New partnership models and programming modalities to pursue common goals.

A few days ago, the United Nations team in the Pacific Region met with development partners in Suva to assess impact of the UN Development System repositioning on partnership models and programming modalities through which common goals are being pursued. In supporting the Pacific Countries and Territories (PICTs), traditional development actors in the region such as the European Union, Australia, New Zealand and others are exploring engagements at a more strategic level to enable more sustainable results.

The United Nations in the Pacific operates within the United Nations Pacific Strategy 2018-2022 (UNPS) framework signed off by all of the 14 Pacific leaders and reflecting major regional priorities. An ample exercise of aligning the UNPS with country specific development strategies is ongoing. The UNPS covers six outcome areas from Climate Change and Environment to Gender Equality and Women Empowerment, Inclusive Growth, Basic Services, Governance and Community Development, and Human Rights, all critically relevant to the PICTs and interlinked in nature. Small Island Developing States consider themselves Ocean states that share the challenges of declining marine resources, shrinking land under the impact of climate change, small and remote markets and resulting fiscal imbalances and growing debts. All those challenges have widened social issues such as chronic unemployment, labor force migration and reliance on remittances, domestic violence and violence against children, expansion of non-communicable diseases to the highest rates in the world and limited national capacities to respond.

The 2014 SIDS Accelerated Modalities of Action so-called SAMOA Pathway synthesized all aspirations into one framework that UNPS aimed to regionalize for the Pacific Island Countries and Territories while building programmatic bridges with the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals.

Given the multi-sectoral nature of the development model charted by the 2030 Agenda and its high ambition, the strategic vision of the UNPS needs an equally strategic implementation model in line with the proposals advanced by the Repositioning of the UN Development System as articulated in GA Resolution 72/279.

The good news is that some of the development partners have started to explore modalities to invest in the UNPS as a comprehensive plan for sustainable development, adopting principles that have governed for many years the effective development cooperation agenda and aligning with the UN reforms. One such example is the EUR 500mill Spotlight Initiative funded globally by the European Union and implemented in partnership with the United Nations within which EUR 50mill have been allocated to the Pacific to support joint programming in ending violence against women and girls. While the Spotlight Pacific Investment Plan provides overall guidance, actual programming draws on the UNPS allowing Resident Coordinators to lead the formulation of the Country and Regional Programmes and channeling resources through a Multi Partner Trust Fund, which is a pooled financing mechanism. The two UN Resident Coordinators chair National Steering Committees and are accountable for the results that the recipient UN organizations achieve in fighting violence against women and girls. 

The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT)’s investment in the Women in Leadership in Samoa joint programme is also an example of such high-level investments in the UNPS that give programmatic freedom to UN agencies and their Government counterparts to define the optimal pathway of change and sequence action and results.

At a time of profound changes in the United Nations country presence, structure and modus operandi, a changing development cooperation environment that invests in joint programming using regional UN Cooperation Frameworks and pooled financing and relying on country level coordination of UN agencies is a powerful enabler of more effective multilateralism in the Pacific. Here is why:  

The repositioning of the United Nations Development System as mandated by GA Resolution 72/279 is an ample process of reform aimed at enhancing effectiveness of UN country teams in supporting development progress and, ultimately, in achieving more sustainable results for every dollar invested. To a large extent, better country-level results depend on the capacity of the UN country teams to be more strategic in designing Cooperation Frameworks (former UNDAFs), identifying optimal pathways for change and strengthening national capacities for countries to own and master their development priorities and emerging solutions. Development is both a process of structural change and an end goal that takes time and needs quality evidence to draw on. Most importantly, it must be guided by a long-term transformation vision for which key actors should be able to stay the course and have the necessary resources to follow the long-term transformation vision. While multi-year planning has constantly been the approach the United Nations Development System employed in its operations, implementation has become more and more fragmented mainly due to changing partners and short-term financing. 

