
consolidate financial resources and reduce duplication, U.N. member states decided to merge the
two bodies into one entity—UNDP. This merger laid the foundation for the current UNDS.8
Initially, UNDP’s role was to coordinate the provision of technical assistance, making funds
available to other bodies in the U.N. system depending on the expertise required. The particular
6 The report format has been modified over the years by General Assembly Resolutions 35/81, 59/250, 62/208, 63/232,
and 63/311. Per General Assembly Resolution 63/311, the Secretary-General created a “central repository” for
information on operational activities for development. This repository is maintained by the U.N. Office for ECOSOC
Support and Coordination. The office’s website includes previous annual reports of the Secretary-General to ECOSOC
on operational activities for development, http://www.un.org/esa/coordination/dcpb_stat.htm.
7 U.N. General Assembly Resolution 199 (III), adopted December 4, 1948.
8 U.N. General Assembly Resolution 2029 (XX), adopted November 22, 1965.
Congressional Research Service
4
U.N. System Development Assistance: Issues for Congress
agency or program would execute the project using UNDP funds and financial support provided
by the host government. In 1971, the General Assembly updated the organizational structure and
functions of UNDP.9 At that time, the concepts of country programs and country resident
representatives were introduced as additional coordinating tools. These concepts were
strengthened and broadened by more reforms in the 1990s. Presently, UNDP carries out
development activities, particularly technical assistance, in specific regions and countries. It also
works to coordinate, focus, and in some cases finance the work of U.N. specialized agencies,
funds, programs, and offices that play a role in development.10
The UNDS and International Donor Coordination
Role in Global
U.N. entities have generally recognized the importance of improving aid
Development
effectiveness and coordination both within and outside of the U.N.
system. During the past decade, representatives from U.N. entities,
along with governments, NGOs, and other donors, have participated in
The UNDS is one of many players
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
in a complex global development
high-level forums on international donor coordination. These forums,
landscape. It conducts its activities
held in Rome in 2003, Paris in 2005, and Accra in 2008, used the MDGs
parallel to and sometimes in
as a basis for assessing donor and host country activities, identifying
obstacles to development and working to make development assistance
collaboration with governments,
more effective. At the Paris Forum in 2005, the UNDG, along with
intergovernmental organizations,
representatives from more than 100 countries and aid agencies,
non-governmental organizations
endorsed the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, which included
(NGOs), other multilateral
specific goals and a monitoring component, and highlighted five
organizations, and the private
partnership principles: ownership, harmonization, alignment, results,
and mutual accountability. It was notable for its degree of detailed
sector. Over the years, the nature
agreement on objectives; however, it included no provisions on how to
of global development has shifted
translate the agreement into change at the country and broader policy
with the emergence of new types
implementation level. Consequently, UNDS and donor progress in
of donors and evolving
implementing the Paris Declaration has been mixed. In 2008, forum
participants met in Accra, Ghana, where they agreed to the Accra
development challenges. Many
Agenda for Action, which served as a progress report on the Paris
experts have increasingly
Declaration. Many attendees were disappointed by data from the 2008
recognized that the UNDS needs
Survey on Monitoring the Paris Declaration that was prepared for the
to adapt to these changes. Levels
meeting. Some observers noted that coordination among donors
of Official Development
appeared to diminish between the Paris and Accra forums.
Assistance (ODA) to developing
countries have increased, as have the number of governmental and intergovernmental aid
donors.11 The emergence of new bilateral donors (that are also aid recipients) such as Brazil,
9 U.N. General Assembly Resolution 2688 (XXV), December 11, 1970.
10 For a description of UNDS reform efforts in the 1990s, see Doris Bertrand, “A Short History of United Nations
Reform in Development,” Part I of Some Measures to Improve Overall Performance of the United Nations System at
the Country Level, U.N. Joint Inspection Unit Report 2005/2 (Part I), Geneva, 2005; and UNDG, United to Deliver
Effective Support for Countries, Promoting U.N. Coherence, Effectiveness, and Relevance: An Overview of Progress
Since 1997. For a comprehensive history of UNDP, see Craig N. Murphy, The United Nations Development Program:
A Better Way? (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006).
11 ODA is defined as flows to developing countries and multilateral institutions that are administered with the
promotion of economic development and are concessional in character and conveys a grant element of at least 25%.
ODA does not include, for example, other official flows including military assistance. Also note that ODA reports only
assistance to developing countries, excluding U.S. assistance to Israel, Ireland, Russia, and other developed nations.
Aid flows from OECD-Development Assistance Committee (DAC) donor countries was $129 billion in 2010,
representing the highest level ever and an increase of 6.5% over 2009 levels. (Development Aid Reaches Historic High
in 2010, OECD/DAC Aid Statistics.) According to the Brookings Institution, 263 multilateral organizations, 197
bilateral agencies, and 42 donor countries provide development resources. (Kermal Dervis, Homi Kharas, and Noam
Unger, Aiding Development Assistance Reform for the 21st Century, Brookings Institution, Brookings Blum
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
5
U.N. System Development Assistance: Issues for Congress
China, India, and Russia, have challenged the more traditional structure of foreign assistance in
which aid flows from developed to developing countries. Contributions from the private sector,
foundations, NGOs, and others have continued to grow, and many experts have increasingly
recognized the significant role of private foreign investment in fostering development. Donors
have also changed the way they fund development activities, often earmarking their contributions
for specific projects rather than providing contributions that directly relate to the mandate and
mission of development organizations. Increased competition among global development
organizations has demonstrated the need for U.N. entities, and the UNDS as a whole, to provide
more effective, streamlined, and accountable development services.
Criticism and Support
Since its inception, the UNDS has been criticized by many development experts and governments
who contend that the system is not living up to its potential. Most U.N. entities are independent
international intergovernmental organizations with distinct rules, membership, and financial
resources. They report to their governing bodies, which are comprised of member states, and do
not fall under the direct authority of the U.N. Secretary-General or U.N. system coordinating
mechanisms.12 Consequently, U.N. development activities, particularly those at the country level,
have continued to be criticized for inefficiency, duplication, and fragmentation. The expansion of
UNDS activities and the creation of new U.N. development organizations during the last several
decades has magnified many of these concerns.
Some criticism of the UNDS as a whole has been compounded by apprehension about UNDP’s
management and oversight mechanisms. Since the mid-2000s, reports of UNDP misusing funds
in North Korea have raised questions about U.N. system management in-country, as well as
overall transparency and accountability within UNDP and the UNDS—especially related to
internal auditing and investigation procedures.13 This had led some policymakers in the United
States, including Members of Congress, to question whether providing financial contributions to
UNDP and, more broadly, other parts of the UNDS, is the most effective use of U.S. foreign
assistance dollars.
Although the UNDS has faced criticism from some corners, it is also recognized for its unique
role in global development efforts. Many experts and policymakers have argued that while the
decentralized nature of the U.N. system can hinder its development activities, it can also be a
strength. They assert that the array of U.N. agencies specializing in various sectors and
populations allows for U.N. entities to develop long-term, issue-specific expertise and more
efficiently respond to specialized development concerns as they arise. Supporters also point to the
United Nations’ neutrality as a distinct advantage in development cooperation. The United
Nations comprises 193 member states with equal voting rights. This universal membership
provides it with a neutrality and legitimacy not enjoyed by other development organizations.
(...continued)
Roundtable, Washington, DC, August 2010.)
12 U.N. system decentralization has its roots in the U.N. Charter. The idea of having a decentralized U.N. structure was
intentional, stemming from the failure of the League of Nations. For further discussion, see “Chapter IX. International
Economic and Social Co-operation,” in The Charter of the United Nations, A Commentary, ed. Bruno Simma, 2nd ed.,
vol. 2 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 953-954.
13 Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
staff report, United Nations Development Program: A Case Study of North Korea, January 24, 2008.
Congressional Research Service
6
U.N. System Development Assistance: Issues for Congress
Developing states, for instance, may hold seats on executive boards and cast votes in U.N. forums
that directly impact the nature and financing of UNDS efforts. These opportunities are not always
available in other organizations; in the World Bank Group, for example, nations with the largest
financial contributions tend to have the most influence.
The legitimacy provided by the United Nations’ universal membership also allows the UNDS to
operate in politically sensitive areas where other organizations and governments may not be
permitted. Moreover, unlike bilateral aid, UNDS assistance is not tied to the priorities of a
specific donor nation; many contend that this makes recipient countries more open to receiving
development assistance and the policy advice that often accompanies it. Some experts also assert
that because of what some view as its universality, broad mandate, and global expertise, the U.N.
system has a comparative advantage over other organizations in key areas of development—
particularly in providing capacity building and technical assistance, offering policy advice to
governments, and setting and maintaining international norms and standards.
Overview of U.N. Development System Activities
In 2009, the last year for which data are available, development-related activities represented
almost half (41%) of total U.N. system-wide contributions.14 As illustrated in Figure 1, while a
large number of U.N. entities are engaged in such activities, only a handful account for the bulk
of these efforts. In 2008, four entities—UNDP, the U.N. Children’s Fund (UNICEF), World
Health Organization (WHO), and Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)—accounted for more
than two-thirds of all development-related activities. UNDP alone accounted for 37% of all U.N.
development expenditures.15
14 Based on 2009 contributions to U.N. system-wide activities which totaled $34.3 billion. The Secretary-General’s
Report on U.N. System Operational Activities for Development, 2009, May 6, 2011, p. 11.
15 U.N. document, A/65/79-E/2010/76, Analysis of the Funding of Operational Activities for Development of the United
Nations System, 2008 (hereafter referred to as The Secretary-General’s Report on U.N. System Operational Activities
for Development, 2008), May 14, 2010, p. 29.
Congressional Research Service
7
U.N. System Development Assistance: Issues for Congress
Figure 1. Primary Entities Involved in U.N. System Development-Related Activities
(Based on 2008 contributions of $13.6 billion.)
Source: U.N. Office for Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) Support and Coordination, CRS
representation.
Notes: See Table B-1 for a list of abbreviations. This figure represents 2008 data. A breakdown of 2009 U.N.
system development-related activities by entity is not available.
UNDS activities focus on a number of sectors including health, gender, science and technology,
and social development. As demonstrated in Figure 2, UNDS’s areas of focus have gradually
shifted during the last two decades. Since 1993, activities focused on health have declined from
31% to 25%, while those focusing on agriculture have decreased from 14% to 6%. At the same
time, activities related to gender and social development have each increased by 6%.16
16 The Secretary-General’s Report on U.N. System Operational Activities for Development, 2008, p. 39.
Congressional Research Service
8
U.N. System Development Assistance: Issues for Congress
Figure 2. Comparison of UNDS Activities by Sector, 1993 and 2008
Source: U.N. Office for ECOSOC Support and Coordination, CRS representation.
