VZCZCXYZ0011
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUCNDT #0530/01 0761640
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 171640Z MAR 06
FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 8354
INFO RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON 0980
RUEHNR/AMEMBASSY NAIROBI 0411
RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 000530 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
NAIROBI FOR PERMREP 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: EAID EFIN ETRD KUNR AORC SENV UN
SUBJECT: UN HIGH LEVEL PANEL ON SYSTEM-WIDE COHERENCE: U/S 
SHINER'S NEW YORK MEETINGS MARCH 13 
 
REF: USUN 396 
 
 ¶1.  Summary: In New York consultations March 13, Under 
Secretary Shiner surveyed the upcoming work of the UN 
 
SIPDIS 
Secretary General's High-Level Panel on UN System-wide 
 
SIPDIS 
Coherence in the Areas of Development, Humanitarian 
Assistance, and Environment. The thirteen-member Panel -- 
mandated by the World Summit Outcome Document -- will begin 
its tightly compressed work program in early April, with the 
goal of completing its recommendations before the General 
Assembly convenes in September.  During these 
pre-consultations, U/S Shiner met with the Panel's newly 
formed Secretariat, as well as A/SYG Robert Orr, UNDP 
Administrator Kemal Dervis, U/SYG Jan Egeland (Humanitarian 
affairs), visiting UK Development Under Secretary Gareth 
Thomas and Ambassador John Bolton.  U/S Shiner's UN system 
interlocutors were encouraged by the message of strong US 
engagement in, and support for, this process.  USG interest 
in reforming the UN's development apparatus is high, but U/S 
Shiner made it clear the USG had no predetermined outcome. 
Because of the late start and fixed deadline, the Panel will 
most likely face a race to completion, but key players 
believe the task can be accomplished within the designated 
timeline.  Since so many parts of the UN system could be 
affected by the recommendations, the Panel's work will face a 
high level of scrutiny and aid recipients in particular will 
monitor the results closely.  End summary. 
 
 
Panel Secretariat on Time Line and Objectives 
--------------------------------------------- 
 
¶2.   Meeting initially with the Panel Secretariat Director 
Adnan Amin, U/S Shiner stressed the USG's intent to work 
seriously and constructively on this project. The USG saw 
important opportunities in this time of transformation to 
move in the direction of ending poverty, and the UN had an 
important role in this.  It was important not to lose 
momentum created by the 2005 World Summit.  U/S Shiner 
explained she would be in listening mode over the next weeks 
and would be looking for gaps in assistance delivered by the 
UN system and not just for the expected overlapping 
functions. She was also looking for suggestions to rejuvenate 
existing organizations as opposed to building new structures. 
 Amin noted that the new Panel had generated a lot of 
conjecture.  The high level of the panel members was 
particularly important, with three serving prime ministers on 
it.  The critical element in the Panel's work was the ongoing 
buy-in process by member states and the UN system. Previous 
High-Level Panels had failed to achieve their objectives 
because they lacked General Assembly buy-in, he noted. 
Transparency was essential in this process. 
 
¶3.  U/S Shiner said she saw huge gaps in trade capacity 
building within the entire development assistance spectrum. 
This had to be addressed. China for example had lifted more 
people out of poverty in recent years -- through trade -- 
than had ever been done before.  Neither UNCTAD nor the World 
Bank were doing this work, and even the USG's efforts were 
still relatively modest.  The US Millennium Challenge 
Corporation was doing some innovative work and having good 
results in what she termed the "tipping point" countries, but 
much more needed to be done globally. 
 
¶4.   Explaining the time line of the Panel's work, Amin said 
the initial meetings -- in a retreat format -- would be held 
in the April 4-7 time frame in New York, including 
consultations with member states. Then a group of Panel 
members -- including U/S Shiner -- would attend the UN Chief 
Executive Board meetings in Madrid April 7-8. U/S Shiner 
asked about the Panel's work in the environmental area (this 
is Amin's primary area of expertise). Amin said there was no 
consensus on expanding the UN's role in this area, even 
though the Europeans desired to emphasize it. Many developing 
countries and the US opposed this view, he believed. 
Assistance funding in the environmental sector goes primarily 
to areas of quick wins, but large gaps remain in the 
worldwide effort. 
 