Over years, performance assessments and independent evaluations of the UN system have strived to identify key enablers for higher delivery of development results. Some concluded that a mix of (i) an impartial and effective coordination of the UN Development System for high quality planning and functional UN Country Teams, (ii) optimal levels of resources and the right balance between core and earmarked funding and (iii) high-quality engagements with host countries and their partners is the answer for greater performance. The interplay of those enablers is in the hands of the UN system, but the role of the Member States and of the providers of development cooperation (donors) in enhancing the capacity of the UN to deliver should not be underestimated.

UN Coordination: One of such performance factor assessments - the Joint Inspection Unit 2017 Results-Based Management in the United Nations Development System Analysis of Progress and Policy Effectiveness - found that the remarkable progress made by individual agencies in Results-Based Management has not translated in an increased system-wide effectiveness[1] in joint planning and programming at country level, mainly due to the inability of agencies to devise high quality joint programmes and pursue results jointly. Demand for joint programmes by the UN-assisted countries and the development cooperation providers has constantly been low. In response, GA Resolution 72/279 called for a strong, impartial coordination function that is capable to ensure that the sum is bigger than its parts in the performance of the UN Country Teams and the results they achieve together. Undoubtedly, recognition by both the partner countries[2] and the development partners(providers of development cooperation)[3] of the Resident Coordinator function in leading strategic planning and in holding the UN Country Team accountable for results is critical to the enforcement of the provisions of GA Resolution 72/279 and of the Management and Accountability Framework recently adopted by the United Nations Sustainable Development Group. More specifically:

·      The RC leads and supports the UNCT in the development, monitoring and reporting of the UN Cooperation Frameworks, coordinates the UNCT’s implementation of the UN Cooperation Framework, and works with UNCT members to ensure alignment of both agency programmes and inter-agency pooled funding for development with national development needs and priorities, as well as with the UN Cooperation Framework and 2030 Agenda;

·      The RC leads the preparation, in consultation with UNCT members, of an annual, consolidated report to the host government and the Secretary-General on the UNCT’s collective results in support of the 2030 Agenda/UN Cooperation Framework results.

·      The RC provides governance and oversight of system-wide country financing instruments.

In discharging such responsibilities, the Resident Coordinator works closely with host Governments and the providers of development cooperation who participated in the redesign of the UN Development System and are systematically informed of the progress including through the Quadrennial Comprehensive Policy Review mechanism. Their commitment to our success is as important as our resolve to become more effective. 

Funding: The declining core resources combined with high levels of earmarked funding forced the UN Development System to reengineer its business model to ensure shrinking institutional structures and country footprint continue to deliver results in a highly fragmented project environment. Ultimately, if the structure is insufficiently funded due to decreasing core resources, implementing effectively a growing number of projects is not easy. To make better and full use of its strengths, the UN development requires funding that is more predictable, more stable and more flexible. Paragraph 208 of the Secretary-General’s report on the QCPR provides an update on the funding of the operational activities of the UN Development System making a compelling argument for a reformed financing system:

208. Funding for operational activities for development in 2017 totaled $33.6 billion, which represents an increase of 12.6% compared to 2016. This growth was primarily due to an increase in non-core funding resulting in a continuation of a trend that has prevailed for over two decades: growth in the quantity of funding to the UN development system, but with a corresponding decline in quality. Only about one-fifth of funding in 2017 was in the form of core resources, the lowest core-share ever. The UN development system heavily relies on just a few donors for a large portion of its funding. This makes the system vulnerable to policy shifts that may occur among the larger contributor countries. In response to the challenges posed by the current financing model, the Funding Compact was designed and submitted to the ECOSOC for endorsement. The Compact consists of eight commitments by Member States and 14 commitments by the UNSDG. These 22 commitments will be monitored by 50 indicators and targets.

In brief, Member States and the UN Development System commit to engaging in more effective partnerships for development, in which better quality, evidence-informed UN Cooperation Frameworks that draw on constantly updated Comprehensive Country Analyses are financed through instruments that allow for more flexibility in programming and implementation. Higher core resources combined with light earmarked funding would allow the UN to provide the most effective support to partner countries aspiring to meet their SDG commitments by 2030. More specifically, what is expected from the Member States is to make higher contributions to core resources, double contributions to pooled and thematic funds and increase multi-year commitments to enable multi-year planning and reduce transaction costs.

Figure 1 - The United Nations Funding Compact

Predictable, untied and pooled financing to invest in country results is critical to sustainable development and a prerequisite for an improved development cooperation environment whether North-South, South-South or Triangular.

High-quality partnerships: Use of country results and planning tools by development partners, “untied” aid and predictable funding are also commitments under the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation (GPEDC), the revamped development cooperation effectiveness agenda launched in Busan in 2011 and adopted by all of the OECD Development Assistance Committee members and other development cooperation providers. The GPEDC measures the quality of development cooperation which is an important driver of development results as per the analysis conducted to document introduction of of target 17.16 - Multi-stakeholder partnerships for development and indicator 17.16.1 counting the Number of countries reporting progress in multi-stakeholder partnerships for effective development cooperation within the SDG indicator framework accompanying the 2030 Agenda.

Figure 2 - Principles of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation

According to the GPEDC Third Monitoring Round Report launched at the July 2019 High Level Political Forum and titled Making development co-operation more effective: Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation 2019 Progress Report , development partners’ alignment to partner country priorities and country-owned results frameworks is declining. The monitoring included 86 countries covering all regions and all typologies to ensure relevance and comparability of data with the previous rounds.

Predictability of funding is also critical to partner country’s ability to track development cooperation into their budgets as submitted to parliaments. Despite efforts, proportion of development co-operation subject to parliamentary oversight has decreased. On average, according to 2018 Monitoring Round data, 61% of development co-operation was recorded on national budgets subject to parliamentary oversight, a drop from 66% as reported in the 2016 Global Partnership Monitoring Round. There are several possible explanations for these results. One is that development partners continue to struggle to provide forward-looking data in time for consideration in partner countries’ budget planning cycles.

As the Monitoring Report stressed in its analysis, despite improvement in annual predictability, challenges remain on forward visibility of development partners’ activities. While the share of development cooperation disbursed within the same year as was planned has marginally increased, the data also indicate a significant amount of unplanned disbursements. This mismatch between planned and actual disbursements can impact development partners’ project implementation, and can hinder partner countries’ effective planning, budgeting and execution. Furthermore, data show a decrease in the availability of forward expenditure and implementation plans to partner countries and a decrease in the share of development cooperation recorded on partner countries’ national budgets.

Against this backdrop, by (i) engaging with the United Nations in the Pacific through the UN Pacific Strategy that all 14 Countries and Territories endorsed, (ii) providing light earmarked funding to relevant outcome areas and (iii) selecting pooled financing as the modality to incentivize joint programming and reduce transaction costs, development partners can be highly instrumental in supporting progress of the Small Island Developing States in the region.

Traditional and non-traditional donor support to UN Country and Regional Cooperation Frameworks rather than funding multiple small size projects is a strong vote of confidence in the ability of the United Nations to be the strategic thinker, planner and programme integrator that can take countries forward on the path to sustainable development. With all UN cooperation frameworks closely negotiated and developed with key stakeholders in host countries, such a model of partnership and financing is also a recognition of the country’s ownership of development cooperation and capacity to generate value for money.

But above all, untied development financing combined with joint, cross-sector programming provides the necessary space for the United Nations and the partner countries to center efforts on multi-dimensional needs that require a multi-year response, an approach that fragmented project financing will never be suitable for. Leaving no-one behind is a complex undertaking for which four Funds and Programmes agreed to common action as reflected in the Common Chapter included in each of their respective Strategic Plans for 2018-2021. This joint commitment of UNDP, UNICEF, UNFPA and UN Women to addressing together the farthest behind, drawing on agency specific mandates, trickled down to regional and country UN frameworks. To date, many development partners have yet to factor into their financing strategies this important common plan that holds the potential to deliver a better world. 

[1] Section D, paragraph 90

[2] “Partner country or territory” is used to refer to developing countries and territories that reported to the Global Partnership Monitoring Round in 2018

[3] “Development partner” is used to refer to the full range of actors that are providers of development co-operation. This includes traditional development partners such as the DAC and multilateral development banks, as well as non-traditional development partners that include for example Southern providers, the private sector and foundations.