Notes: Data are based on 1993 development-related expenditures of $3.7 billion and 2008 development-related
expenditures of $11.8 billion. When considering these figures, it is important to note that it is difficult to present
the sectoral distribution of expenditures due to lack of consistent and adequate methodologies and standards
within the U.N. system over time. A comparable breakdown of 2009 sectoral distribution for development-
related activities is not available.
Country Activities
At the country level, the UNDS has 136 U.N. Country Teams (UNCTs) covering 180 countries
that aim to ensure the effectiveness of U.N. system interagency coordination and decision
making. The Teams, which are comprised of representatives from all U.N. system entities
operating in-country, work with host governments to ensure that that the U.N. system delivers
tangible results in line with the host government’s priorities. UNCTs engage in a range of
activities, including developing and implementing a country-specific strategic program
framework referred to as U.N. Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF); endorsing annual
work plans; and overseeing internal U.N. theme groups that carry out program design,
implementation, and monitoring under UNDAF priorities. The UNCTs also review their overall
performance and make decisions about country-level fundraising and joint financing.
UNCTs are led by U.N. Resident Coordinators (RCs), who are funded and managed by UNDP
and report to the Secretary-General through the Chair of UNDG. The purpose of the RC is to have
one person in each country coordinate all U.N. entities addressing operational activities. Many
RCs hold multiple positions, also serving as the Humanitarian Coordinator (HC), the Designated
Congressional Research Service
9
U.N. System Development Assistance: Issues for Congress
Official for Safety and Security, or the UNDP Resident Representative. There are currently 127
RCs globally, plus two RC-type posts in the occupied Palestinian territories and Kosovo.17
Indonesia: Example of a U.N. Country Team
Indonesia has one of the largest UNCTs, with 26 U.N. entities and nearly 3,300 staff. Of these entities,15 are
members of the U.N. Country Team whereas 11 support projects and project staff in the country.18 During
emergency situations (such as an earthquake or tsunami), the UNCT becomes a Disaster Management Team and is
responsible for overseeing emergency relief efforts.
In Indonesia, the UNCT is led by an RC who is also the HC, currently El-Mostafa Benlamlih. The RC/HC holds
regular UNCT meetings to ensure coordination among all U.N. entities operating in-country. His work is supported
by the Office of the Resident/Humanitarian Coordinator (RC/HC Office), which brings together resources from U.N.
agencies and provides support to U.N. entities that do not have offices in Indonesia. The office plays a key role in
coordinating cross-cutting issues and UNCT joint programming and activities related to avian influenza, HIV/AIDS,
youth col aboration and support, and achieving the MDGs. It also works to develop and coordinate Indonesia’s
UNDAF, the most recent version of which covers the years 2006 through 2010.
The UNCT for Indonesia maintains an online database of major projects and activities undertaken in-country by U.N.
entities. The database reports 10 ongoing multi-year projects, including a $28.3 million International Fund for
Agricultural Development (IFAD) program focusing on rural empowerment and agriculture development in Central
Sulawesi; a $22.6 million International Labor Organization (ILO) education and skills training program for youth
across various provinces; and a $9 million UNDP project based in Jakarta addressing disaster risk reduction. It also
reports several smal er activities, including a $100,000 UNDP project that aims to promote community livelihoods
through sustainable management of the Mahakam Delta.19
Regional Activities
At the regional level, UNDS activities are conducted through five regional economic
commissions, and some 30 regional or sub-regional offices of various funds, programs, and
specialized agencies.20 The regional commissions work to promote multilateral dialogue, enhance
cooperation, and share knowledge at the regional level.21 Regional offices established by UNDS
entities such as the International Labor Organization (ILO), UNICEF, and UNFPA, work to
promote regional knowledge and cooperation at the agency level and among partners.22 Many
regional offices are outfitted to provide technical capacity and resources to help UNCTs develop
and implement projects. UNDP, for instance, has sent some policy specialists to its regional posts,
17 CRS correspondence with the U.N. Development Operations Coordination Office (UNDOCO), June 2011.
18 Indonesia UNCT members include ILO, ITU, FAO, OCHA, UNAIDS, UNDP, UNESCO, UNFPA, UNHCR, UNIC,
UNICEF, UNIDO, UNOPS, WFP, and WHO. The entities with projects and project staff in the country include IAEA,
IFAD, IMO, UNCTAD, UNEP, UNESCAP, UN-HABITAT, UNIFEM, UNODC, UNV, and WTO. (See Appendix B
for a list of abbreviations.)
19 The online database is available at http://un.or.id/projects/index.asp. More information on the Indonesia UNCT is
available at http://un.or.id/main.asp.
20 U.N. publication, “System-wide Coherence at the Regional Level, Regional Coordination Mechanism and Regional
Directors’ Teams: Functions and Complementarities,” U.N. Regional Commissions, April 1, 2010.
21 The regional commissions include the Economic Commission for Africa, based in Addis Ababa; the Economic
Commission for Europe, based in Geneva; the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, based in
Santiago; the Economic Commission for Asia and the Pacific, based in Bangkok; and the Economic Commission for
West Asia, based in Beirut.
22 UNICEF, for example, supports seven regional offices; UNFPA supports 11 regional and sub-regional offices; and
ILO supports 20 regional and sub-regional offices.
Congressional Research Service
10
U.N. System Development Assistance: Issues for Congress
while UNICEF regional offices are fully responsible for providing oversight of and support to
UNCTs.23
Headquarters Activities and U.N. System-wide Coordination
At the headquarters level, UNDS entities engage in a range of activities that address global,
regional, and country-specific efforts.24 The exact nature of a U.N. entity’s work depends on the
mandate, structure, and governance of the organization. Examples of work that may be
undertaken at headquarters include formulating regional and country-specific policies and
programs; coordinating and overseeing regional and field offices; and supporting governance
mechanisms such as executive boards, committees, and member state assemblies. Many U.N.
entity headquarters also conduct human resources and budget-related activities and liaise with
other U.N. entities, governments, and NGOs.
U.N. entity headquarters also participate in internal U.N. system coordination mechanisms related
to development, particularly the U.N. Development Group (UNDG), which was established by
Secretary-General Kofi Annan in 1997 as part of broader U.N. system-wide reform efforts. The
UNDG is comprised of the 32 U.N. entities that play a role in development; it aims to coordinate
approaches to operational activities at the country level in support of national governments’
development priorities. The group is based at U.N. Headquarters in New York and is chaired by
the Administrator of UNDP. Its main activities include developing measures to improve strategic
and operational coherence at the country level, and developing policies and procedures for the
management of the Resident Coordinators (RCs).25 Through the UNDG Advisory Group, it also
provides guidance to the Chair of UNDG (the UNDP Administrator) on the management of the
RC system on behalf of the U.N. system.26
UNDG is one of three pillars of the U.N. Chief Executives Board for Coordination (CEB), which
is the primary U.N. system mechanism for supporting and reinforcing the coordinating role of
U.N. intergovernmental bodies on social, economic, and related issues.27 The U.N. Development
Operations Coordination Office (UNDOCO) provides technical support for UNDG and works to
link UNDG headquarters activities and U.N. system operations at the country level.
23 Effectiveness of the U.N. Development System and its Operational Activities: Capacity of the System to Provide
Country Level Support and Develop National Capacities, U.N. Economic and Social Council, Conference Room Paper,
2004, p. 15.
24 U.N. entity headquarters are interspersed throughout the globe. For example, some are headquartered in New York
City (UNDP, UNFPA), while others are based in Geneva (ILO, WHO), Vienna (UNIDO, UNODC), Nairobi (UNEP,
UN-HABITAT), and other cities.
25 UNDG also has a regional presence. It organizes itself through six regional teams that aim to provide coherent
technical support to RCs and UNCTs, review the performance management of RCs and UNCTs, and deal with difficult
country situations through dispute resolution and other measures. The regular membership of the regional UNDG teams
varies by region, with an average size of 16 to 18 U.N. entities. (CRS correspondence with UNDOCO, June 2011.)
26 The UNDG Advisory Group provides the UNDG Chair with advice and guidance on the operational management of
UNDG and the RC system. Group members include those who are heads of U.N. entities and those at the Assistant
Secretary-General/Assistant Director-General level.
27 The other two CEB pillars include the High-Level Committee on Management, which addresses system-wide
administrative and management issues, and the High-Level Committee on Programs, which considers global policy
issues.
Congressional Research Service
11
U.N. System Development Assistance: Issues for Congress
Funding Structure and Trends
The UNDS is funded by donor contributions to individual U.N. entities. Donors include
governments, intergovernmental organizations, NGOs, private organizations, and individuals,
among others. Total government contributions to U.N. system development-related activities in
2009 was $14.2 billion. Approximately one-third of these contributions were in the form of core
resources.28 The top five government donors were the United States ($1.3 billion); Japan ($804.6
million); the Netherlands ($796.9 million); the United Kingdom ($743.9); and Norway ($695.2
million).29
Funding mechanisms for UNDS entities vary
Explanation of Core Versus Non-core
depending on their governance and structure.
Resources in the U.N. System
For instance, U.N. funds and programs such as
There are two main types of donor contributions to the
UNDP, UNFPA, UNICEF, and UN Women
U.N. system: “core” and “non-core.” Core resources
rely primarily on voluntary contributions from
include those that may be commingled with no
restrictions and whose use and application is directly
donors. Payment of contributions are up to
linked to the mandates, guidelines, and priorities
each individual country; no country is legally
established by U.N. entities, including basic operating
obligated to contribute to these programs.
costs and infrastructure. Non-core resources, which are
U.N. specialized agencies, such as ILO,
determined by donors, are restricted in their use and
WHO, WFP, and FAO, however, rely on
application to specific projects, funds, programs, regions,
or sectors. In the U.N. system, non-core contributions
assessed contributions to their regular budgets.
are programmed and administered through four primary
Payment of such contributions is one of the
mechanisms: multi-donor trust funds, thematic funds,
legal obligations accepted by a country when
local resource contributions from host governments, and
it joins an organization. Assessed
single-donor and project-specific funding.
contributions provide entities with a regular
The use of the terms core versus non-core varies by
source of income for staffing and
U.N. entity. UNHCR, for example, uses the terms
implementation of authorized programs.
