Newsroom

Statement by Ad Melkert, UN Under Secretary General and UNDP Associate Administrator on behalf of the UNDG Executive Committee. 2007 ECOSOC Operational Activities Segment

Mr. President,
Excellencies,
Distinguished Delegates,
Ladies and gentlemen,

The issue and concerns of capacity development are no longer a matter of debate, nor is it limited to a conversation on concept and theory. As expressed by the General Assembly and resulting 2004 TCPR resolution, as prioritized by the OECD DAC, and as reflected in our Strategic Plans, it is the front and centre of our work.

The background studies for the TCPR review of capacity development demonstrate that much has been accomplished, and that there lies a wealth of experience among the UN system in supporting and strengthening capacities in countries. It also shows that progress has been uneven, and that results can be better defined, better measured and monitored and fed back into the development activity we support. More needs to be done to analyze what has worked well, and how lessons learned from successful examples may be replicated/adapted elsewhere.

Capacity development gives primacy to national priorities, plans, policies and processes. It underpins a shift from a technical assistance supply driven approach to an endogenous led process of change, and gives tangible form to the principle of national ownership. This has been taken up through the current UN reform process underway, which underscores the centrality of national decision making, strategies and domestic accountability as the start and end points for defining and measuring the contribution of the UN system to development. We are at the half way point to the MDGs. However, it is hard to see how local communities, and eventually the global development community, will reach the MDGs without a much more intensified focus on investing in national and local capacities to get there and to stay there. Capacities to localize the MDGs, as a part of more integrated local development, is being driven by many national and local governments around the world. In Jordan and the Philippines, for example, UN agencies are supporting efforts to support the capacities of local governments, civil society organizations and statistical agencies, to gather and analyse local data to adapt MDG targets, assess and plan for local capacities to respond, and to invest in local institutions and leaders to enhance their accountability for these results.

As expressed in the UNDG Position Statement of December 2006, capacity development is the business of all governments, non government entities, civil society and the UN development system. This calls for an increasingly collaborative engagement among all of us at country level. This is reflected in the new cycle of CCAs and UNDAFs, in country programmes and strategic support at global and regional levels. It is a common platform that facilitates common approaches, services and programmes. It is also a process that does involve some trade-offs – of foregoing instant externally driven results for more sustainable locally driven ones. In Afghanistan and Timor Leste, for example, it is important not to rely primarily on the supply of external technical assistance, that may be critical in an early stage but eventually must be phased out. These countries, with UN support, are rebuilding their state institutions through coaching, mentoring and technical training using locally available expertise, twinned with short term facilitators from other countries, such as India and Malaysia.

However, capacity development is much more than supporting training programmes and the use of national expertise – these are necessary and on the rise, but we must include response and support strategies for accountable leadership, investments in long term education and learning, strengthened public systems and voice mechanisms between citizen and state, and institutional reform that ensures a responsive public and private sector that manages and delivers services to those who need them most.

The enhanced use of national systems and moving away from project implementation units that stand outside of national oversight and implementation is being monitored through our evaluations, the TCPR review and reporting on commitments in the Paris Declaration. Minimising the use of PIUs, arguing for adequate attention to tertiary education and creating more opportunities for citizen participation in development planning and monitoring are all areas where the international community can and must reinforce national capacity development agendas.

Fragile contexts, including crisis and post crisis situations, pose a particular challenge for capacity development. As a UN development system we need to act faster, with a high degree of technical and contextual competence and stay the course, strengthening national and local capacities to regain lost institutional, individual and systemic capacities to move countries fast back to full recovery and development. The UN Development Group together with the World Bank provide a useful set of tools – the post conflict needs assessment and transitional results matrix – to re-establish the basis for international engagement around national priorities in early post conflict settings, and for prioratising around different capacity challenges. Haiti, Liberia and North and South Sudan are recent examples of such jointly supported efforts. Similarly the exercises were conducted for the Darfur region and Somalia, but with little possibility for implementation at this time. Liberia has established a capacity development facility to support the strengthening of capacities in the civil service including through attracting the return qualified nationals from the diaspora, Haiti is looking at building up the capacities of  specific ministries and national agencies that have to fully take over and manage national implementation functions, including for the protection of natural resources, and the response to HIV/AIDS. UNDP is supporting these capacity development exercises.

Capacity assessments that lead to more robust capacity development responses, are now an integral part of what the UN development group offers, and underpins the CCA/UNDAFs and country programmes in country. A more rigourous application of capacity assessments and resulting capacity development responses, facilitated by UNDP, UNICEF, WFP and UNFPA  is evidenced already in all regions – in Viet Nam, Sierra Leone, Chile, Zambia, Haiti, Ukraine and many others. In several instances, such as in Malawi for example, there has been cross-agency collaboration in designing and implementing capacity assessments with the focal national counterpart agencies leading the exercise. In Sierra Leone underpinning the PRSP, a national capacity assessment was used this year to undertake an institutional mapping as well as  an inventory of human resource needs. This has since resulted in capacity investments in specific state institutions tasked with both planning and coordinating development strategies as well as those delivering services to meet these goals. The level of acceptance of resulting capacity development strategies has been highest in those cases where the political commitment and ownership of these efforts have been driven by the national governments concerned.

There remain concrete measures to help us deliver more to support capacity development results:

• Being able to share and manage capacity development knowledge, lessons and good practice across countries and regions, particularly south-south learning and exchange, is a core area of services we can provide in a scaled up and timely manner. In countries such as Mozambique, Albania, Surinam, Cambodia and the Philippines, demand is directed towards supporting institutional transformations based on state-citizen interface and compacts. Much of this work is facilitated through such country-to-country sharing of practice. Knowledge Fairs that bring together mayors and municipal officials, together with civil society organizations and the domestic private sector, to share the wealth of information available on what works and what doesn’t, has been a key contribution in countries of the Latin America region, to facilitate participatory local governance capacities.

• The UN Resident Coordinator must be a capacity development champion, and a capable and untiring advocate with government and partners on this agenda.

• The proof of effective support to capacity development lies on the country level. It is here where independent monitoring can determine whether all external and domestic partners do effectively engage and optimize their contribution for collective capacity development results. Peer review mechanisms, such as in Tanzania, have been useful in this regard. However, more needs to be done on measuring progress.

In ending, let me link back to Thoraya Obaid’s statement - it is our collective responsibility and response to capacity development that gives meaning and shape to the principle of national ownership, and translates it into more sustainable and meaningful development outcomes. We, in the UN development system, must be measured by our contribution to institution building and inclusive decision-making processes that are fundamental to effective development.

Thank you.