¶5.  Amin noted a loss of focus in the UN system, and said UN 
specialized agencies were almost independent of the center. 
Amin explained that "coordination within the system" had 
almost become a derogatory term. He held up the example of 
UNICEF's efficiency, both operationally and in terms of 
mobilizing financial support. He said UNICEF could prosper as 
a private entity. U/S Shiner said the USG believed the most 
effective actors in the UN system should retain their 
operational flexibility and so was not seeking massive 
 
 
changes there. On the humanitarian side, the USG is 
interested in results, and has no plan to recast the 
structures if those in place are effective.  Furthermore, the 
US Congress sees a "development marketplace," and wants to 
fund the most effective organizations, whenever possible. 
She recalled that the USG was funding development assistance 
now, so that in the long run we could attain our global 
development objectives and shift funding to other areas. 
 
 
Assistant Secretary General Orr on System-Wide Coherence 
--------------------------------------------- ----------- 
 
¶6.  Assistant Secretary General for Policy Planning Robert 
Orr welcomed U/S Shiner and explained that his 
responsibilities do not directly address those that are the 
focus of the SYG Panel, but do address matters related to the 
other principal reform tracks - Mandate Review, Management 
Reform and general substantive reforms, such as the 
Peacebuilding Commission.  He noted that the lack of 
development coherence and other issues facing the UN stem 
from a history which did not previously provide for 
system-wide coordination, noting that before the present SYG, 
the previous SYG convened meetings of the heads of the 
various UN entities which remain subject to their own 
governing boards.  Orr referred to the difficulties in 
getting the different pieces of the UN structure to 
communicate with each other on matters of shared interest. 
While acknowledging progress in getting the separate parts of 
the UN to coordinate and communicate, he stressed that the 
enormous growth in the UN's activities, particularly in the 
field, have changed the character of the demands on the UN 
and dramatically increased the need for further coordination 
and communication.  During the course of the discussion, Orr 
referred to the Peacebuilding Commission as an example of an 
emerging reform that, for the first time, will bring all of 
the diverse stakeholders related to an initiative to the same 
table to address the large complex mission of peacebuilding, 
as an example of the kind of coordination and communication 
-- both within the UN and among the other related 
organizations -- necessary to deal with the complex problems 
faced by the global community in the 21st century. 
 
¶7.  Orr emphasized the need also for a cultural shift in the 
UN -- away from an attitude where a staff member focuses not 
simply on his/her particular entity, but one that focuses 
more on the staff member's identification with the UN 
organization as a whole.  He suggested that such a shift may 
take considerable time and effort. In the same context, Orr 
stressed that in promoting changes to UN management that will 
enhance not only coordination but the effectiveness and 
efficiency, care should be taken not to hold up to the rest 
of the UN system the reputation of these other, favored 
parts, such as UNICEF and WFP.  Finally, Orr indicated that 
the SYG Panel, while politically sensitive, could be 
tremendously helpful in moving the UN in the right direction 
in the area of development over the longer period. 
 
¶8.  U/S Shiner asked whether the UN should be considered the 
center of gravity in the area of development or, indeed, 
whether it should be in the development business at all. She 
suggested that the UN must show adaptability to the mission 
of our times.  She referred to "best practices" and to UNICEF 
and WFP as examples of entities that are seen as having 
adapted to the mission of our times. Orr emphasized that 
while agreeing on the need to adapt "best practices," this 
should be done without specific reference to the particular 
entity, such as UNICEF or WFP.  Similarly, while recognizing 
that the impetus for such best practices may come primarily 
from the fact that these entities operate on voluntary 
funding, care should be exercised in suggesting that this is 
the only impetus and would be appropriate for other parts of 
the UN. Finally, U/S Shiner asked about the possibility of 
using UNCTAD as the focus within the UN system on trade 
issues. Orr demurred, noting the very serious problems with 
the way UNCTAD is presently organized and focused. 
 