“unrestricted” and “sector earmarked,” while WFP uses
the terms “multilateral contribution” and “directed
multilateral contribution.” Other U.N. entities,
Distribution of Expenditures
particularly the specialized agencies, use the term
“extrabudgetary resources” when referring to non-core
funding.
As demonstrated in Figure 3, since 2003
overall UNDS expenditures have generally
increased in both current and constant dollars. In 2009, the UNDS spent approximately $14.7
billion on development-related activities, compared with $8.7 billion in 2004. This represents a
69% increase in current dollars and a 46% increase in constant dollars.30
28 Total contributions to U.N. system operational activities for development, which include both development-related
activities and humanitarian assistance, were $21.9 billion. (Humanitarian assistance accounted for $7.7 billion;
development-related assistance was $14.2 billion.) The Secretary-General’s Report on U.N. System Operational
Activities for Development, 2009, p. 14.
29 Table A-5 of the Statistical Annex to The Secretary-General’s Report on U.N. System Operational Activities for
Development, 2009. (Drawn from the “development-related activities only,” columns which include core, non-core, and
local resources.)
30 The Secretary-General’s Report on U.N. System Operational Activities for Development, 2009, p. 36.
Congressional Research Service
12
U.N. System Development Assistance: Issues for Congress
Figure 3. U.N. System Development-Related Expenditures,
Core and Non-core, 2003-2009
(In billions of U.S. dollars.)
Source: U.N. Office for ECOSOC Support and Coordination, CRS representation.
Of the $14.7 billion in expenditures for 2009, approximately 53% were designated for country
programmable resources; 18% for global and regional programs; 16% for program support and
management; 7% for local resources provided by recipient countries; and 6% were not attributed
to any specific activities. (Figure 4.)
Figure 4. Use of Resources for Development-Related Expenditures
by Major Cost Groupings, 2009
(Based on $14.7 billion in expenditures.)
Source: CRS analysis of U.N. Office for ECOSOC Support and Coordination data.
Notes: “Not attributed” refers to expenditures not al ocated by U.N. entities for any specific activities. The
United Nations defines “country programmable resources” as total expenditures in a country less (a)
humanitarian assistance; (b) regional and global activities; (c) program support and management; and (d) local
resources.
Congressional Research Service
13
U.N. System Development Assistance: Issues for Congress
Africa received the largest proportion of expenditures from both U.N. funds and programs as well
as the specialized agencies, with 25% of development-related expenditures occurring in the
region in 2009. It is followed by the Asia/Pacific (19%); the Americas (10%); Western Asia (4%);
Europe (2%); regional and global programs (14%); and program support and management
(15%).31 Development-related expenditures to the Americas were funded primarily from local
resources (payments or financial support provided by the host governments). Afghanistan, Sudan,
the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and India received the most funding from the UNDS for
country programmable resources in 2009.32
Implications of Core and Non-core Contributions
Non-core or earmarked funding has become the largest source of development-related
expenditures in the UNDS. As illustrated in Figure 5, between 1994 and 2009, core contributions
for long-term UNDS development activities rose from $3.4 billion to $4.8 billion in current
dollars. During the same period, non-core contributions increased from $1.5 billion to $9.4
billion. In constant dollars, this represents a 2% increase in core contributions and a notable 355%
increase in non-core contributions.33
As non-core resources have become a more prevalent source of UNDS contributions, some
development experts have expressed concern that such funding may limit the degree to which
host countries are involved in the selection and design of programs in their countries. More
broadly, some worry that a rise in non-core funding may affect the ability of organizations to fund
their core mandates and missions. Core resources, some argue, allow organizations to be more
efficient and effective in ensuring that infrastructure and resources are in place for long-term
development planning. Non-core funding, on the other hand, is less predictable and may lead to
higher transaction costs for organizations due to additional monitoring and reporting requirements
that may be instituted.
31 This information is based on 2009 UNDS development-related expenditures of $14.7 billion. An additional 10% of
expenditures are not attributed to any regions or programs. See The Secretary-General’s Report on U.N. System
Operational Activities for Development, 2009, p. 39.
32 The Secretary-General’s Report on U.N. System Operational Activities for Development, 2009, p. 41. See Appendix
C for a list of the top 10 recipients of country programmable resources in 2009.
33 Ibid., 26.
Congressional Research Service
14
U.N. System Development Assistance: Issues for Congress
Figure 5. Core and Non-core Contributions to UNDS Longer-Term Development
Activities, 1994-2009
(In billions of current and constant U.S. dollars.)
Source: U.N. Office for ECOSOC Support and Coordination, CRS representation.
Others, particularly donor governments and organizations, contend that non-core funding allows
donors to fund activities in sectors, countries, and regions that align with their domestic and
foreign policy priorities. They argue that as a whole, non-core contributions are important
mechanisms for increasing multilateral organizations’ total resources available for development.
(Without non-core funding options, some suggest, governments may be more inclined to engage
in bilateral development activities instead of contributing to multilateral organizations.) Some
also emphasize that non-core funds allow development organizations to participate in more
activities than they would otherwise be able to under their existing institutional mandates.
U.N. System Share of Multilateral Aid
The United Nations accounts for the largest share of multilateral funding by OECD Development
Assistance Committee (DAC) countries when core and non-core contributions are combined. 34 In
2009, total OECD-DAC aid to multilateral organizations such as the UNDS, World Bank,
regional banks, and European Commission (EC) was $57.3 billion. UNDS core and non-core
funding accounted for about $18.7 billion, or 33%, of the total share—a slight increase from the
2006 share of 30%.35 (See Figure 6.)
34 The DAC, which is one of the main committees of the OECD, is an international forum where donor governments
and multilateral organizations work to reduce poverty by improving aid effectiveness. It has 24 members: Australia,
Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg,
Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the United States,
and the Commission of the European Communities. For more information, see Inside the DAC, 2009-2010, at
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/43/32/40986871.pdf.
35 The $18.7 billion number is lower than the $21.9 billion reported by the U.N. system because it excludes
contributions by the private sector and local resource contributions. The Secretary-General’s Report on U.N. System
Operational Activities for Development, 2009, p. 23.
Congressional Research Service
15
U.N. System Development Assistance: Issues for Congress
Figure 6. Contributions to the U.N. Development System as a Share of Total
Multilateral Aid by OECD-DAC Countries, 2006-2009
Source: The Secretary-General’s Report on U.N. System Operational Activities for Development, 2009, p. 24; OECD
Creditor Reporting System.
Despite these recent increases in the overall UNDS share of multilateral aid, some experts have
expressed concern regarding what appears to be an ongoing drop in the share of core multilateral
funding. As illustrated in Figure 7, the United Nations’ share of core multilateral aid has steadily
decreased in relative terms during the past decade, falling from 25% during the 1995-1997 time
period to 18% during the 2007-2009 period. The United Nations attributes the decrease to strong
growth in the funding of the EC’s multilateral activities.36 The OECD agrees and suggests that
increased contributions to the Global Fund and World Bank Group have also contributed to the
relative decline.37 More broadly, some speculate that the apparent drop may indicate not only the
growth of other multilateral organizations, but also a lack of donor confidence in the effectiveness
and benefits of U.N. development efforts. Nevertheless, the broader implications of this data for
the U.N. system remain to be seen. Statistics for the 2010-2012 time period will likely shed
further light on whether this is part of a longer-term, ongoing trend or a temporary change.
36 Ibid., 19.
37 2010 DAC Report on Multilateral Aid, OECD, September 2010, p. 4.
Congressional Research Service
16
U.N. System Development Assistance: Issues for Congress
Figure 7. Core Contributions to the U.N. Development System as a Share of Core
Multilateral Aid by OECD-DAC Countries, 1995-2009
Source: The Secretary-General’s Report on U.N. System Operational Activities for Development, 2009, p. 24; OECD-
DAC statistics.
Obama Administration Perspectives
The Obama Administration has expressed ongoing support for UNDS activities and multilateral
cooperation as a whole. In the State Department’s 2010 Quadrennial Diplomacy and
Development Review, the Administration stated that U.N. agencies and programs are
“particularly critical [development] partners” with the United States, and emphasized that given
the magnitude of U.S. assistance to multilateral organizations, the U.S. government must work to
“improve operational cooperation with U.N. agencies” in New York and in the field, particularly
in situations that involve complex emergencies that are U.S. priorities such as in Afghanistan,
Haiti, Pakistan, and Sudan.38
When discussing U.N. system development activities in U.N. forums, Administration officials
have consistently raised the importance of:
• achieving overall coherence at the country level, which includes
enhancing and recognizing the important role of the U.N. Resident
Coordinator, strengthening the individual capacities and coordination of
U.N. entities, and supporting the concept of country ownership in the
development process;
• improving transparency and accountability through enhanced oversight,
such as results-based budgeting and greater access to audit information to
ensure that expenditures are accounted for and that programs demonstrate
effective results; and
38 U.S. Department of State, Leading Through Civilian Power: The First Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development
Review, 2010, p. 97. In addition, the President’s September 2010 U.S. Global Development Policy stated that the
United States would “redouble” its efforts to “support, reform, and modernize multilateral development organizations.”
See Fact Sheet: U.S. Global Development Policy, The White House Office of the Press Secretary, September 22, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
17
U.N. System Development Assistance: Issues for Congress
• improving evaluation mechanisms to better demonstrate the effectiveness
of UNDS activities to donors and host countries, and to provide
mechanisms for organizations to measure their effectiveness.39
The Administration has also emphasized that U.N. entities need to continually update
management practices to keep up with emerging development institutions that are “more nimble,
transparent, and accountable.”40 It generally supports U.N. system-wide coherence efforts,
including the Delivering as One (DAO) pilot program, a country-specific pilot program that is
part of broader U.N. member state efforts to improve U.N. system-wide coherence.41 Notably, the
Administration has emphasized many of these same issues in efforts to improve U.S. bilateral
development agencies such as the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the
Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC).
Options and Issues for Congress
Each year, Congress authorizes or appropriates U.S. contributions to UNDS entities and often
seeks to influence U.S. policy within the United Nations to further U.S. development and foreign
policy objectives. Examples of legislative tools that Members may use to seek influence or direct
U.S. participation in the U.N. system include:
• passing “sense of the Congress” resolutions;
• confirming U.S. nominees for U.N. posts;
• conducting oversight of U.N. programs or U.S. Administration policies
through hearings and investigations;42 and
• funding, withholding, or placing limits on U.S. contributions to U.N.
entities.
