opposed to publication of an HFI in the 1992 report attempted to reopen the issue by bringing it before the UN General Assembly.

The U.S. Delegation was instrumental in working out a compromise so that the issue did not come to a vote before the Assembly. Instead, it was referred to the special session of the UNDP Governing Council scheduled in New York in February 1992.

Other Council Decisions. During 1991 UNDP's Governing Council approved several decisions which supplement landmark decisions taken by the Council in 1990:

Special Program Resources (SPR). In 1991 the United States led the successful Council effort to get UNDP to improve the process by which it programmed use of SPRs. Instead of a timetable for submission of SPR programming documents reported by the Council in February, the Administrator presented the June Council with specific programming documents for most categories of SPRs. Concerned that UNDP's centrally controlled resources be as well programmed as individual country funds, the June Council postponed consideration of these programming documents, which the United States and other member countries felt were not adequate. The United States later forwarded comments to UNDP raising technical concerns about some of the proposals. During the latter half of 1991, UNDP revised the proposals for submission to the February 1992 special session of the Governing Council.

SPR allocations included $115 million to build national capacity in the six key thematic areas of: poverty eradication and grassroots participation in development, environmental problems and natural resources management, management development, technical cooperation among developing countries, transfer and adaptation of technology for development, and women in development. Separate allocations were also set for disaster preparedness and disaster relief and reconstruction, including displaced persons ($50 million); the special Program for Economic Assistance to Central America ($20 million); the UNPAAERD and Development ($10 million); drug abuse control and crop substitution ($5 million); Human Development Report ($5 million); private sector development ($4 million); and HIV/ AIDS ($5 million). Substantial resource levels were also approved for UNDP coordination and program design and development functions ($29 million). The allocation for Palestinian people under the SPR was increased from $12 million in the fourth programming cycle to $15 million in the fifth.

Support Costs. The 1990 Council (Decision 90/26) agreed on the framework for new arrangements to compensate specialized agencies for the implementation of UNDP-funded projects. This decision substantially restructured the relationship between UNDP and agencies implementing UNDP projects. It proved to be more complicated than originally expected. Differences of opinion about what the decision meant and how funds were to be allocated surfaced in UNDP, implementing agencies, member countries and member states who had drafted the original decision. The February special session of the Governing Council agreed on a total expenditure ceiling of $634 million for the fifth programming cycle, representing 14 percent of programmable resources. The special session also agreed that consensus on the funding of technical support services at the program and project levels (TSS-1 and TSS-2 respectively) could be achieved only after UNDP and the specialized agencies had submitted a detailed work program for each of these two facilities, identifying the type of services they would cover and an analysis of complementary sources of funding, including agencies' regular budgets.

At its regular session in June, the Council (Decision 91/32) decided to ensure “adequate funding.” The decision was a hard won compromise. The United States would have liked additional funding. Nevertheless, the decision was a far-reaching change and preferable to reverting to the previous flat 13 percent formula. To compensate for what the United States perceived as a shortage in funding, the President's FY 1993 budget request included a proposal that $2 million of the U.S. contribution to UNDP be identified specifically to reinforce cooperation between UNDP and the major sectoral agencies of the UN system in assisting developing countries to build up program and project management capacity. This funding will assure the UNDP Administrator has centrally controlled resources to involve the agencies in that process. The United States is encouraging other interested donors to make similar allocations.

Approval of country programs. The Council approved a number of country programs including several of UNDP's largest, e.g., China, Bangladesh and Indonesia. The quality of country programs submitted for review in 1991 showed improvement over former years. The Council review process was also strengthened. Through the SCPM, the Council was able to assure that its concerns about country programs were transmitted back to both the resident representative and the recipient government. The United States was instrumental in establishing the

SCPM in 1990 and assuring that it served as an effective oversight mechanism for UNDP operations.

• National capacity building and national execution. On these two related issues the Council approved a U.S.-proposed decision on national execution that succeeded in clarifying the definition of this mode of project execution (which can still allow a role for technical assistance from UN specialized and technical agencies), and established the principle that governments would be accountable to UNDP for resources used in nationally executed projects. The decision put national capacity building and strengthening of government accountability at the forefront of UNDP's agenda. It also called on the Administrator to produce guidelines for nationally executed projects, something the United States had sought for more than a year.

• UNDP's emergency response role. The Council agreed on a decision on UNDP's role in response to emergency needs of displaced persons, refugees and returnees which focused UNDP's efforts on the development dimension of disaster relief and disaster preparedness. It also gave UNDP the authority to establish a 1-year interim arrangement for a special unit to handle such questions, pending the outcome of larger UN efforts to reform and improve the UN system response to emergency situations and the needs of displaced persons.

• Role of UNDCP. The United States cosponsored a decision noting the central role of the Executive Director of the UN International Drug Control Program (UNDCP) for assuring coordination and complementarity of drug control activities across the UN system, including crop substitution efforts. The decision requested the Administrator of UNDP continue close cooperation with UNDCP, especially at the field level, and urged the international community to increase significantly its support for efforts made by the developing countries in drug control and crop substitution.

Approval of the Biennial Budget. The BFC reviewed and the Council approved budget estimates for the biennia 1990-1991 and 1992-1993. The Council focused on the increasing share of resources devoted to administration, despite efforts by the Administrator to reduce such costs. The BFC approved administrative budgets which largely reflected proposals of the Administrator, as revised by the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ).

• Senior Management Structure. The Council received the report of an independent management consulting firm, which

dealt with UNDP goals as well as its administrative structure and made a useful contribution to efforts to improve UNDP's operations. Debate revolved largely around two controversial issues: creation of a strategy group and of geographic division manager positions. The United States took the lead, working with a small group of other donors and recipients, drafting a decision that asked the Administrator to submit an action plan fleshing out how UNDP will implement report recommendations and outlining impact on the organization, including their financial implications. The decision also asked the Administrator not to take any action to implement the strategy group and division manager proposals until they were reviewed by the Council in 1992.

• Consideration of UN Population Fund (UNFPA). The Council reviewed the annual report of UNFPA's Executive Director for 1990, along with six additional reports submitted for approval in response to previous Council Decisions. In addition, the SCPM reviewed and approved 15 newly proposed country programs, as well as regional and interregional programs proposed by UNFPA for the period 1992-1995. Financial, budgetary and administrative matters pertaining to UNFPA were reviewed by the BFC. The U.S. Representative announced to the Council that the United States intended to contribute $500,000 to the UN Trust Fund established for support of the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development.

• UN Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM). The debate in plenary focused primarily on the continued need for a separate development fund for women. The United States expressed hope that one day UNIFEM would no longer be needed, and noted UNIFEM's role is ultimately to integrate women in development concerns into existing UN development programs. The U.S. Delegation strongly encouraged UNIFEM to focus more on monitoring and evaluating projects, and disseminating lessons learned.

• Rationalizing the work of the Council. The United States and Germany cosponsored a decision restructuring the agenda of Council sessions to reduce duplication and streamline debate. The Council decided to take up this question at its 1992 organizational session.

Standing Committee for Program Matters

The first inter-sessional meeting of the SCPM was held in New York May 6-10. This meeting was characterized by low attendance, apparently caused by lack of enthusiasm among

developing countries for the concept of the SCPM and a reluctance by some delegations to discuss program matters outside the Governing Council plenary. Several delegations and the UNDP Secretariat felt SCPM activities should be limited and its mandate strictly focused. Other delegations, especially donors like the United States, have advocated a broader role for the SCPM. The U.S. position has been that the SCPM will increase the effectiveness of the Governing Council's oversight of program matters, increase dialogue and reduce time lost in formal set speeches. The SCPM should also prepare decisions on program matters for the Council.

At the September session, the SCPM considered programming documents on SPRs. As noted above, several delegations, including the United States, had found that documents prepared by the Secretariat and presented at the June Council were inadequate and insisted they be revised before Council approval. UNDP submitted the same proposals to the resumed session in September. The Council asked UNDP to submit revised documents to its 38th session in 1992.

One function of the SCPM is to conduct field visits to review UNDP operations. The United States, together with other donors, succeeded in obtaining consensus on a Council decision to ask the Administrator to arrange and service up to four field visits per year, each consisting of an average of six members of the Governing Council. It also decided that field visit findings would be reported by the participants to the SCPM.

UN Capital Development Fund

The UN Capital Development Fund (UNCDF), established by the UN General Assembly in 1966, is a trust fund that UNDP administers. It invests capital in small-scale projects that provide early, direct, and long-term benefits to low income groups in countries officially determined by the United Nations as least developed, as well as to other countries widely acknowledged as most in need of grant capital assistance. UNCDF is the only UN organization whose primary mandate includes a focus on the least developed countries.

The Fund Managing Director is the UNDP Administrator. The UNDP budget includes UNCDF administrative costs, and the UNDP Governing Council provides policy guidance. The Governing Council considers UNCDF programs on a biennial basis, in odd numbered years. At the 1991 UNDP Governing Council regular session, the U.S. Delegation expressed concern over the rapid expansion of UNCDF programs.