New Roles
Decisions by the United Nations General
Assembly and consultations between the Secretary General and the Executive
Secretaries of the Regional Commissions had resulted in important new
guidelines for the Commissions. The General Assembly had resolved that regional
commission should have the status of executing agencies in their own rights in
projects specified by the General Assembly.
The Commissions were now called upon to
perform for their member countries a role akin to that carried out at the
global level by ECOSOC and the General Assembly in the economic and social
fields. This included policy-making and harmonization of international action;
the promotion of solutions to international economic, social and related
problems.
Regional development strategies
The Commissions were further allowed to
draw up of strategies, policies and priorities in regional and international
co-operation, including operational activities reviewing and evaluating
developments in other forum within the United Nation system and in promoting
and supporting assistance to member countries in the context of measures agreed
upon by these countries.
More systematic programme-by programme
reviews involving the regional commissions and the relevant units at United
Nations headquarters including UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and
Development), UNIDO (United Nations Industrial Development Organization) and
UNEP (United Nations Environment Program) would help to eliminate duplication
and strengthen co-ordination.
My Presidency of ECOSOC in the early
1970s had exposed to the tendency of the specialized United Nations agencies
and bodies to jealously protect their respective domain. I was convinced,
however, with so many UN agencies and bodies working in the field there was
bound to be a great degree of overlapping and duplication of work. The problems
moreover had become multi-disciplinary in nature.
Ideally these specialized agencies and
bodies should co-operate together to strengthen the various programs of the
United Nations in inter-country activities. This in turn would lead to closer
co-ordination and a more efficient allocation of resources among them.
ESCAP’s committee structure, at the
technical level, helped to strengthen programs where there was a need for
guidance and better co-ordination of United Nations inter-country activities.
At the highest echelon
was the ESCAP’s Advisory Committee of Permanent Representatives. I requested my division chiefs to maintain
close relations with their counterparts in the United Nations Organization to establish
joint programs and projects in their respective fields.
As a result ESCAP was
able, among others, to form ESCAP/UNIDO (United Nations Industrial
Organization) Division of Industry, housing and technology, the Environment
co-ordination Unit jointly with UNEP , the joint ESCAP/ITU (International
Telecommunication Union) division, the joint ESCAP/CTC (Centre on
Trans-national Corporations) unit.
ESCAP continued to
function as regional co-ordinator and advisory agency with one or more
specialized agencies. These included the Fertilizer Advisor of Development
Information Network for Asia and the Pacific, jointly administered with
FAO(Food and Agricultural Organization) and UNIDO and attached to the
Agriculture Division; the Typhoon Committee and the Panel on Tropical Cyclones
supported by ESCAP’s Natural Resources Division with the participation of the
World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Disaster Relief
co-ordinator; the Regional Network for Agricultural Machinery, which received technical
aid from ESCAP’s Industry Division as well as from FAO and UNIDO; the Regional
Advisory Services on Trade Information, supported by the International Trade
Centre/UNCTAD, GATT (General Agreement on Tariff and Trade) and UNDP United
Nations Development Program).
It was not an easy task to convince the
numerous specialized agencies and bodies, especially those with offices in
Bangkok to work closely together under the auspices of ESCAP. I had to overcome their initial reluctance
by instilling greater recognition of and confidence in ESCAP capabilities,
objectives and work programs.
I was helped too by the successful
transfer in 1977 of executive agencies responsibilities for UNDP funded
regional projects for Asia and the Pacific from the United Nations to ESCAP.
Thus ESCAP acquired responsibility for regional institutions and regional
projects which were largely funded by UNDP.
From the outset I worked hard to
establish close rapport with various international agency officials, in
particular UNDP officials such as the late Adriano Garcia UNDP representative
in Bangkok, the late Andrew Joseph UNDP Regional Director for Asia and the
Pacific and Bradford Morse UNDP Administrator, New York, since the UNDP was
perceived to be the central funding source for technical co-operation in the
United Nations system and had the lead role for development in Asia and Pacific
region.