During the 111th and 112th Congresses, Members have introduced legislation linking U.N. system
reforms to U.S. contributions, held hearings on issues related to U.N. system efficiency and
effectiveness, and issued committee reports addressing aspects of U.N. system transparency,
particularly related to UNDP.43
39 Drawn from various U.S. statements in U.N. forums, including but not limited to (1) “Statement by Robert S. Hagen
to the working-level interactive meeting on ‘Strengthening governance of operational activities for development of the
United Nations system for enhanced system-wide coherence,’” May 8, 2009; (2) “Statement by Ambassador Rick
Barton at the UNDP Executive Board Meeting,” January 31, 2011; (3) “Remarks by Frederick D. Barton to the
Executive Board of UNFPA,” February 1, 2011; and (4) “Remarks by Ambassador Joseph M. Torsella at the UNDP
Executive Board Meetings,” June 13, 2011.
40 “Remarks by Ambassador Frederick D. Barton at the UNICEF Executive Board Meeting,” February 8, 2011.
41 For more information on DAO, see the “Examples of Current Reform Efforts” section.
42 In 2008, for instance, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs, published a staff report, United Nations Development Program: A Case Study of North Korea,
which was released in conjunction with the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations Hearing on UNDP on January
24, 2008.The report is available at http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/_files/UNDPREPORTFINAL.pdf.
43 See, for example, (1) House Committee on Foreign Affairs (HFAC) hearing, “Reforming the United Nations: The
Future of U.S. Policy,” April 7, 2011 and HFAC hearing, “Reforming the United Nations: Lessons Learned,” March 3,
2011; (2) U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Fraud and Abuse of Global Fund Investments at
Risk Without Greater Transparency, Committee Print, prepared by minority staff, 112th Cong., 1st Sess., April 5, 2011,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
18
U.N. System Development Assistance: Issues for Congress
U.S. contributions to UNDS entities are generally made in two ways: (1) assessed contributions,
which are required dues at percentage levels established by the membership of each organization;
and (2) voluntary contributions, which finance special programs and offices created by the U.N.
system and represent more than half of the total aggregated funds received by the U.N. system.44
U.S. assessed contributions are funded through the Department of State budget. Congress
authorizes these funds in foreign relations authorization acts and appropriates the money in
Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs appropriations legislation. The
regular assessed budgets of U.N. system organizations, including many in the UNDS, are
included in the Contributions to International Organizations (CIO) account.
U.S. voluntary contributions to UNDS entities are financed through the foreign assistance
authorization and foreign operations appropriations legislation, primarily through the
International Organizations and Programs (IO&P) account. IO&P does not include voluntary
contributions to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which has a different
authorization and is funded through the Migration and Refugee Assistance account.45
The United Nations estimates that in 2009, the United States made $1.306 billion in development-
related contributions to the U.N. system, more than any other country.46 As shown in Table 1, in
FY2010 the United States contributed over $450 million in resources to the four UNDS entities
that account for over two-thirds of UNDS activities in 2008—UNDP, UNICEF, FAO, and
WHO.47
Table 1. U.S. Contributions to UNDP, UNICEF, WHO, and FAO, FY2009-FY2012
(Core contributions in millions of $ U.S. dollars.)
Entity
FY2009 (actual)
FY2010 (actual)
FY2011 (enacted)
FY2012 (request)
UNDP 100.000
100.500
TBD
71.535
UNICEF 130.000
132.250
TBD
126.600
FAO 109.035
113.342
TBD
111.985
WHO 106.573
106.573
TBD
109.403
TOTAL 445.608
452.665
TBD
419.523
Source: Foreign Operations Congressional Budget Justification, FY2012.
Notes: TBD = to be determined. FY2011 appropriations were enacted in a continuing appropriations act, P.L.
112-10, on April 15, 2011. Pending further consultation between the executive branch and Congress, the
al ocation of assistance for many program areas has not yet been determined.
(...continued)
S. Prt. 112-17 (Washington: GPO, 2011), pp. 8-9, 12; and (3) H.R. 557 [111th], the United Nations Transparency,
Accountability, and Reform Act of 2009, introduced on January 15, 2009 by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.
44 Examples of UNDS entities that receive assessed contributions include FAO, ILO, UNESOC, WFP, and WHO.
Examples of entities that receive voluntary contributions include UNDP, UNFPA, UNICEF, and UN Women. See
Appendix A for a complete list of U.N. development entities and their primary funding sources.
45 The Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962, as amended (P.L. 87-510), approved June 28, 1962.
46 Table A-5 of the Statistical Annex to The Secretary-General’s Report on U.N. System Operational Activities for
Development, 2009. (Drawn from the “development-related activities only,” columns which include core, non-core, and
local resources.)
47 For more information on U.S. contributions to U.N. entities, see CRS Report RL33611, United Nations System
Funding: Congressional Issues, by Marjorie Ann Browne.
Congressional Research Service
19
U.N. System Development Assistance: Issues for Congress
The following sections highlight two issues that might be of particular significance to the 112th
Congress as it considers U.S. participation in and funding of the UNDS: (1) the impact of limiting
U.S. contributions to U.N. system entities, and (2) the benefits and drawbacks of multilateral
versus bilateral assistance.
U.S. Funding of U.N. System Development Assistance
In the past, Congress has placed financial contributions or limits on U.S. funding to U.N. entities
or programs of which it did not approve, including those that are part of the UNDS. Since 1980,
for example, it has withheld funds from regular budget programs, including the U.N. Special Unit
on Palestinian Rights and the Preparatory Commission on the Law of the Sea. Within the UNDS,
Congress has withheld or restricted funds to the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) due to concerns
regarding the organization’s role in coercive abortion activities in China.48 It has also withheld
funding and withdrew membership from the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO) due to concerns about politicization of the organization and
unrestrained budgetary expansion.49
Policymakers disagree on the political and practical implications of withholding or restricting
U.S. contributions to the U.N. system. Opponents of withholding funds are concerned that doing
so may weaken U.S. influence at the United Nations and on UNDS activities, thereby
undercutting the United States’ ability to conduct diplomacy and pursue its development
objectives in the multilateral system. Supporters of withholding funds argue that the United States
should use its position as one of the largest financial contributors to the UNDS to push for the
implementation of policies that lead to comprehensive reform. They emphasize that limiting or
withholding U.S. contributions to the UNDS may encourage countries to find common ground on
divisive issues. Some also assert that legislation threatening to cut off U.S. funding of the United
Nations has led to substantive changes.50
The impact of withholding U.S. funds from a UNDS entity or program depends on the origin of
the organization or program’s funding. For example:
• If a program is funded, in whole or in part, through the U.N. regular budget and
the United States withholds its proportionate share of its assessed budget
contributions, regular budget funding of the program or entity will continue, as
regular budget contributions are used to finance the budget as a whole and are not
48 During the George W. Bush Administration, UNFPA did not receive U.S. funding as a result of the Kemp-Kasten
amendment, a provision included in appropriations bills since FY1985, that bans U.S. assistance to organizations that,
as determined by the President, support or participate in the management of coercive family planning programs.
President Obama resumed U.S. funding for UNFPA in FY2009. To address ongoing concerns regarding UNFPA
activities in China, Congress has adopted related funding restrictions. For further details, see CRS Report RL33250,
International Family Planning Programs: Issues for Congress, by Luisa Blanchfield.
49 In December 1984, the United States terminated its membership in UNESCO. It officially rejoined the organization
in October 2003.
50 The Kassebaum-Solomon amendment (Section 143, Foreign Relations Authorization Act, FY1986-1987, P.L. 99-93,
August 17, 1985), for example, reduced U.S. assessed contributions by 20% unless steps were taken by the United
Nations to give the major contributors to the U.N. regular budget an influence on budget questions proportionate to
their rates of assessment. In response to the legislation, in December 1985, the General Assembly established a group
of experts to review the administrative and financial functioning of the United Nations. The group made 71
recommendations, most of which were approved by the 1986 Assembly session. The Assembly also adopted a revised
budgeting process that used consensus as a basic decision-making mechanism.
Congressional Research Service
20
U.N. System Development Assistance: Issues for Congress
targeted for specific programmatic purposes. (Some programs or entities may be
financed in part through the regular budget; their funding may come from a
variety of extrabudgetary resources, such as trust funds.) Thus, targeted
withholding of regular budget contributions, by the United States or other U.N.
member states, may not achieve the desired effect.
• If the United States withholds or limits contributions to a U.N. entity funded
primarily by member state voluntary contributions, the impact could be
significant because these organizations depend on such contributions for the bulk
of their activities. Withholding contributions to a specialized agency where the
United States is assessed at a certain amount could also have a substantial effect
on the entity’s operations, particularly in the first several budget cycles after the
money is withheld. For example, the United States is assessed at 22% of the FAO
budget. If the United States were to withhold this contribution, nearly one-quarter
of the organization’s budget would be reduced by that amount. Nonpayment
might also lead to the United States losing its membership in the specialized
agency.
Bilateral Versus Multilateral Aid
When considering UNDS activities, U.S. policymakers may wish to consider the benefits and
drawbacks of providing bilateral versus multilateral foreign assistance. Many donors contend that
through bilateral aid they have more control over how and where their money is spent. (Bilateral
assistance, for example, allows countries to channel resources to countries or organizations of
strategic importance regardless of the development needs.) In contrast, multilateral donors have
little direct control over how their contributions are spent. Some donors and experts further
contend that multilateral institutions, including U.N. entities, lack accountability and do not
provide enough evidence of their effectiveness or overall impact on development. In their view,
such organizations are more concerned with short-term results like conferences, reports, and
studies, rather than achieving sustainable results through long-term monitoring and evaluations
processes. Some experts also hold that it is politically easier for governments to justify bilateral
rather than multilateral aid to their citizens due to the perceived institutional complexities and
bureaucratic nature of multilateral organizations.
Despite potential drawbacks, many donors, including the United States, have recognized the
advantages of multilateral aid. Experts maintain that it benefits the United States because it
allows the government to share development costs and resources with other governments and
organizations (often referred to as burden sharing). Moreover, some argue that U.S. support of
multilateral organizations provides development assistance at lower costs and with relatively little
political risk. It also allows the United States to contribute to development activities in areas or
sectors where it might not otherwise engage. From a political perspective, many assert that by
funding and supporting positions in multilateral organizations, the United States can potentially
influence the policy direction of such organizations and demonstrate its leadership in global
development. More broadly, some have suggested that U.S. financial contributions to and
participation in the multilateral development activities, including the UNDS, can impact the
United States’ influence and credibility in other multilateral forums such as the U.N. Security
Council, Group of 20 (G-20), and international financial institutions.
