II-34

ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE EIGHTEENTH SESSION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY: Statement Made by the U.S. Representative at the U.N. (Stevenson) at a News Conference, U.N. Headquarters, December 18, 1963 53

F. Economic Development and Technical Assistance

II-35

THE ROLE OF THE SPECIAL FUND IN THE UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT DECADE: Statement Made by the U.S. Representative (Bingham) Before the Governing Council of the U.N. Special Fund, January 14, 1963 1

1

In the 4 years since the establishment of the Special Fund2 we have seen the expanding efforts of mankind to engineer an escape from poverty increasingly reflected in the work of the United Nations. We have seen further diversification of the U.N.'s development activities through the establishment, among other things, of the Committee for Industrial Development, the Center for Industrial Development, the Committee on Housing, Building and Planning, the World Food Program, the U.N. Planning and Projections Center, the IBRD [International Bank for Reconstruction and Development] Development Advisory Service, and the Conference on Science and Technology. We have witnessed the success of the International Development Association, whose members are currently considering a major increase in its initial $1 billion capital. We have seen the demands for practical assistance from the specialized agencies and regional commissions grow apace. And the General Assembly has designated the 1960's as the United Nations Development Decade."

One of the principal tasks of this U.N. Development Decade is to maximize the special advantages of the U.N. system as administrator of technical assistance and training programs in the developing areas. First for those countries new to the complex arts of self-government, then for those determined to bring about as rapidly as possible a steady improvement in their economic growth, and finally to the ultimate goal

53

63 U.S.-U.N. press release 4349; the Department of State Bulletin, Jan. 27, 1964, pp. 130-133.

'U.S.-U.N. press release 4140 (text as printed in the Department of State Bulletin, Feb. 18, 1963, pp. 258-263). Jonathan Bingham, U.S. RepresentativeDesignate on the U.N. Economic and Social Council, represented the U.S. at the ninth session of the Governing Council which convened in New York, Jan. 14, 1963.

By U.N. General Assembly Res. 1240 (XIII), Oct. 14, 1958; text in American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1958, pp. 137-145.

3

See post, docs. II-67-69.

4 See post, docs. II-71-72.

See American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1961, pp. 153–156.

of self-sustaining growth throughout the world, the U.N. system is dedicated not just to providing help but to setting standards whereby men and nations can mobilize their own resources to conquer poverty within the framework of the human rights set forth in the U.N. Charter. It is our success in this task, as the Managing Director of the Special Fund [Paul Hoffman] recently observed, which more than any other will establish the degree of real progress achieved in the 20th century.

Against this background let us look at the Special Fund-its present and its future. No development agency within the U.N. family is better placed to translate into effective practice the great promise of the U.Ñ. Development Decade. The Special Fund provides a central source of development energy for the specialized agencies of the U.N. which can help them carry their activities further toward full implementation and toward increased production in member countries. It enables these agencies to deal with projects at a more developed and realistic stage, and larger in size and cost, than those of the past. At the same time, by relating operations more closely to the national priorities and needs for economic development in each recipient country and to national plans and programs, it can help both countries and agencies to make more rapid advances toward reaching their common objective: more rapid progress in economic and social development. In saying that no U.N. development agency can do more than the Special Fund to realize the promise of the U.N. Development Decade we must admit that the Special Fund has yet to realize its full potential. My Government has previously expressed its dissatisfaction at the rate of implementation of Special Fund projects. Although we are pleased that the last year has seen progress in cutting the time lag, we still feel that faster implementation is necessary. We continue to be disappointed at the failure of other contributing nations to equal our willingness to reach the Special Fund's minimum and modest financial targets. We would hope that in the near future more of the seed capital planted by the Special Fund would bring forth investment capital.

However, we think the Special Fund's record in its first 4 years compares favorably with the record of any other U.N. development agency in its initial years. And it must be recognized that the Special Fund's mission, and its prescribed methods of operation, are exacting, requiring as they do not only the coordination of the work of many kinds of entities, including international agencies and national governments, but also the continual breaking of new ground in this still novel business of preinvestment studies.

Let us look for a moment at this dual role of the Special Fund as coordinator and pioneer.

The Special Fund and the ETAP [Expanded Program of Technical Assistance] provide an opportunity for conscious and deliberate efforts to bring more coherence, cooperation, and balance into the work

"See ibid., 1962, p. 148.

7 See American Foreign Policy, 1950–1955: Basic Documents, vol. I, pp. 262-265.

of the U.N. family of agencies. By using the specialized agencies as executing agents, by enhancing the role of the resident representatives, by encouraging and assisting the various elements of the U.N. system to concentrate more of their time and talent on immediate development problems, the work of the U.N. system can be related more directly to the development plans and strategy of each recipient country. Thus, these two central organs of the U.. can help provide a service of great value which is not reflected in the auditor's balance sheets. It is a service which my Government believes has received far too little attention in the deliberations in the U.N.

We live today in an age when the affirmation of sovereignty is a "felt need" not only of nations but often of bureaucracies too even of the dedicated bureaucracies of the U.N. system. Nobody likes to see himself as a satellite. And to a large extent this is as it should be, even in the arenas of international cooperation. After all, each of the needs of mankind, whether it be health, education, food and agriculture, the special needs of children, or science each needs strong and articulate advocates to make sure that in the competition for scarce resources no particular need is unduly neglected.

At the same time resources are scarce-human resources no less than material and financial resources. A prerequisite for a future less torn with tension and less preoccupied with poverty depends more and more on the efficiency and the effectiveness with which we use our scarce resources, human and otherwise. Advocacy of particular needs alone can do no more than highlight the hard choices we must make.

