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: 28 April 2002 Admin: rudyct https://tumoutou.com