Although the United States has generally supported and funded U.N. system development
activities, its overall contributions to U.N. entities are less than other U.S. foreign assistance
Congressional Research Service
21
U.N. System Development Assistance: Issues for Congress
activities, particularly bilateral efforts. Indeed, U.S. multilateral assistance as a whole—which
includes contributions to the U.N. system as well as to multilateral development banks and other
multilateral organizations—is a relatively small portion of overall U.S. foreign assistance,
representing 7% ($2.6 billion) of total aid in FY2010.51 (In contrast, countries such as the United
Kingdom and Germany disbursed about one-third of their foreign aid to multilateral
organizations.)
Figure 8.U.S. Bilateral and Multilateral Official Development Assistance, 2000-2009
Source: OECD-DAC data at http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats.
Notes: DAC reports data on gross disbursements at current prices of ODA.
The OECD-DAC reports that during the past decade, U.S. contributions to multilateral
organizations, including the U.N. system, have remained relatively steady while U.S. bilateral
ODA has significantly increased.52 (See Figure 8.) Experts suggest this trend has been
precipitated by several factors, including increased U.S. investment in bilateral programs such as
the Millennium Challenge Corporation and the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief
(PEPFAR) and other global health efforts, as well as ongoing concerns about the effectiveness
and efficiency of multilateral organizations, including the U.N. system, in fulfilling U.S. foreign
policy objectives.53
Examples of Current Reform Efforts
Over the years, U.N. member states, including the United States, have repeatedly recognized the
need to improve the UNDS. Accordingly, they have implemented reforms that have generally
51 Humanitarian constitutes approximately 13% of overall foreign assistance; political/strategic, 25%; civilian security,
9%; military, 12%; and bilateral development, 34%. See U.S. Department of State, Summary and Highlights,
International Affairs, Function 150, FY2011; House and Senate Appropriations Committees; CRS calculations.
52 Data for 2009 based on gross disbursements at current price. OECD-DAC aid statistics are available at
http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats.
53 For further discussion of these issues, see CRS Report R40213, Foreign Aid: An Introduction to U.S. Programs and
Policy, by Curt Tarnoff and Marian Leonardo Lawson.
Congressional Research Service
22
U.N. System Development Assistance: Issues for Congress
been undertaken every 10 to 15 years, usually with mixed results. During the last decade, some of
these reform efforts, such as the establishment of the UNDG to coordinate UNDS activities, have
demonstrated progress. Generally, however, experts agree that additional changes, some of which
are discussed below, are needed for the current system to operate as efficiently and effectively as
possible.54
This section provides examples of two recent reform-related frameworks and activities that
Members of the 112th Congress may wish to take into account when considering U.S. funding of
and participation in the UNDS: the General Assembly’s comprehensive policy reviews, which
provide a foundation for UNDS reform efforts; and the Delivering as One (DAO) initiative, a
country-specific pilot program that is part of broader member state efforts to improve U.N.
system-wide coherence.
Comprehensive Policy Reviews
The primary U.N. mandates for current UNDS reform efforts reside in a series of comprehensive
policy review (CPR) resolutions adopted about every three years by the General Assembly, most
recently in 1998, 2001, 2004, and 2007.55 These resolutions, which have been implemented with
varying degrees of success, work to address concerns that include poor operational coherence at
the country level; insufficient UNDS data coverage, availability, and reliability; and lack of
coordination and communication among all levels of the UNDS (country, regional,
headquarters).56 The 2001 CPR, for example, asked U.N. entities to emphasize simplification and
harmonization in their rules and procedures, calling for concrete steps to decrease duplication and
transaction costs. The 2004 CPR resolution called for further operational harmonization,
especially at the country level. It also undertook an evaluation of UNDS capacity to assist
national efforts of developing countries.
Most recently, in 2007, the General Assembly adopted CPR resolution 62/208 that underscored
the importance of national ownership and leadership in the UNDS as well as the need for
flexibility in responding to national development requirements. It provided specific guidance on
funding and contributions to UNDS, cooperation among developing countries, development of
national capacity, and enhanced evaluation mechanisms. It also acknowledged the need to
improve UNDS information-sharing and reporting. In 2008, U.N. member states agreed that the
CPR resolutions should be reviewed every four years instead of every three years. Thus, a new
54 See, U.N. document A/62/253, Triennial Comprehensive Policy Review of Operational Activities of the United
Nations Development System: Conclusions and Recommendations, Report of the Secretary-General, published August
13, 2007; and U.N. document, E/2009/L.18, Progress in the Implementation of General Assembly Resolution 62/208 on
the Triennial Comprehensive Policy Review of Operational Activities for Development of the United Nations System,
published July 17, 2009.
55 See, U.N. documents A/RES/53/192, December 15, 1998; A/RES/56/201, December 21, 2001; A/RES/59/250,
December 22, 2004; and A/RES/62/208, December 19, 2007.
56 According to UNDG, “With the 2004 Triennial Comprehensive Policy Review, Member States gave the U.N. system
very specific directions that helped the UNDG reach several important agreements for planning and implementing
reforms .… However, not all [country] teams have adopted these agreements with great consistency or enthusiasm. At
times, country level efforts and initiative to enhance further coherence have foundered on the lack of progress on some
issues at headquarters.” See United to Deliver Effective Support for Countries, Promoting U.N. Coherence,
Effectiveness, and Relevance: An Overview of Progress Since 1997, UNDG publication p. 1.
Congressional Research Service
23
U.N. System Development Assistance: Issues for Congress
quadrennial comprehensive policy review resolution will be addressed by the General Assembly
in the fall of 2011.57
U.N. System-wide Coherence: The Delivering As One Initiative
In September 2005, heads of state and government met at U.N. Headquarters in New York for the
U.N. World Summit to review the progress made in fulfilling the 2000 Millennium Summit goals
and commitments made in earlier major U.N. conferences. In the Summit Outcome Document,
governments called on the Secretary-General to improve U.N. system-wide coherence and
coordination by “strengthening linkages between the normative work of the United Nations
system and its operational activities.”58 Accordingly, in February 2006, the Secretary-General
announced the creation of a high-level panel to examine how the U.N. system can work more
effectively, especially in the areas of development, humanitarian assistance, and the environment.
The panel’s final report emphasized the overall value and progress of the United Nations, but also
noted that without substantial reforms the United Nations would be “unable to deliver on its
promises and maintain its legitimate position at the heart of the multilateral system.”59
The high-level panel recommended the
Establishment of a New U.N. Entity for
concept of Delivering as One (DAO) to
Women: “UN Women”
promote greater coherence and consolidation
Some experts and observers view the recent establishment
of U.N. offices and agencies at the country,
of UN Women as an example of increased harmonization
regional, and headquarters levels. The panel
and reform within the UNDS. In 2006, the panel on
system-wide coherence recommended that the United
also recommended an overhaul of U.N.
Nations establish one entity focused on women’s equality
business and management practices at the
and empowerment. It found that the U.N. system's
country level to bring greater focus on
contribution to these issues was “incoherent, under-
achieving the MDGs. Under DAO, U.N.
resourced and fragmented."
agencies operating in-country share one
In July 2010, the General Assembly unanimously adopted
budget, one leader, one office, and one
resolution 64/289 that transferred the mandates and
program with harmonized business practices.
functions of four existing U.N. entities—the Division for
Participants hope that such changes create
the Advancement of Women, the U.N. Development Fund
for Women (UNIFEM), the Office of the Special Advisor on
greater country ownership, reduce
Gender Issues and Advancement of Women, and the
transaction costs for governments, and
International Research and Training Institute for the
increase the impact and effectiveness of the
Advancement of Women—into the U.N. Entity for Gender
U.N. system through more coherent and
Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN Women.)
coordinated programs. In December 2006,
In September 2010, the Secretary-General appointed
the United Nations announced that it would
Michelle Bachelet, former president of Chile, as the
test a voluntary DAO pilot program in
Executive Director and Under Secretary-General. Bachelet
is a member of all senior U.N. decision-making bodies and
Vietnam. (In Vietnam, 16 U.N. agencies
reports directly to the Secretary-General. UN Women
operated in 10 separate locations in Hanoi,
became operational on January 1, 2011.
leading to a lack of harmonization among
57 For more information on the CPR resolutions and the upcoming quadrennial comprehensive policy review, see
http://www.undg.org/index.cfm?P=1022. For an overview of recent U.N. system efforts to harmonize the UNDS during
the past three years, see U.N. document E/2011/88, Simplification and Harmonization of the United Nations
Development System, Report of the Secretary-General, published April 25, 2011.
58 U.N. document, A/RES/60/1, 2005 World Summit Outcome, adopted September 16, 2005, p. 36.
59 The 15-member panel released its report, Delivering as One, on November 9, 2006. The panel met over a six-month
period and engaged in an examination of the strengths and weaknesses of the U.N. system. See U.N. document,
A/61/583, Delivering as One, Report of the Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel, November 9, 2006.
Congressional Research Service
24
U.N. System Development Assistance: Issues for Congress
U.N. entities operating in-country.) It subsequently announced the establishment of voluntary
DAO initiatives in seven other countries: Albania, Cape Verde, Mozambique, Pakistan, Rwanda,
Tanzania, and Uruguay. A “One U.N.” multi-donor trust fund was established to provide donors
with a direct means to support DAO.
Strengths and Weaknesses
Since the DAO initiative was launched, participants have sought to evaluate the initiative’s
progress and challenges through various stocktaking reports, meetings, and working groups. In
June 2010, donors, countries, and U.N. agencies convened in Hanoi for a High-Level Tripartite
Conference to discuss lessons learned and a possible way forward. Overall, participants found
that the implementation of DAO in the pilot countries has provided renewed host government
leadership to U.N. programs, better alignment of national priorities and U.N. efforts, and
enhanced coherence and effectiveness of U.N. support.60 At the same time, many agree that much
more could be done to improve DAO. Several pilot evaluations, for example, found that the RCs
do not have full authority over all U.N. entities operating in-country, leading to a lack of
coordination and accountability in UNCTs. Moreover, U.N. agency headquarters and governing
bodies are viewed by many as being “behind the curve” on DAO, particularly because the pace of
reform at the headquarters level appears to lag behind reform and innovation at the country level.