In its role as a coordinator, the Special Fund performs the indispensable service of trying to convert advocacy within the U.N. system into an efficient allocation of scarce resources-one which takes account of the overall needs of a particular country. This is what occurs, or should occur, in the use of the specialized agencies as executing agents for Special Fund projects. This does not mean any interference with the technical activities of the various specialized agencies within their field of competence; it does mean that decisions on the size and scope of the operations of each agency must be made in the light of the total needs and resources of each country. If the record of implementation of Special Fund projects is not what it should be, it is in part a reflection of the very difficult problems which still remain to be overcome before we reach the ideal where the U.N. system of development agencies operates as an efficient servant of soundly conceived national development plans.

In the common effort to achieve this same goal, my Government also regards as important the work of the Ad Hoc Committee of Eight, now Ten, established by ECOSOC [Economic and Social Council] in 1961.8

In the governing bodies and assemblies of the specialized agencies, also, my Government has been urging that regular programs be redirected in the direction of operational development projects com

See Yearbook of the United Nations, 1961, pp. 196-197, 206-207, 215.

patible with and complementary to those financed by the Special Fund and ETAP. We have urged, and will continue to urge, that a greater proportion of staff and budget be devoted to such projects, and to this end we have campaigned against wholesale budget increases which are not related to such a redirection.

With limited budgets and, particularly, limited administrative budgets, the specialized agencies are, perhaps understandably, reluctant to spend their own money executing the projects of "another agency," even though a common objective is sought. With this fact in mind, we welcome the intention of the Managing Director to make an evaluation of the overhead costs of the specialized agencies as executing agents for Special Fund projects. If the study indicates that more of the overhead costs should be financed by the Special Fund, my Government would, of course, support actions to make that assistance available.

However, the Special Fund cannot allow itself to become merely a supplementary source of finance for the specialized agencies. On the contrary, in its coordinating role the Special Fund must continue to take the lead in setting standards for the executing agents in project preparation, in choosing among competing projects on the basis of development priorities, and in prompt and effective implementation. Not all of the specialized agencies which are today executing Special Fund projects were established with development uppermost in mind. It is still all too common among some of these agencies to employ the technique of holding meetings or convening conferences to further their objectives rather than the difficult, more practical techniques of development programing and of project preparation. Here the Special Fund must show the way by insisting on projects which are related to the overall development plans and targets of the developing countries, by insisting on some order of priority, by insisting on prompt and effective implementation, and by evaluating projects during implementation. In the Special Fund, as well as in the Expanded Program of Technical Assistance, evaluation of performance on a continuing objective basis should become an integral part of the operations. This problem of coordination and standard setting is as important as it is difficult.

My Government believes that one or two of the specialized agencies, which now have the most Special Fund projects for implementation, may need time to digest their assigned tasks before more projects are added. Time is needed to develop the techniques of administration which efficient implementation of Special Fund projects requires. Time is needed to slow the bureaucratic momentums of the past in order that new momentums may be built up around the really urgent, high-priority development needs of the present.

The specialized agencies should always be the major executing agents for Special Fund projects, but to press forward the projects urgently required by the developing countries the Special Fund should not be barred from looking elsewhere for implementation of its work if the capacity of the specialized agencies appears to be temporarily strained. Perhaps more use could be made of subcontracts; per

haps public or private executing agents outside the U.N. system should be employed temporarily in order to maintain and improve the pace of Special Fund activity. My Government does not believe that recourse to these devices would weaken the role of the Special Fund in its relationships with the specialized agencies. On the contrary, in the search for more efficient and effective standards of implementation we should welcome a variety of experience out of which can come greater effectiveness within the U.N. system itself.

The Special Fund is not, of course, just a coordinating mechanism; it is first and foremost a pioneer in the business of creating investment opportunities. Its major role is to use its resources and resourcefulness to attract the resources and resourcefulness of others into new development fields. And the record is not without some significant successes in this regard.

For example, the feasibility studies now being financed by the World Bank in considerable volume grew out of the early Special Fund projects. This does not represent duplication but a very efficient new use of World Bank resources. It is right that the Bank, rather than the Special Fund, should undertake those preinvestment studies which are directly linked to the kinds of loans which the Bank ordinarily makes. Where the Bank is willing to undertake preinvestment studies, it should be encouraged to do so. It frees the Special Fund to concentrate more of its limited resources on those investment areas and in those areas of the world where there is a great demand but where as yet no effective work of this kind has been undertaken.

My Government of course looks to the central U.N. financing agencies-i.e. the Special Fund and ETAP-for the major needed increases in funds for technical assistance and preinvestment work in the U.N. Development Decade. At the same time we would hope that other specialized agencies would follow the lead of the World Bank and use a greater portion of their regular funds for operational development programs within their field of expertise. At the recent biennial conference of UNESCO, for example, my Government urged that agency to concentrate more time and talent on its primary role of education and within that area to concentrate more on projects and operational programs directly related to the educational needs of the developing countries."

There are severe limits to what the Special Fund can do in the field of education, and it certainly should not be expected that the Special Fund unbalance its program by disproportionate investments in such vast areas of need as general education. What the Special Fund can do-and is doing-is to assist in the building of a corps of skilled administrators and trained workers through such means as national and regional training institutes. This must be done in many places as a prerequisite to investment activity. But the continuing responsibility for developing effective techniques of assistance in the field of general education lies with UNESCO.

'See American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1962, pp. 271–272.