 
UNDP Administrator Dervis Suggests a Radical Approach 
--------------------------------------------- -------- 
 
¶9.  UNDP Administrator Kemal Dervis met briefly with U/S 
Shiner, and explained that he would be personally involved in 
the Panel's work as an ex oficio member.    The Panel's work 
program was heavily compressed and the first weeks would be 
critical, Dervis said.  Because the results could turn out to 
be extremely helpful to the entire UN system, he believed the 
effort required would prove a good investment.  He likened 
 
 
the work to writing a new computer program when the old one 
had too many add-ons to remain useful.  Dervis argued the 
Panel should take a radical approach, but cautioned that the 
institutional structures required to support development 
needed to be built for the long term. 
 
¶10.  U/S Shiner stressed the USG's desire to identify and 
support the comparative advantage the UN system might have in 
development.  While the USG would be deeply involved in the 
development business for the foreseeable future, the ultimate 
objective was to succeed, and to the extent we could, leave 
the field.  The discussion then touched briefly on whether 
the "middle income" countries around the world (Brazil and 
Turkey were mentioned) were really making as much progress up 
the development chain as expected and whether crime and 
poverty might be partially obscured in these countries by 
certain economic and social data, especially if there are 
large variations in income distribution. 
 
 
Humanitarian Affairs: U/SYG Jan Egeland Identifies Key Gaps 
--------------------------------------------- -------------- 
 
¶11.  Meeting with U/S Shiner, Under Secretary General for 
Humanitarian Affairs Jan Egeland noted that some current 
efforts in humanitarian reform might be of relevance to the 
wider system.  Egeland stressed that the Panel must be 
realistic in what it recommends, possibly going for "five big 
things" rather than taking on many elements of the system. 
Egeland also stressed that the Panel should go for those that 
are "enforceable."  Egeland identified two major gaps in the 
current UN system, which he thought would benefit from the 
Panel's focus and analysis. 
 
(a) Preparedness:  The issue of preparedness links to many UN 
agencies but lacks a formal "home" in the UN system. 
Strengthening this area could have strong positive impact in 
mitigating disasters and therefore reducing response demands 
on the system.  (Comment:  This is an ongoing topic of 
discussion within the UN, both where this activity should be 
"housed" and how it links to the more operational elements of 
the UN's work.  End comment.) 
 
(b) Transition:  Egeland expressed that OCHA repeatedly 
struggles with a lack of clarity within the international 
system on the overall responsibility for coordination 
following the initial emergency phase.  There are generally 
multiple actors for post-emergency reconstruction (IFIs, 
affected governments, UNDP/UNDG) but no clear leadership and 
often not much "deployable" capacity, leaving a void in 
coordination.  Egeland feels that the UN (through the 
Resident Coordinator) must play a central role in 
coordination during the transition phase, and that the IFIs 
should focus on macro-economic issues.  (Comment:  Linked to 
the lack of transition leadership is the issue of Resident 
Coordinators (RCs) and Humanitarian Coordinators (HCs). 
Egeland reported that nearly all RCs are automatically 
dual-hatted as an HC when a disaster strikes.  This points to 
a current weakness in the system, that not many RCs -- 
generally career UNDP officers with little background in 
emergency response -- have the skills or experience to be 
effective HCs.  There are attempts to address this by 
widening the pool of potential HCs to include candidates from 
other UN agencies and NGOs.  However, there has been 
resistance within UNDP in the past to having HCs from outside 
the system.  End comment.)   Egeland noted that staff teams 
deployed by OCHA support the HCs, but when the HC function 
ends the RC does not benefit from a similar support team for 
the post-emergency/transition phase.  Egeland noted that this 
gap is also a matter of donor coherence.  Donors generally 
fund humanitarian and transition activities from different 
accounts, offices, etc, adding to the lack of coherence 
within the UN system. 
 
 
Ambassador Bolton: Panel may Generate Far-Reaching Changes 
--------------------------------------------- ------------- 
 
¶12.  Ambassador Bolton described the work of the Panel as 
potentially very important insofar as it had the potential to 
rationalize the UN's development activities.  Its 
recommendations would be taken seriously, he said.  If the 
myriad of UN specialized agencies, funds and humanitarian 
programs could be made to work in efficient tandem, that 
focus might be a kind of revolution in itself.  On the other 
hand, an agenda that simply seeks more funding would be 
counterproductive.  Those parties that unconditionally sought 
more money for development, pursuant to a "right to 
 
 
development," and who also strived to create a global UN 
environmental agency, could push the Panel in the wrong 
direction. 
 
¶13.  U/S Shiner responded that Washington cared deeply about 
the work of the Panel, particularly because of the perception 
that the UN had failed to help countries build the 
infrastructure that would foster their own growth and 
stimulate trade and investment.  She said she would raise the 
overarching question of how to create a modern "paradigm of 
effectiveness" and to better define the mission of the UN. 
The interconnectedness of American security and well-being 
with that of the rest of world was indisputable, Shiner said. 
 The question remained, what is the UN poised to handle well, 
and how can the UN empower countries, so that they can 
graduate up the ladder of economic sufficiency and shrink the 
number of those in need? 
 
¶14.  Ambassador Bolton suggested that, as the Panel looked at 
such central questions and at UN structural issues, the U.S. 
should insist on analyzing what entities performed well and 
what enabled them to operate effectively.  He suggested that 
U/S Shiner try to meet with Catherine Bertini, former Under 
Secretary-General for Management and Director of the World 
 
SIPDIS 
Food Program.  Describing the UN as "a competitor in the 
international marketplace for problem solving," Ambassador 
Bolton said the USG needed to focus on the question of how 
the UN could add value in this competitive arena, and to 
resist efforts of others on the Panel, possibly led by the 
EU, to coalesce around aid flows and a business-as-usual 
restructuring agenda. 
 
 
Meeting with Gareth Thomas: Donors Should Coordinate 
--------------------------------------------- ------- 
 
¶15. UK Permanent Under Secretary for International 
Development (DFID), Gareth Thomas, asked to meet with U/S 
Shiner while both were in New York. Thomas noted the 
extremely compressed period of work for the Panel, but said 
it represented the biggest opportunity to upgrade the UN 
development machinery in 20 plus years.  Thomas saw a number 
of strong partners in place in various UN agencies, such as 
Ann Veneman at UNICEF, and also saw good work coming together 
on the humanitarian side with Jan Egeland's "cluster 
approach." He argued that there could be a need to strike a 
bargain with the G77 for real reform to proceed, requiring 
more funding and greater authority within the UN system to 
redeploy funds. Otherwise the G77 would see this Panel as 
little more than another western "funds-cutting exercise." 
Thomas noted it was critical to get UN agencies to improve 
in-country coordination, citing the example of a shared 
in-country UN platform in Cape Verde.  He also thought it 
would make sense for donor countries on the Panel to get 
together early to plan a common strategy. 
 
¶16. U/S Shiner noted the Panel could promote positive change 
and could also help to rebuild US support for the UN itself 
if it produced tangible results.  She noted a gap in the area 
of trade capacity building and wondered if the UN could play 
a role in this.  The USG wanted to see best practices from 
one UN agency expand to others.  Washington was most 
interested, she said, in funding development mechanisms that 
produced the best results.   Efficiency also mattered, she 
said, noting the Millennium Challenge Corporation was able to 
deliver 97 percent of its funding to recipients through 
focused and innovative management. 
 
¶17. Thomas again asked for close coordination, and requested 
any concept papers the USG might develop. He thought the most 
immediate reform that could be adopted would be to develop UN 
common country platforms in 40 or so countries over a 
one-year period.  But much thinking on long-term reform was 
also needed.  U/S Shiner noted the Panel has a good mix of 
countries and experienced personnel and should be able to 
make headway rapidly, as long as it had a clear vision that 
was not the result of a lowest common denominator approach. 
 
¶18.  This cable has been cleared by U/S Shiner. 
 
 
 
 
 
BOLTON