Finally, the evaluations found that a lack of multi-year and predictable core funding has reduced
the United Nations’ capacity to improve long-term planning and limited its ability to provide
accurate and timely inputs in country planning.61
The future of DAO remains uncertain. It is unclear whether U.N. member states will decide to
expand the initiative beyond the eight pilot countries.62 An independent evaluation of DAO is
currently being conducted by an ad hoc Evaluation Management Group comprising
representatives from selected U.N. member states. Secretary-General Ban hopes that the
evaluation will be completed by mid-to-late 2011 so that it can inform the upcoming quadrennial
comprehensive policy review.63
Ongoing Challenges and Policy Issues
As the 112th Congress considers U.S. participation in and contributions to the UNDS, it may take
the following challenges and policy issues into account.
60 In Mozambique, for example, U.N. agencies estimate that by harmonizing procurement procedures and long-term
agreements, it will reduce the costs of procurement per purchase by up to 89%. Statement of Outcome and Way
Forward, adopted in Hanoi, June 16, 2010, at the High-Level Tripartite Conference, Delivering as One: Lessons from
Country-led Evaluation and Way Forward.
61 In addition, a 2008 UNDG stocktaking report found that for many U.N. entities there appears to be a higher cost
associated with participating in DAO during the initial pilot period, particularly for the specialized agencies. It remains
to be seen whether such costs are temporary or whether they can be decreased over time. The report also expressed
concern that donors were earmarking their contributions to the One UN multi-donor trust fund. See Statement of
Outcome and Way Forward, adopted in Hanoi, June 16, 2010.
62 Delivering as One 2008 Stocktaking Synthesis Report, Joint Reports by Government and U.N. Country Teams, p. 3,
at http://www.undg.org/docs/10289/UNStocktakingSynthesisReportV6.pdf.
63 The group includes evaluation professionals from each of the five regional groups and two from DAO pilot
countries. For more information on this evaluation, see “The Deputy Secretary-General, Remarks on the Independent
Evaluation of the ‘Delivering as One’ Pilot Countries,” March 2010.
Congressional Research Service
25
U.N. System Development Assistance: Issues for Congress
Different Member State Perspectives
U.N. member state perspectives and relationships are constantly evolving; however, fundamental
disagreements between developing countries (represented primarily by the G-77 and China) and
developed countries (often represented by the United States, Japan, and the United Kingdom)
regarding the role of the United Nations in development have remained relatively consistent. In
general, developed countries, which account for the majority of assessed contributions to the U.N.
regular budget and donor contributions to the UNDS, would like the Secretary-General to have
greater flexibility and authority to implement UNDS reforms, specifically those related to
oversight, transparency, and human resources. While they recognize the importance of
maintaining the autonomy of the specialized agencies, some developed countries would also like
to see a more centralized and coordinated U.N. presence at the country level. Developing
countries, on the other hand, generally object to policies that may enhance the power of the
Secretary-General or developed countries and decrease the power of the General Assembly and
its budget and administrative committees. Some experts contend that developing countries have
resisted the idea of creating a more consolidated and centralized UNDS because a decentralized
system suits their interests. In such a system, some experts hold, developing countries have
“better possibilities” to control the system and use it to their advantage.64
One of the foremost challenges facing the UNDS, including its administration, funding, and
operations, is the dynamic between and among U.N. member states. The majority of UNDS
entities are controlled by various governance structures, including executive boards and
committees. These bodies include representatives of governments that have their own political
agendas, foreign policy and national security goals, and definitions of development and U.N.
reform. For instance, some governments hold differing opinions on how to most effectively
implement reform and how to measure the success or failure of a given reform initiative. Others
present their policy priorities as reform to further their own policy goals, causing distrust among
governments that question whether certain reform proposals are based on a national self-interest
or a desire to enhance U.N. development efforts. Moreover, some governments appear to support
contradictory reform proposals and recommendations in different executive boards, making it
difficult to implement consistent and coordinated reforms across the development system.
Competition Among U.N. Entities
Many in the development community have raised questions about the impact of competition
among U.N. entities on overall U.N. development efforts. On the one hand, experts agree that
competition can benefit U.N. development activities by spurring organizations to improve the
quality of their services. On the other hand, many are concerned that the decentralized nature of
the U.N. system may lead U.N. entities to consider their own institutional interests above the
interests of host governments or the UNDS as a whole. For example, the recent shift from core to
non-core contributions, both within the UNDS and the broader development community, has
increased competition for funding among some U.N. entities. As a result, U.N. organizations
often work separately, rather than together, to raise funds.
64 “A Short History of United Nations Reform in Development,” Part I of Some Measures to Improve Overall
Performance of the United Nations System at the Country Level, U.N. Joint Inspection Unit Report 2005/2 (Part I), p. 6.
Congressional Research Service
26
U.N. System Development Assistance: Issues for Congress
In addition to vying for scarce funds, U.N. entities may also compete for access to government
officials and ministries, office space, or control over various projects and programs. Such
competition, experts argue, could lead to duplication of activities and excess expenses. In
addition, some have suggested that UNDP’s increasingly centralized role in U.N. country
operations has led to resentment and increased competition among some UNDS entities that feel
that they are losing control of development activities for which they were previously responsible.
Limited Data Collection and Information-Sharing
The UNDS lacks a central mechanism for collecting and disseminating comparable and
comprehensive information on its activities at the country, regional, and headquarters levels. As a
result, donors, host governments, and in many cases U.N. entities themselves, may not have a
clear picture of the range of activities occurring in the country where they operate. A U.N.
Country Team (UNCT) is not required to track or maintain a database of all UNDS activities
undertaken in its country, and if such a mechanism exists, it is usually at the discretion of a
Resident Coordinator (RC). There are also no formal mechanisms in place for RCs or UNCTs to
share best practices or lessons learned. Many argue that this dearth of information and
knowledge-sharing leads to a lack of coordination and duplication within the UNDS. Moreover, it
makes it more difficult for donors, governments, and the U.N. system itself to identify gaps and
areas of possible improvement in UNDS activities.
Efforts to streamline U.N. system data collection and information-sharing are in various stages of
development and implementation. The U.N. System Chief Executives Board for Coordination
(CEB) and the General Assembly acknowledged the need for system-wide data coverage,
availability, and reliability. In 2007, for instance, the General Assembly requested the Secretary-
General to continue to “broaden and improve the coverage, timeliness, reliability, quality and
comparability of system-wide financial data, definitions and classifications for the financial
reporting” of UNDS operational activities for development in a coherent way. It also called on
him to “build a comprehensive, sustainable and consistent financial data and reporting system”
for UNDS activities.65
Obstacles to Monitoring and Evaluation
A key challenge facing the UNDS is monitoring and evaluating the development impact of its
activities, which is often difficult to measure or quantify. Sufficient baseline data are needed for
organizations to monitor and assess the impact of their programs, yet in many cases such data are
not available due to a lack of national statistical capacity in developing countries. There are also
questions as to how development results (or a lack of results) can be attributed to the work of one
particular organization or, more narrowly, one program or project. Changes in the political
atmosphere, external shocks such as natural disasters, and shifts in national priorities can severely
impact the success, or failure, of development efforts.66
65 U.N. document A/RES/62/208, December 19, 2007. See Part II, paragraph 28 a and b of the resolution. In January
2011, the Department of Economic and Social Affairs and CEB chaired an expert group meeting, “Strengthening
system-wide reporting for funding for the UN system,” that discussed ways to modernize, simplify, and strengthen
U.N. system-wide reporting on funding for the U.N. system.
66 For further discussion of these issues, see Effectiveness of the U.N. Development System and its Operational
Activities: Capacity of the System to Provide Country Level Support and Develop National Capacities, U.N. Economic
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
27
U.N. System Development Assistance: Issues for Congress
The obstacles associated with monitoring and evaluation (M&E) in the UNDS are further
magnified by a lack of harmonized evaluation mechanisms within the UNDS and across the U.N.
system. During the 1990s and early 2000s, many U.N. entities adopted evaluation mechanisms
based on results (referred to as results-based frameworks). These frameworks have been
implemented to varying degrees and often include disparate definitions and criteria for
evaluation. Recognizing the importance of harmonizing evaluation practices, some U.N. entities
have taken steps to coordinate evaluation activities.67 Many development experts agree, however,
that efforts to improve M&E within the U.N. system need to be expanded. In 2007, for example,
governments called on the UNDS to “pursue and intensify efforts to strengthen evaluation
capacities in program countries.”68
Role of the U.N. Resident Coordinator
Some development experts contend that the quality of UNDS staff varies among countries, and
that in many cases the success of a U.N. Country Team (UNCT) often hinges on the leadership
qualities and effectiveness of the Resident Coordinator (RC). Experts and governments, including
the United States, have acknowledged the challenges associated with the RC position,
recognizing that its “complexities and demands have not always made it an attractive career
option.”69 RCs are charged with a broad mandate of leading all UNCT activities, yet they have
little management authority over other U.N. entities to carry out their responsibilities.70 One
reason for this is lack of incentives; U.N. system staff are evaluated based on their contributions
to their individual agencies rather than the U.N. organization as a whole.71 RCs, on the other
hand, are evaluated primarily based on their performance of U.N. system-wide objectives.
Consequently, RCs and other UNCT members may be working towards different objectives. The
UNDG has acknowledged this inconsistency and notes that in recent years some entities, such as
UNFPA, have taken steps to add recognition of U.N. system-wide work to its appraisals.72 In
(...continued)
and Social Council, Conference Room Paper, 2004.
67 In 2005, for example, the U.N. Evaluation Group (UNEG), a network of 45 units responsible for evaluation in the
U.N. system, endorsed U.N. system-wide norms and standards for evaluation. In addition, UNDG has incorporated
results matrices into UNDAFs.
68 The Assembly also laid out specific guidelines for enhancing UNDS evaluation mechanisms. See U.N. document,
A/RES/62/208, December 19, 2007.
69 B. Lynn Pascoe, the U.N. Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs stated, “You give them [RCs] limited
authority, no money, and yet somehow they are supposed to keep everybody headed for common goals. Then you add
full responsibility for their people’s security with inadequate resources in a dangerous world. It’s no wonder some
people don’t even want the job. But the rewards of helping people on a large scale makes it one of the world’s most
satisfying.” See UNDG, Synthesis of Annual Resident Coordinator Reports, 2009, U.N. Country Coordination,
Enhancing Leadership for Development, 2010, p. 101.
70 According to the RC job description, the coordinator has an “equal relationship with, and responsibility to, all UNCT
member agencies,” and is “empowered by clear recognition from each agency of his/her role in strategically
positioning the UN in each country.” See U.N. Resident Coordinator Generic Job Description, approved by UNDG on
January 29, 2009.
71 According to the UNDG, UNCT members have “direct-line” accountability to their own organization, and only
“collegial” accountability to the RC and rest of the UNCT for achieving results specified in the UNDAF. See UNDG,
About U.N. Country Teams, at http://www.undg.org/index.cfm?P=1257.
72 UNDG, United to Deliver Effective Support for Countries, Promoting U.N. Coherence, Effectiveness, and Relevance:
An Overview of Progress Since 1997, p. 7.
Congressional Research Service
28
U.N. System Development Assistance: Issues for Congress
2008, the UNDG approved a Management and Accountability System to hold UNCT members
accountable in areas where they have agreed to lead the Country Team.73
At the same time, many point out that the RC’s apparent lack of authority is in line with the
decentralized nature of the U.N. system and the longstanding autonomy of U.N. specialized
agencies. Moreover, some assert that RCs with strong leadership and management skills can and
have overcome the inherent challenges of the position to successfully lead UNCT efforts.
Accordingly, there is general agreement that RC recruiting should be widened and improved to
attract the most qualified people.74 In 2009, UNDG implemented a “talent-management” initiative
that works to align more closely candidate qualifications with post requirements and improve
competency assessment and development. It also instituted marketing and communications tools
to attract eligible candidates.75 The extent to which these recruiting efforts have improved the
quality of RCs remains unclear.
Transitioning from Humanitarian Relief to Development
Navigating the transition between humanitarian relief and development has been an issue of
longstanding concern within the U.N. system and among the wider development and
humanitarian assistance communities. During natural disasters, conflicts, or other humanitarian
situations, U.N. operational entities such as the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian
Affairs (UNOCHA), UNICEF, UNHRC, and WFP, work to alleviate the crisis at hand. While
responses to natural disasters or conflicts may differ, typically a U.N. Humanitarian Coordinator
(HC) works with U.N. entities, NGOs, the host government, and other partners to coordinate and
oversee the U.N. humanitarian response at the country level. In the immediate aftermath, the U.N.
system transitions its work from the humanitarian phase (lifesaving and early recovery) to the
development phase (restoring livelihoods); in some cases such phases often continue on parallel
tracks. Many contend that these relationships could be more effectively coordinated. Moreover,
some experts maintain that once the transition to the development phase occurs, humanitarian
issues are at risk of falling by the wayside in UNCTs and the UNDS as whole because the
majority of RCs and UNCT members are not trained or experienced in humanitarian issues.
One of the key areas of discussion is the role of the HC in UNCTs. In 29 UNCTs, RCs wear two
hats as both the HC and RC.76 Humanitarian experts argue that many RCs, including some that
hold the dual RC/HC position, are primarily from development backgrounds and do not have
73 UNDG, The Management and Accountability System of the UN Development and Resident Coordinator System,
including the “Functional Firewall” for the RC System, August 27, 2008. For further discussion of recent debates, see
“ECOSOC Discusses Future of Operational Activities of U.N. Funds and Programs, and the Resident Coordinators
System,” U.N. Office in Geneva Press Release, July 15, 2011.
74 In January 2011, for example, U.S. Ambassador to ECOSOC Rick Barton said in a statement to the UNDP Executive
Board that “getting the Resident Coordinator skill mix right is crucial for the success of U.N. country missions.” See
“Statement by Ambassador Rick Barton at the UNDP Executive Board Meeting,” January 31, 2011.
75 For more information on these efforts see, UNDG, Synthesis of Annual Resident Coordinator Reports, 2009, U.N.
Country Coordination, Enhancing Leadership for Development, 2010, p. 101. For further information on the RC
system in general, see U.N. document, E/2011/86, Functioning of the Resident Coordinator System, including Cost and
Benefits, Report of the Secretary General, published April 25, 2011.
76 The 29 countries are Afghanistan, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Dominican
Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea, Haiti, Indonesia, Iraq, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia,
Myanmar, Nepal, Niger, Occupied Palestinian Territories, Pakistan, Philippines, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Uganda,
Yemen, and Zimbabwe. (CRS correspondence with UNDOCO, June 2011.)
Congressional Research Service
29
U.N. System Development Assistance: Issues for Congress
sufficient knowledge of humanitarian issues or the humanitarian system. (The United Nations
reports that as of June 2011, 64% of the RCs were affiliated with UNDP and 36% were affiliated
with other entities.)77 Critics also contend that some RC/HCs might be reluctant to confront host
countries on humanitarian issues because they are afraid of damaging the relationship necessary
to carry out the RC role, possibly harming the U.N. system’s effectiveness in addressing
humanitarian-related issues in specific countries.78
Relationships with Other Development Partners
Effective coordination with other development organizations is an ongoing challenge for the
UNDS. Many development experts argue that in light of how the international development
community has and will likely continue to evolve, the U.N. system must be increasingly willing
and able to work with and leverage the expertise of a range of development organizations. They
suggest that improved communication and collaboration among these organizations, particularly
at the country level, might minimize duplication of activities and promote information sharing,
which in turn could lead to more effective development programs that align with host country
priorities.
Despite incremental progress in improving coordination in recent years, several obstacles
remain.79 For example, a more crowded development field has led to increased competition for
scarce resources. As previously discussed, U.N. entities are often competing with each other, as
well as other development organizations, for funding. They may be reluctant to coordinate their
funds or activities due to concerns that they might lose influence in a country or sector, or
because they have different strategic interests than other donors. In addition, donors are more
likely to earmark funds for specific projects, leaving the UNDS and other development
organizations with less flexibility in program implementation or coordination. Finally,
development experts view the lack of coordination among U.N. entities as a significant obstacle
to collaboration with other donors.
International Financial Institutions
UNDS entities and international financial institutions (IFIs) such as the World Bank Group,
International Monetary Fund (IMF), and regional development banks, share similar development
priorities and have been known to undertake nearly identical development projects with little
collaboration or communication. (UNDP, for instance, supports a project to decrease green house
gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, while the World Bank supports a parallel
Forest Carbon Partnership Facility and other similar facilities in the Amazon and Congo river
basins.)80 As a result, some observers emphasize that they should strive for greater consistency in
their strategic frameworks and priorities at the country level. At the same time, while many
experts and governments, including the United States, support enhanced coordination, they also
emphasize that because U.N. entities and the IFIs are distinct organizations with different
77 CRS correspondence with UNDOCO, June 2011.
78 The NGOs and Humanitarian Reform Project, Review of the Engagement of NGOs with the Humanitarian Reform
Process, Synthesis Report, October 2009, p. 14.
79 See text box, “The UNDS and International Donor Coordination.” Also see CRS Report R41185, Foreign Aid:
International Donor Coordination of Development Assistance, by Marian Leonardo Lawson.
80 See Aiding Development Assistance Reform for the 21st Century, Brookings Institution, August 2010, p. 20.
Congressional Research Service
30
U.N. System Development Assistance: Issues for Congress
mandates and governance structures there needs to be a clear division of labor between their
work.81 In recent years, the UNDS has taken some steps to include the IFIs in U.N. system
activities. In 2007, for instance, the U.N. General Assembly called for the “harmonization of
strategic frameworks, instruments, modalities, and partnership arrangements” between the U.N.
system and Bretton Woods Institutions.82 In addition, because they are part of the U.N. system,
the World Bank serves as a UNDG observer and both the World Bank Group and the IMF are
members of the CEB.
NGOs
During the past decade, many NGOs that work on development issues have become more
organized and better funded due to increased contributions from foundations, the private sector,
and the general public. As a result, experts contend that their influence on development has grown
stronger. Accordingly, many argue that the UNDS should work not only to coordinate its efforts
with these institutions, but also to leverage their innovation and expertise. International NGOs in
developing countries, for example, are often staffed by experienced local citizens rather than
those from outside the country. Some suggest that such individuals could provide unique
perspectives on the needs and resources of a particular country.83 As with the IFIs, many argue
that enhancing UNDS communication with NGOs on best practices and ongoing development
activities could lead to more efficient and effective development services as a whole.
Private Sector
In recent years, governments, experts, and the U.N. system itself have increasingly recognized the
contributions of the private sector to development.84 Despite this recognition, many agree that the
UNDS and other development organizations remain ill-equipped to leverage the benefits of
private sector development activities, many of which are not immediately obvious because they
are not undertaken by traditional development participants or labeled as development.85
Consequently, some development experts maintain that the UNDS should consider modifying its
approach to aid so that it more effectively leverages links between the private and public sectors.
Many view private investment, in particular, as an untapped opportunity. Unlike several decades
ago, the majority of resources that flow to developing countries now come through private capital
rather than Official Development Assistance.86 The U.S. government, for example, reports that
81 “Statement of Robert S. Hagen to the working-level interactive meeting on ‘Strengthening governance of operational
activities for development of the United Nations system for enhanced system-wide coherence,’” New York, May 8,
2009.
82 U.N. document A/RES/62/208, December 19, 2007.
83 Aiding Development Assistance Reform for the 21st Century, Brookings Institution, August 2010, pp. 27-28.
84 For example, in 2000 the United Nations launched the Global Compact, a strategic policy initiative for businesses
that wish to align their operations and strategies with universally accepted principles in the areas of human rights, labor,
environment, and anti-corruption. Most recently, during the September 2010 High-Level Forum on the MDGs,
Secretary-General Ban chaired the 2010 U.N. Private Sector Forum to identify concrete actions the private sector can
take, both individually and with the public sector, to help achieve the MDGs in the next five years.
85 Examples of private sector contributions include private investment (i.e., a corporation’s evolving business and
commercial activities that may have strong implications for development), or innovative activities that aim to apply
private sector strategies to development (these can be either private-private partnerships or, alternatively, be public-
private partnerships). See Unleashing Entrepreneurship: Making Business Work for the Poor, U.N. Commission on the
Private Sector and Development, Report to the U.N. Secretary-General, March 1, 2004, pp. 29-30.
86 Aiding Development Assistance Reform for the 21st Century, Brookings Institution, August 2010, p. 25.
Congressional Research Service
31
U.N. System Development Assistance: Issues for Congress
more than 80% of its contributions to the developing world are in the form of private capital
rather than foreign aid.87
Looking Ahead
The 112th Congress may debate aspects of U.S. participation in and funding of the UNDS. As
highlighted in this report, issues range from the effectiveness of ongoing UNDS reform efforts, to
the role of the U.N. system in the global development landscape, and to improving UNDS
coordination and accountability at the country, regional, and global level. As Congress considers
these challenges, other overarching issues may arise.
Effectiveness of U.S. Foreign Aid Structures
In recent years, many foreign aid experts have expressed concern regarding ongoing
inefficiencies related to the overall organization, effectiveness, and management of U.S. foreign
aid. In particular, some have suggested that the United States should more effectively leverage
U.S. funding for multilateral programs and institutions to influence country or program
directions. Congress may wish to view U.S. participation in the UNDS in this broader context.88
Rise of Other Development Actors and Mechanisms
Experts suggest that any debates regarding UNDS enhancement or reform should be viewed in
the broader global development context. As previously discussed, the rise of middle-income
economies like Brazil, India, and China as development donors and the increased role of
multilateral donors such as the European Union and World Bank in development activities has
altered the development landscape. Members of Congress may also wish to consider the UNDS in
the context of the G-20’s rise as the premier forum for international economic cooperation.
Although its effectiveness moving forward is still being debated, the G-20’s increasing influence
raises questions about the U.N. system’s future role in development and, more broadly, global
governance.89
U.N. System Focus and Priorities
Some experts have emphasized that U.N. development efforts may be undermined by a lack of
focus. For example, there are over 9,000 mandates in the U.N. system; many argue that this
makes it difficult for member states, and the U.N. system itself, to prioritize its development
activities. Some have proposed that the UNDS tighten its focus by concentrating its activities on
87 Leading Through Civilian Power: The First Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, U.S. Department of
State, 2010, p. 96.
88 For more information on issues related to U.S. foreign aid, see CRS Report R40213, Foreign Aid: An Introduction to
U.S. Programs and Policy, by Curt Tarnoff and Marian Leonardo Lawson.
89 The G-20 is an international forum for discussing and coordinating economic policies. Its members include
Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi
Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the European Union. For more
information, see CRS Report R40977, The G-20 and International Economic Cooperation: Background and
Implications for Congress, by Rebecca M. Nelson.
Congressional Research Service
32
U.N. System Development Assistance: Issues for Congress
fragile states or countries emerging from conflict. Others, however, argue that focusing only on
specific countries or situations undermines the United Nations’ universality.90
Reform and the Future of the U.N. Development System
To improve U.N. system development activities, some experts have recommended merging,
eliminating, or creating new U.N. entities to streamline and unify U.N. system development
activities. Others have suggested consolidating U.N. development activities under one central
entity. Most agree, however, that in the near future U.N. member states are unlikely to implement
the structural and organizational changes necessary for comprehensive and far-reaching reform.
This is due primarily to the decentralized nature of the U.N. system; the autonomy of U.N.
agencies, funds, and programs; and disagreements among the United Nations’ 193 member states
on the mandate and role of the U.N. development system. With this in mind, Congress may
consider monitoring ongoing and incremental UNDS reform activities, including the
comprehensive policy review (CPR) resolutions adopted by the General Assembly and the
implementation of the Delivering as One (DAO) initiative. The future of DAO, in particular, is
uncertain. Although many U.N. member states, including the United States, appear to support the
initiative, it is unclear whether it will continue beyond the current pilot phase.
More broadly, Congress may wish to stay apprised of growing policy debates on the future of the
U.N. development system in international development efforts, particularly in light of the global
economic crisis, concerns about U.N. system effectiveness, and the emergence of new bilateral
and multilateral donors. In the United States, the role of the United Nations in U.S. foreign
assistance will likely remain a point of continuous debate for policymakers as they aim to balance
domestic concerns and the recession on the one hand, with key foreign policy and development
priorities on the other.
90 The Future of the U.N. Development System, Conference Report, from Wilton Park Conference on the Future of the
U.N. Development System; Silke Weinlich, Reform of the UN Development System: New Multilateralist Reform
Coalition Needed, Briefing Paper 1/2011, German Development Institute.
Congressional Research Service
33
U.N. System Development Assistance: Issues for Congress
Appendix A. U.N. Development Group
Membership
Table A-1. U.N. Development Group Membership:
U.N. Entities that Play a Role in Development
Primary Funding
Entity Type
Source
Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries,
Secretariat Office U.N. Regular
Landlocked Developing Countries and Smal Island Developing States
Budget
Office of the Special Advisor on Africa
Secretariat Office U.N. Regular
Budget
Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for
Secretariat Office U.N. Regular
Children and Armed Conflict
Budget
Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA)
Secretariat
U.N. Regular
Department
Budget
Department of Public Information (DPI)
Secretariat
U.N. Regular
Department
Budget
Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA)
Regional
U.N. Regular
Commission
Budget
Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE)
Regional
U.N. Regular
Commission
Budget
Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (UNECLAC) Regional
U.N. Regular
Commission
Budget
Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP)
Regional
U.N. Regular
Commission
Budget
Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (UNESCWA)
Regional
U.N. Regular
Commission
Budget
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
Specialized
Assessed
Agency
Contributions
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)
Specialized
Assessed
Agency
Contributions
International Labor Organization (ILO)
Specialized
Assessed
Agency
Contributions
International Telecommunication Union (ITU)
Specialized
Assessed
Agency
Contributions
U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
Secretariat Office U.N. Regular
Budget
Joint U.N. Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS)
Other Voluntary
Contributions
U.N. Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)
Program or Fund Voluntary
Contributions
U.N. Development Program (UNDP)
Program or Fund Voluntary
Contributions
U.N. Environment Program (UNEP)
Program or Fund Voluntary
Contributions
Congressional Research Service
34
U.N. System Development Assistance: Issues for Congress
Primary Funding
Entity Type
Source
U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
Specialized
Assessed
Agency
Contributions
U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA)
Program or Fund Voluntary
Contributions
U.N. Human Settlements Program (UN-HABITAT)
Program or Fund Voluntary
Contributions
U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)
Program or Fund Voluntary
Contributions
U.N. Children’s Fund (UNICEF)
Program or Fund Voluntary
Contributions
U.N. Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO)
Specialized
Assessed
Agency
Contributions
U.N. Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN
Program or Fund Voluntary
Women)
Contributions
U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC)
Secretariat Office U.N. Regular
Budget
U.N. Office for Project Services (UNOPS)
Other
Self-financinga
U.N. World Tourism Organization (WTO)
Specialized
Assessed
Agency
Contributions
World Food Program (WFP)
Program or Fund Voluntary
Contributions
Word Health Organization (WHO)
Specialized
Assessed
Agency
Contributions
World Meteorological Organization (WMO)
Specialized
Assessed
Agency
Contributions
Source: UNDG, CRS.
Notes: UNDG has five observers: the World Bank, the U.N. Fund for International Partnerships, UNOCHA,
the Spokesperson for the U.N. Secretary-General, and the Director of the Office of the Deputy Secretary-
General.
a. UNOPS is a self-financing organization, meaning that it operates from fees earned for services rendered,
with no assessed or voluntary funding.
Congressional Research Service
35
U.N. System Development Assistance: Issues for Congress
Appendix B. Abbreviations
Table B-1. List of Abbreviations
Acronym Entity
CEB
U.N. Chief Executives Board for
Coordination
CIO
Contributions to International Organizations
account
CPR
Comprehensive Policy Review
DAO
Delivering as One Initiative
ECOSOC
U.N. Economic and Social Council
FAO
Food and Agriculture Organization
G-20
Group of 20
HC
Humanitarian Coordinator
IFAD
International Fund for Agricultural
Development
IFI
International Financial Institution
ILO
International Labor Organization
IMF
International Monetary Fund
IO&P
International Organizations and Programs
account
ITU
International Telecommunication Union
M&E
Monitoring and Evaluation
MDG
Millennium Development Goals
NGO
Nongovernmental Organizations
ODA
Official Development Assistance
OECD-DAC
Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development - Development Assistance
Committee
OHCHR
U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for
Human Rights
RC
Resident Coordinator
U.N.
United Nations
UN Women
U.N. Entity for Gender Equality and the
Empowerment of Women
UNAIDS
Joint U.N. Program on HIV/AIDS
UNCT
U.N. Country Team
UNCTAD
U.N. Conference on Trade and
Development
UNDAF
U.N. Development Assistance Framework
UNDG
U.N. Development Group
Congressional Research Service
36
U.N. System Development Assistance: Issues for Congress
Acronym Entity
UNDP
U.N. Development Program
UNDS
U.N. Development System
UNEP
U.N. Environment Program
UNESCO
U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization
UNESCAP
U.N. Economic and Social Commission for
Asia and the Pacific
UNFPA
U.N. Population Fund
UN-HABITAT
U.N. Human Settlements Program
UNHCR
U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees
UNIC
U.N. Information Center
UNICEF
U.N. Children’s Fund
UNIDO
U.N. Industrial Development Organization
UNIFEM
U.N. Development Fund for Women
UNODC
U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime
UNOCHA
U.N. Office for the Coordination of
Humanitarian Affairs
UNOPS
U.N. Office for Project Services
UNRWA
U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine
Refugees in the Near East
UNV
U.N. Volunteers
USAID
U.S. Agency for International Development
WFP
World Food Program
WHO
Word Health Organization
WMO
World Meteorological Organization
WTO
U.N. World Tourism Organization
Source: CRS, United Nations.
Congressional Research Service
37
U.N. System Development Assistance: Issues for Congress
Appendix C. Top Recipients of UNDS Funding,
2009
Table C-1. Top 10 Recipient Countries of Funding (Country Programmable
Resources), 2009
(Expenditures in millions of U.S. dollars.)
Recipient Expenditures
Afghanistan 781
Sudan 395
Democratic Republic of the Congo
380
India 251
Bangladesh 210
Ethiopia 204
Nigeria 203
Pakistan 188
Indonesia 183
Somalia 161
Source: The Secretary-General’s Report on U.N. System Operational Activities for Development, 2009, p. 41.
Note: The United Nations defines “country programmable resources” as total expenditures in a country less (a)
humanitarian assistance, (b) regional and global activities, (c) program support and management, and (d) local
resources.
Author Contact Information
Luisa Blanchfield
Specialist in International Relations
lblanchfield@crs.loc.gov, 7-0856
Congressional Research Service
38