Should ECOSOC Be Reformed?

The United Nations has a clear mandate and responsibility to play a major role in international economic cooperation, especially through its Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) system. Yet from its earliest years, the Council has largely failed to do so. Instead, the major roles have been played by organizations such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, the G-7 and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which are dominated by the wealthiest countries and usually give insufficient attention to social development and environmental sustainability. The World Trade Organization (WTO) has behaved in a similar way, although its recent Seattle meeting suggests that some improvements may be achievable where developing countries have majority voting power, organize themselves effectively and enjoy strong civil society support.

The Seattle confrontations were seen widely as a powerful challenge to WTO. But they also presented a challenge--and opportunity--for the United Nations. A central debate was whether WTO, the International Labour Organization or some combination of the two should be responsible for resolving possible conflicts between trade rules and labour standards. Concerns were also expressed about how environmental considerations would be taken into account. Of course, many other issues such as health, education and poverty reduction can also be crucially affected by trade rules.

The mechanisms for resolving such conflicts should not be determined by ad hoc responses to particular political forces at particular moments in time. Instead, they should be part of an ongoing and coherent framework, which is established and overseen by an organization that recognizes the full range of relevant issues and interests. At the national level, this is the role of the head of Government, cabinet, or other whole-of-government authority. At the global level, ECOSOC's mandate, composition and location within the UN system make it the most appropriate body for the task. It is the Council which should have overarching responsibility for determining the mechanisms by which particular conflicts in international rules and standards between, say, trade, labour and environmental agencies should be resolved.

The Council needs to become more closely and centrally involved in international discussions and decisions concerning key issues such as financial market regulation, tax policy and administration, and corporate regulation. These areas have suffered from the dominance of narrow economic perspectives and of the wealthiest countries in key organizations such as the IMF, OECD and the Bank of International Settlements.

In principle, ECOSOC should be less prone to these weaknesses. Most of its members are from developing countries, and its mandate is very wide. In practice, however, these potential strengths have been major causes of its ineffectiveness. The wealthiest countries have not wished to submit to an organization, such as the Council, which they do not control (indeed, on which none has a guaranteed position). The breadth of ECOSOC's responsibilities has contributed to its lack of focus, expertise and momentum on major issues. Other causes include its sheer size (it now has 54 members and allows all other UN members to attend its meetings), its preoccupation with routine reports rather than less formal discussion of major policy issues, and the infrequency of its meetings.

Two key structural reforms in ECOSOC could substantially reduce these problems. Council membership could be halved to about 25 countries, which would make it about the same size as is widely agreed to be appropriate for the Security Council. The wealthiest countries (say, the Group of 8) and a similar number of the most populous countries (China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, Nigeria) could be made standing members, with the remaining members being elected for fixed terms on a regional basis. Five of the G-8 members have been ECOSOC members throughout the last 20 years, and each of the other three have been members for 16 or more of those years. Amongst developing countries, only Brazil, China and India can match these levels of continuity.

Two key procedural reforms could also greatly improve ECOSOC's effectiveness. First, it could meet on a regular quarterly basis, abbreviate its very lengthy annual meeting, and focus more heavily on informal policy discussion rather than ritualized consideration of reports from its constituent organizations. Second, it could make greater use of fixed-term Ministerial Working Groups and independent Expert Advisory Panels to discuss and report on specific major policy issues.

It is essential, too, that ECOSOC strengthen its interaction with some intergovernmental organizations which are not or do not regard themselves as within the UN system. A little progress has been made recently in relation to the World Bank, the IMF and WTO, but it remains very limited and precarious. Much closer engagement with key regional groupings, such as the European Union, Mercosur, the Southern Africa Development Community, and the Association of South East Asian Nations, is also essential. These non-UN groupings are much more significant to government leaders and more reflective of appropriate regional boundaries than most of ECOSOC's unwieldy regional commissions. Its profile and impact around the world could be strengthened substantially by convening an annual regional consultation involving not only its own regional commissions but also the non-UN groupings. It might also be desirable if the new regional groupings became the basis for election of regional representatives on ECOSOC itself and for constitution of negotiating groups in its processes.

The proposed changes in ECOSOC's composition are clearly contentious and would require a change in the UN Charter. Unless they are made, however, it is difficult to see much prospect of the United Nations substantially strengthening its influence on international economic policy-making. Developing countries have much to gain if ECOSOC is restructured to improve its influence while also strengthening the effectiveness of their representation, rather than leaving them so much at the mercy of bodies such as the IMF and G-7 in which they have little or no voice.

The proposed changes to the UN Charter would be a highly appropriate outcome of the forthcoming Millennium Assembly. But even without formal changes, useful progress could be made by establishing an ECOSOC working group on economic cooperation which reflects the composition proposed above for the Council itself. Amongst other roles, this group could be principally responsible for developing close, high-level interaction with other bodies such as the Bretton Woods institutions and key regional groupings. The procedural changes which have been suggested above could be made without changing the UN Charter and, perhaps, without great controversy. They could be considered at the Council meeting in July 2000.

Recent manifestations of inadequacy by bodies such as the IMF and WTO have given the United Nations its best opportunity in several decades, perhaps ever, to play the major role in international economic policy-making which it was intended to play. Its fulfilment of that role is essential in the interests of sustainable and equitable development around the world, but the opportunity will be lost and may not recur unless major reforms of the ECOSOC system are made without substantial delay.

Fifty Years of Development Cooperation

Development cooperation activities of the United Nations system were launched 50 years ago this summer when the and Social Council set up the Expanded Programme of Technical Assistance (EPTA). Meeting at UN Headquarters in Lake Success, New York in June 1950, 54 countries pledged $20 million of voluntary contributions to begin financing the Programme. By year's end, 265 requests for assistance had been submitted. EPTA launched programmes that provided advisory services, expert assistance, fellowships and equipment. Its efforts were enhanced by the creation in 1959 of the UN Special Fund, which supported large-scale pre-investment projects. In 1965, the two programmes were merged, leading to the establishment of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).

During the 1960s and 1970s, the United Nations provided large-scale support for training institutions in forestry, disease control, administrative management, statistics, geology, water resources, and employment and industrial skills. Mass campaigns were initiated against many diseases. Surveys and feasibility studies helped in mapping and the exploration for resources, and supported, construction of dams, roads and power plants. By the 1980s, a wide range of programmes were in place. UNDP and other UN agencies were assisting Governments in mobilizing and managing additional resources. But as the decade wore on, the need to help countries contend with the effects of economic adjustment policies became apparent.

In the 1990s, a need to re-think the UN role--accelerated by the end of the cold-war era, mounting demands, dwindling resources, violent conflicts and the increasing prominence of social issues--led to global conferences on education, children, human rights, population, social development and women. Still other key issues were examined at meetings on environment, food, trade and development, least developed countries, small island developing States, natural disaster reduction and human settlements.

At this year's ECOSOC session, the review of UN development cooperation will continue unabated. Attention is being directed toward the explosion in information technology and its important applications for development--interests closely linked with the ECOSOC high-level segment (see p.29). The promotion of international exchanges in technical knowledge, skills and capacity-building is seen as key to refocusing on the UN's comparative advantage.

UN development cooperation policies have evolved with changing requirements but its underlying principles have remained the same--neutrality, respect for sovereignty, longterm commitment and responsiveness to national priorities. In 2000, the United Nations is more acutely aware that the success of its development cooperation efforts stems, most importantly, from the trust it has earned in partner countries and an ability to strengthen national capabilities.