The close involvement with UNDP
programming missions and ESCAP’s growing assumption of executive agency
functions for major UNDP funded institution building projects, helped to
increase ESCAP’s share of UNDP regional and sub-regional projects. This
unfortunately had created some jealousy among other UN agencies and bodies.
I had faced much difficulty in getting
this project of the ground. The Director General of FAO in particular objected
strongly to ESCAP involvement since he argued this project was within the
domain of his Organization and FAO should implement it. I made several visits
to his headquarters in Rome to try to convince him that this project was
multi-disciplinary in nature and not only the responsibility of FAO.
Fortunately I had a personal and trusted ally in Dr. Jack Umali, (a Philippino)
FAO regional representative based in Bangkok. He persuaded the Director General
to share this project with ESCAP since ESCAP had a good record and I was a
responsible man trusted by UNDP that provided the funds.
Ultimately he consented and I was able to
establish an Inter-agency Committee for integrated rural development chaired by
me with its task force that prepared and submitted to its member government’s
policy guidelines, directives and priorities established its member
governments.
The Committee and its
Task Force consisted of United Nations bodies and specialized agencies with
offices in Bangkok and jointly provided technical and other forms of assistance
for development of their rural areas.
Pilot Atoll project
To give an
example of its work, the Task Force with funding from the Government of Australia
had assisted the Republic of Maldives, an archipelago of 1.200 small coral
islands in the Indian ocean, in formulating a Pilot Atoll Developments projects
A special concern of this “Alifu Atoll project was the improvement of
productivity and income of small fishermen as well as the reduction of
disparities in earnings of fishing boat owners and crewmen.
Pangasinan project
Another example for help of the rural
poor was a project in Pangasinan province, The Philippines, where a broad spectrum
of activities, ranging from increasing agricultural output to provide safe
drinking water, were undertaken. Mobilizing locally available resources and
participation of people fulfilled the basic concept of integrated rural
development that was development of, for and by the people.
To emphasize the importance of rural development I
visited the Province while in Manila attending the Asian regional Conference of
the International Labour Organization (ILO) in December 1980. I was highly
impressed by the enthusiastic support by the Philippine government and the
targets group, as well as the degree of collaboration among the United Nations
agencies. I believed that Pangasinan project could become a model in the field
of integrated rural development for other developing countries in Asia-Pacific
region.
ESCAP’s integrated work
programme for rural development was based on the assumption that the main
responsibility for the relief of rural poverty remained the responsibility of the
member countries, but that national efforts could be reinforced by
international assistance. Rural development covered a spectrum of activity
and ESCAP’s co-ordinated plan guarded
against spreading itself too thinly by trying to cover all aspects simultaneously.
The major areas where plans had been
implemented included local level planning, development of physical
infrastructure, appropriate technology in rural areas, water management,
employment an the development for small producers.
Among the basic aims were the improvement
of skill and productively of low-income groups through the use of more
productive technology and development of infrastructures for small-scale
farmers, tenants, landless labour and small-scale fishermen.
Another major goal was the participation
of the low-income groups in development, more effective use of resources at the
local level to achieve self-reliance and more frequent exchange of experience
and information on new approaches and programs among member countries.
During my time, 16 developing countries
in the region participated in the integrated rural development programmes. I
was fortunate to be able to increase UNDP funding. For ESCAP’s
portfolio. Consequently
funding of these projects increased dramatically from zero in 1976 to 28 %
in1979. Many ESCAP programme and
project were largely funded by UNDP coupled with funding from bilateral
resources that accounted for a high percentage of extra-budgetary support from
donor countries and the UN system. When I assumed office extra-budgetary funds
amounted to US $ 750.000 thousand and before my retirement it had reached the
magnitude of US $ 30 million.
This achievement was basically because of
my close rapport with UN agencies and bodies and also with my constituents
Posted April 28, 2002 -
rudyct
Minahasa/Sulut network
http://sulutlink.com http://tumoutou.net