The 'problem' of voluntary funding.

A few years ago, the then Director of Budget declared that, for the first time in the history of the United Nations, voluntary funding of the Organization had surpassed assessed funding. The founding fathers in fact made no provision in the UN Charter for voluntary funding. Their logic would have been that if a multilateral activity is worthy of the UN label, it would by definition be financed by all Member States on an assessed basis.

As years have gone by, and with the vicissitudes of world politics, western countries have become not only reluctant to add to the assessed budget of the United Nations, but are set on the path to see it cut, especially in the economic sectors. Such is not the case, however, with voluntary funding.

The situation is tantamount to "UN a la carte". It strikes at the root of the Charter provisions for financing UN activities in that it enables a group of countries, no matter how small, to finance activities under the UN label, that are in accord with their national priorities.

This has serious implications for the governance of the United Nations. Consider the following:

* The largest part of voluntary funding has centred upon issues that do not reflect the priorities of the vast majority of the Member States. They also happen to be a sensitive issue for bilateral aid (for example, it is difficult to press developing countries bilaterally on family planning). There is much analysis also to show that the $1 billion worth of food aid that is channeled through the World Food Programme is in reality worth much less, for it is a mechanism to get rid of surplus food that emerges from the anachronistic and heavily subsidized agriculture in the United States and the European Union. (These subsidies greatly harm the agricultural export prospects of many developing countries).

* These voluntary-funded activities are in reality controlled largely by the western donor agencies. This is so, notwithstanding the executive boards and governing councils that "supervise" their activities. Anyone who has attended these meetings knows that their role is heavily circumscribed by the donor countries. A false image of democratic control is conveyed. The secretariats of these activities are also donor-determined, notwithstanding the presence of many developing country nationals.

* With assessed funding severely declining, senior UN Secretariat staff spend an inordinate amount of time raising voluntary funding and supervising the activities funded by western donors. This is introducing a bias into the activities of the Secretariat that is not in conformity with the programme budget. Unfortunately, the Secretariat itself is increasingly unconscious of the distinction. The human aspect is that Secretariat staff who "raise" voluntary funds now acquire prestige and clout beyond what their status as independent civil servants bestows upon them. Staff from developing countries is heavily disadvantaged in the United Nations in this new situation.

* The aggregate staff employed by these voluntary funded bodies greatly exaggerates the true size of the United Nations. The commonly bandied about figure of 55,000 staff members of the United Nations includes approximately 46,000 staff members that are really carrying out activities of western official development assistance (ODA) agencies under UN identity. The true size of the true United Nations is much smaller and diminishing.

The first step would be to request the Secretary-General to prepare a paper on the matter, setting out his views on the compatibility between the spirit and the letter of the Charter and the new funding situation.

Secondly, donor countries should look into the possibilities of reorganizing many of these ODA-financed activities. It is not fair to burden the Secretary-General with the task of organizing and reorganizing voluntary funded activities over which he has no real control whatsoever. (The current assignment given to the Secretary-General is the equivalent of asking the President of the United States to streamline Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations and to make sure they are compatible with the federal government!)

One possibility would be to ask the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to come up with donors' own solutions in better organizing ODA-funded UN activities. After all, they control these activities, and they should streamline them, not the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Thirdly, a general political principle should be adopted by the General Assembly by which all activities labelled UN activities should be assessed funded. Whether the United Nations should ever accept voluntary funding should become the subject of an ad hoc enquiry; if it is deemed desirable to accept such funding, means should be found to keep them at an arm's length, with no UN label.

Iqbal Haji, Principal Officer, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs