Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament - Building an effective partnership with the United Nations in the fields of Development and Humanitarian Affairs
Date: 2001-05-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU aid, UNO, aid policy, aid system, humanitarian aid, international cooperation

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 2.5.2001
COM(2001)231 final

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

Building an effective partnership with the United Nations in the fields of Development
and Humanitarian Affairs

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

Building an effective partnership with the United Nations in the fields of Development
and Humanitarian Affairs

INTRODUCTION

Relations between the United Nations1 and the European Union have grown over time into a
rich and diverse network of co-operation and contacts. Relations are strong and complex and
they now cover virtually all areas of EU external relations, spanning the entire scope of the
UN Charter from peace, security, human rights to social and economic affairs, including
development and humanitarian activities and trade policy.

Improving co-operation with the UN is a major priority to the EU, to its Member States and to
the European Commission. The United Nations Millennium Declaration2, reaffirmed the UN
global role and set out the international community's commitment to make the UN a more
for
effective instrument
development. Following the meetings between Secretary-General Annan and President Prodi,
the European Commission considers that there is good reason to strengthen further relations
with the UN and to improve efficiency and coherence in our co-operation.

for pursuing a series of priorities, among which the fight

The Commission considers that a first step in the direction of a more effective partnership
could be taken by enhancing collaboration in the fields of development and humanitarian
affairs. Over recent years, a consensus on the fundamental objectives and strategies of
development co-operation has emerged on the global scene, allowing the international
community to engage actively in the debate over the potential for more coherent action
between various organisations and donors. The Commission is convinced that the quality and
impact of EC development and humanitarian policies and activities can be improved by better
clarifying what the Community’s role should be in the UN context and what it suggests to
contribute to the multilateral system. That positive impact can however only be achieved if on
the other hand the Commission specifies what it expects from the partners in the United
Nations system.

The new strategy for improved co-operation with the United Nations relies upon and benefits
from the ongoing overhaul of the Commission’s system of operations in the field of external
activities (strengthening of the programming process, de-concentration and decentralisation,
result-based approach). It pre-supposes increased co-ordination between Member States and
the Commission, namely in the international fora and within partner countries. Finally, it is
based on the concept of increased complementarity both between the Community and its
Member States and the Community and the United Nations.

The main goals of the proposed strategy are to strengthen the involvement of the EC in the
upstream policy dialogue and to build a more transparent, financially predictable and easier to
monitor partnership with chosen UN agencies, funds and programmes. These entities should

1

2

For the purpose of this Communication, “United Nations” means the UN bodies listed in Annex I. This
definition excludes the International Monerary Fund, the World Bank and WTO.
A/res/55/2, 8 September 2000.

2

be selected on the basis of their ability to match the objectives of the EC and to make a
reliable and effective contribution to the provision of emergency relief to the victims of
humanitarian crisis as stipulated in the humanitarian aid regulation3 and to the implementation
of the EC development priorities set out in the Statement by the Council and the Commission
“The European Community’s Development Policy” of 10 November 2000.

This Communication does not address the issues of the security and peace maintenance, in
spite of their close connection to development and humanitarian matters. The Commission
intends come back to the overall EU/UN relationship and to closer co-operation in the fields
of conflict prevention and crisis management in a later Communication, incorporating the
conclusions from the current reflection on EC-UN co-operation in the development and
humanitarian fields.

1.

THE EC/UN RELATIONSHIP: BACKGROUND

The United Nations operates in a large variety of sectors and issues. The recognised UN
global role on peace and security matters has led to it being tasked by the international
community to take on complex responsibilities: broad mandates like those of the UNMIK in
Kosovo and the UNTAET in East Timor integrate humanitarian and security aspects together
with rehabilitation and development.

The provision of humanitarian relief to victims of conflicts and natural disasters together with
the support to peoples’ efforts to find a path towards sustainable development also lie at the
heart of the United Nations’ mandate and activities. Other sectors, equally at the centre of the
UN's activities such as Economic and Social Affairs, Peace and Security and Human Rights
as a crosscutting issue have a particular bearing on development policy and humanitarian aid.
Over time the United Nations has built an important network of agencies, funds and
programmes providing a unique framework to address these global challenges. It has a strong
international legitimacy and undeniable, if uneven, operational capabilities.

Underdevelopment and poverty in their multiple aspects are at the root of many conflicts and
call for the exercise of global responsibilities. Jointly tackling development shortcomings and
humanitarian crises makes it therefore important to improve EC/UN co-operation. These are
areas where the activities of the European Community have a long tradition and are well
established and where the UN has a specific mandate, important capabilities and potential
(skills, know-how, information and data systems) and a high degree of credibility – in
particular with developing countries –as a forum for policy discussions and, in a number of
areas, as a provider of technical assistance. The potential for important synergies and mutual
gains in co-ordination and complementarity has prompted the EC to focus this first
communication on EC/UN co-operation on development and humanitarian issues.

The European Community shares with its Member States a responsibility to be actively
involved in the work of the UN related to the implementation of the outcome of major
international meetings. The major global conferences of the nineties such as Rio (sustainable
(population), Copenhagen (social
development), Beijing (role of women), Cairo
development), Rome (World Food Summit) and Istanbul (HABITAT) have helped to shape a
set of
targets, which have again been emphasised by the
Millennium Declaration adopted by the Millennium Summit held in September 2000. The

international development

3

Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/96 of 20 June 1996

3

“World Summit for Sustainable Development “ to be held in Johannesburg, South Africa in
2002 will be another opportunity to further develop the international development agenda.

In the development and humanitarian fields, the European Community interacts with the UN
at two main levels:

–

–

Political/policy-making (the Community’s role in the decision-making organs of UN
bodies and in UN normative fora on social, economic, humanitarian and
development issues); and

Operational (the Community’s co-ordination, support and co-operation relating to
development and humanitarian projects and activities implemented by a given UN
entity at the country or regional level).

the political/policy making level, four constraints affect

At
visibility of the Community's work:

the impact, efficiency and

–

–

–

–

The weak status of the Community in most of UN agencies (with the exceptions of
FAO, where the EC has the status of full member, and of WFP, where it is a
“privileged observer") which limits the possibilities for the Commission to provide
direct policy input to the governing bodies;

Low-key EU co-ordination on United Nations policy and operational issues in the
fields of development and humanitarian issues. This contrasts with the strong EU co-
ordination on General Assembly matters;

The lack of a Community contribution to the general budget of UN entities. This
means that the Community normally has a very limited role in the establishment of
general policy orientations, work plans and budgets. Despite important EC
contributions to projects in many fields and the efforts undertaken with regard to
specific issues the Community’s direct impact on the organisational structures and
planning is limited;

The lack of adequate human resources in the Commission to ensure a presence in the
UN bodies and the capacity follow-up on the orientations and decisions taken there.

Even if the formal status of the Community as an observer limits the possibilities of having its
voice heard, it has to be pointed out that the Community has some room of manoeuvre in that
regard. The more operational and concrete the discussion becomes the more likely it is that
the Commission could actually play an active role.

Evident human resources constraints and the length and complexity of debates in UN set
in policy formulation from both Commission
limits to regular, active involvement
Headquarters and Delegations. While informal policy dialogue and co-ordination with
partners have helped to dilute the effects of existing constraints, this is no substitute for
sustained real participation in the more formal fora.

level,
€

the Community is a substantial donor: from 1997 to 1999, EC
At operational
(an average
contributions to activities executed by UN agencies have totalled 1061 millions
) UNHCR (197
per year). The main beneficiaries are: WFP (578 millions
of 354 millions
€
€
), FAO (55 millions
). Of
), UNDP (118 millions
millions
€
this total amount of 1061 millions
, 347 millions were managed by ECHO and the rest by
other Commissions services (mainly DG DEV and DG Relex). In 1999, the EC was one of the

) and UNICEF (54 millions

€

€

€

€

4

major donors to specialised agencies, funds and programs such as WFP (2nd) and UNHCR
(3rd).

The EC is working with the United Nations using the existing capacities of the different parts
of the UN system for the implementation of projects and programs. Many UN agencies, funds
and programs possess reservoirs of professional skills and know-how as well as broad based
information and data systems, which Commission services, can use to attain its objectives for
development
for
co-operation and humanitarian aid. Contemplating direct
maintaining, building and/or extending those assets will require the Commission to intensify
its co-operation with the United Nations.

support

The EC's operational co-operation with UN agencies, funds and programs currently translates
into the conclusion of a large number of financing agreements on a case by case basis. There
have been several obstacles, which until now have hindered the development of
programmatic, longer-term co-operation between the Community and the UN and favoured
the alternative approach of this case by case financing:

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Lack of clear overall approach to co-operation with the United Nations, and of a
general evaluation of that co-operation;

Insufficient analysis on the specific nature and mandate of UN entities, requiring a
specific institutional approach;

Severe constraints imposed by the existing provisions of the financial regulation;

Difficulty in reaching an agreement on, among others, principles for financial
control, audit and procurement. These difficulties stem essentially from procedural
incompatibilities arising from different administrative cultures and requirements;

Complexity and inadequate interagency co-ordination of
the United Nations
(Secretariat General and agencies, funds and programmes with different degrees of
autonomy and overlapping mandates);

Inadequate reporting by the UN entities on implementation, both in terms of
substance and timing;

Negative perceptions of performance by the UN in a number of instances;

Identification of certain number of shortcomings related to UN security constraints in
the way humanitarian operations have been managed in a number of crises;

Lack of visibility of Community financing of operations carried out by the UN.

This piece-meal approach to co-operation with the UN has also led to a very sketchy pattern
where our contributions to some parts of the United Nations vary widely from year to year.
This has precluded a systematic, thematic, predictable and operational stability in EC/UN co-
operation. These problems have therefore restrained the Commission to co-operate more
systematically with UN funds, programs and agencies in the funding and implementation of
projects. This also tends to result in certain discrepancies between policy positions taken by
the European Union with regard to the co-operation with the United Nations as such and the
realities of the activities of the Commission.

5

It is clear from this analysis that neither side has been able to draw maximum benefits from
internal co-ordination on both sides, different
the existing co-operation.
administrative cultures and institutional as well as regulatory obstacles are among the reasons
for this situation.

Insufficient

2.

ONGOING EFFORTS TO IMPROVE THE FRAMEWORK FOR EC/UN CO-
OPERATION

The Commission is strongly committed to create a better general enabling environment
conducive to improved EC/UN co-operation. A similar commitment is of course needed on
the UN side if tangible results are to be achieved. For its part, the Commission has already
initiated efforts in that respect and is ready to go further provided certain requirements are
met. Among the various measures taken to achieve this aim,
the following should be
underlined:

–

–

–

4

5

Country Strategy Papers are now the main instruments for guiding, managing and
reviewing EC assistance programs. These pluriannual instruments will ensure greater
predictability and coherence in EC programming. When formulating the Country
Strategy Papers, the Commission will identify and explore the relevance of working
with UN entities as well as Bretton Woods institutions and other donors. The
programming exercise thus becomes the critical process where all possibilities for
reinforced co-operation with UN partners are to be taken into consideration to ensure
the most effective EC response to identified partner country needs;

In the context of the ongoing recasting of the Financial Regulation, the proposal of
the Commission would allow for more flexibility in terms of the financing of UN
activities, including through program funding contributions, where appropriate4. In
effect, the proposal for the recasting of the Financial Regulation (Art. 53 and 149) 5
would allow the Commission to recognise – taking into account internationally
recognised rules - the equivalence of auditing and accounting procedures as well as
of procurement procedures of international organisations with its own rules The
changes would enable the Commission to fund larger programmes defined jointly
with a given UN entity, and to co-finance together with other donors such
programmes managed by a UN entity;

An EC/UN Framework Agreement on the principles for financing or co-financing of
programs and projects administered by the UN was signed by an exchange of letters
concluded in August 1999. The Agreement was completed and updated by a second
exchange of letters (October 2000). It provides a pragmatic solution to many of the
procedural difficulties between the two systems and is to be reviewed again before
August 2001. The Commission has subsequently developed a "standard grant
agreement with international organisations"
(December 2000) putting into
contractual, operational terms the clauses and principles set out in the agreement.
This standard grant agreement is now widely used for operations financed by the
Community and implemented by UN entities. Is has, to the satisfaction of various
UN entities, already substantially simplified and accelerated the preparation and
conclusion of the specific grant agreements for the operations concerned;

Program funding in the sense of identifying specific objectives and priorities.
Proposal for a Council regulation on the financial regulations applicable to the general budget of the
European Communities , COM(2000) 461 final of 17.10.2000

6

–

–

In the context of the renegotiation of the Framework Agreement, the Commission’s
approach will allow that Community funds can be provided on a global basis to UN
agencies, funds and programs and that the EC adopt an approach focussed on results
rather than inputs, provided that
the UN offer the Commission some form of
permanent representation in the programming and administrative organs of its
agencies and in their external audit arrangements. This approach was also supported
by the European Court of Auditors, which has suggested for the relationship between
the EC and the UN to be put on a global basis. This should enable the Commission to
achieve a satisfactory oversight of the programs to which it contributes, without
infringing on the UN’s operational autonomy and multilateral mandate. For its part,
in a wider context,
in the meantime, already achieved
substantial progress by focussing, in co-financing operations, on the results of the
operation as a whole, thus abandoning inputbased budgeting of the operations’
budgets. However,
this should not exclude targeted funding in the sense of
identifying specific objectives and priorities to be achieved in a result oriented
approach;

the Commission has,

An Agreement on the application of the EC "verification clause" was concluded in
December 1994 for a period of one year and extended since then. The verification
issue is naturally an important one and could become even more so if the
Commission implements the programmatic approach towards financing of UN
activities that this communication advocates. Following practical problems, the EC
adopted in 1997 a first set of guidelines for application of the clause (no negative
reaction by the UN) revised them (1999) and invited the UN to discuss the matter.
Although in specific cases (UNHCR, WFP) adequate access to EC controllers has
recently been granted, there had been no follow-up on this issue from the UN side
from June 2000 to March 2001, when negotiations have resumed. For its part, the
Commission looks forward to conclude with the UN an agreement similar to the one,
which is being finalised with the World Bank on this matter. At the same time it is
made clear to the United Nations that the Commission is prepared to reduce or even
suspend its support to UN partners, which fail to perform to an acceptable standard.
The European Anti-Fraud Office has had contacts with the anti-fraud investigation
services of a number of UN bodies. These contacts, which took place in the context
of the second conference of investigators of United Nations and Multilateral
Financial Institutions in June 2000, have established a basis for further co-operation
in the area of prevention and repression of fraud;

The Commission has already started discussions with the UN Secretariat – as well as with
some specialised Agencies of the UN – on the revision of the existing agreements. In the
framework of applicable Community rules, the Commission has started and will in the course
of the talks – continue:

–

–

To acknowledge the specific nature of the UN and to follow its procedures, which
meet the requirements of other donors, provided that they do not contradict the
requirements of Community rules such as verification and proper reporting;

To favour an approach more oriented towards outputs than inputs (such as
simplification in terms of definition of eligible costs; explicit provision calling for
the attainment of which can be
contracts to aim at well-defined objectives,
demonstrated by adequate reporting; final payment and financing of new operations
dependant on proper performance);

7

–

3.

Under the conditions set up as above, to open the way for the financing on a regular
basis of larger programmes defined jointly with a given UN entity. These could
cover either a wide geographical area in a given sector, or indeed a whole sector
without geographical limitations and could equally involve co-financing together
with a variety of donors of large projects/programmes managed by a UN entity.

MATCHING KEY CAPACITIES OF UN AGENCIES, FUNDS AND
PROGRAMS WITH EC POLICY PRIORITIES

In the November 2000 Statement on “The European Community’s Development Policy”, the
Council and the Commission stressed the importance of co-ordination and complementarity in
ensuring a more effective and efficient EC development co-operation. On co-ordination, they
called for increased co-ordination within the Union with stronger reciprocal information
exchanges (point 30) and for an enhanced dialogue with other donors, "in particular the (...)
United Nations agencies" (point 32). One other important issue mentioned was the need for
more consistency in the Union's statements ("...whenever possible, speak with one voice in
international fora, in order to make a case for its development policy and exert a greater
influence on the emergence of international consensus in this field") (point 33). They
expressed their conviction that action in this context will enhance the visibility of European
aid and contribute to attaining its objectives (point 34). On complementarity, the Council and
the Commission reaffirmed the importance of relations with United Nations agencies (and
other donors) and called for experience and analyse sharing among fund providers,
particularly when implementing sectoral approaches (point 36) as a basis for a "comparative
advantage" approach.

The strengthening of co-operation with the United Nations will be guided by two core
principles:

–

–

Division of labour among donors and added value/comparative advantage of UN
activities; and

Re-focussing of Community development activities to a number of areas selected on
the basis of their linkage to poverty reduction and Community added value.

The Commission is convinced that enhancing the dialogue and building a strategic partnership
with selected UN partners will improve the effectiveness of its development and humanitarian
assistance as well as the quality of UN delivery measured against agreed objectives. It expects
including within the UN
that
Development Group and enhance complementarity with Member States activities. The overall
effort to reach the International Development Targets will thereby be strengthened.

this will contribute to efficient donor co-ordination,

The first step for the Commission to create the conditions for a more effective partnership is
to launch and share with the Member States an analysis of the mandates and capacities of
partners in the United Nations in order to determine how their key capacities match with EC
policy priorities. On the basis of that analysis selected partners from the United Nations will
be approached for an exploration of thematic program funding by the Community. Other
entities will continue to be partners on an ad hoc basis, if and when they are competitive for a
specific project.

In this context, clear guidance will have to be provided on the co-operation potential of
selected UN partners.

8

Naturally, as far as areas of activities are concerned, and without prejudging the dynamics of
EC/UN co-operation or the development process of the countries concerned, co-operation
with the United Nations would tend to occur with partners presenting comparative advantages
including in activities in one or more of the six areas highlighted in the abovementioned
Statement by the Council and the Commission:

• trade and development,

• regional integration and co-operation;

• macro-economic policies; and social sector support

• transport;

• food security and sustainable rural development

• institutional capacity-building

• together with horizontal (crosscutting) and other aspects.

The choice of possible UN partners should be based on a thorough analysis building inter alia
on the following criteria:

–

–

–

–

The concordance of the specific mandate of the organisation with the objectives and
priorities of the Community;

The coincidence of needs assessments and specific priorities as identified at country
level by the EC and the UN entity respectively;

In-house experience, operational capacity, and record of the UN partners in focusing
on its particular comparative advantage;

Overall management, effectiveness, efficiency and accountability record, including
the quality of information provided as to the actual results of its activities.

A preliminary inventory of UN development and humanitarian entities is presented in the
matrix attached as Annex II. The information given in Annex II reflects only the issues related
to past and current co-operation between the Commission and some UN agencies, programs
and funds. It does not adequately reflect the great range of policy discussions in which
Commission services take part in UN bodies.

In developing this analysis, we have to recognise that a differentiated approach is necessary,
which takes into account the specifics of both development and humanitarian affairs, as well
as other issues relevant to the approach to take to a country or region, e.g. potential for co-
operation on conflict prevention strategies linking in to development efforts.

In the field of humanitarian assistance, the Commission could gain added value mainly by
strengthening its co-operation with certain UN bodies not least at the policy level. In a
communication to the Council and the Parliament on “Assessment and future of Community
humanitarian activities” (COM (1999) 486 final, 26 November 1999) the Commission stated
its intention to “…further build on its partnership with key multilateral agencies such as the
UN and the Red Cross by offering those which are interested, in addition to operational
funding, programmed support for activities of mutual interest…”.

9

On the basis of that commitment ECHO initiated in 2000 a Strategic Programming Dialogue
with major partners, including at first UNHCR and WFP from the UN family. This dialogue
aims at identifying common ground for collaboration where our “geographical” or “thematic”
strategies coincide, thus building a more predictable yet also more demanding partnership.
This partnership should ensure a measure of financial predictability wished by UN partners,
while at the same time helping them to render a better service to those in need and allowing a
better monitoring of the use of funds.

Co-ordinating UN Consolidated Appeals (CAPs) with Commission strategies in this way
would require much closer inter-institutional consultation than is currently the case, and
stepping up communication at all levels from the early stages of strategic programming. In
particular, when designing CAPs it would seem necessary to enhance co-ordination at field
level, including a deeper involvement of NGOs, to incorporate measures to protect relief
workers, to make renewed efforts to close the gap between relief and development and to
make attempts to handle crises in a more holistic and strategic manner (with the ultimate
ambition that CAPs may lead to genuine joint strategic programming for certain countries)6.

The objective should be that ECHO funding of operations carried out by the UN itself should
focus on those activities where the UN either has a proven track record or effectively has a
comparative advantage in providing a specific humanitarian service.

In the field of development co-operation, the Commission believes that the identification of
“strategic UN partners” with mandates matching EC priorities and increased program and
pool funding to such partners would lead to a significant improvement in the effectiveness of
our co-operation. In these cases, the Commission would aim at real policy-definition and co-
programming partnerships. Once the adequate enabling environment has been introduced, the
Commission would initiate with the selected UN partners a strategic dialogue aimed at
ensuring a sufficient convergence of views on objectives and management practices in order
to make predictable EC funding available to them.

The exhaustive analysis to be undertaken by the Commission should allow to determine
whether our co-operation could be strengthened both in the policy and operational domain
with certain UN entities or whether in other cases, co-operation with UN bodies should focus
primarily on the policy domain.

The following examples illustrate – without prejudging any policy choice – possible areas in
which strategic partners could be identified. The focus of UNDP on good governance as a
policy priority could provide a good basis for a closer programmatic co-operation, matching
the EC’s considerable financial resources with UNDP's expertise and human resources,
especially in the field. In the context of our collaboration with IFAD, debt relief programmes,
poverty reduction strategies, micro-finance as a tool to support poverty alleviation and
development and Household Food Security, as development tools could be further explored.
Co-operation with new and innovative structures such as UNAIDS should also be
strengthened. Dialogue with mainly normative and policy orientated bodies in the economic
and social field, such as UNCTAD, ILO and UNIDO, should focus on the integration of
developing countries into the world economy and on labour standards. Co-operation with in
particular UNCTAD should aim to complement other policy instruments and be supportive of
efforts to mainstream trade into development policy and to provide, as appropriate, trade
related technical assistance and capacity development for trade. It should also take account of

6

Including, for example, UN Strategic Frameworks.

10

the development aspects of our multilateral trade policy, including the provision of trade
related technical assistance in the WTO and the WTO/UNCTAD co-operation in the ITC.
Operational activities should follow closely the guidelines established through the dialogue.
In the context of the further work on Regional Economic Partnership Agreements the possible
contribution of entities such as UNCTAD, FAO and ILO should be given due consideration.
In addition, further opportunities for closer collaboration with other normative and policy
orientated bodies, such as ITU, IMO and UNEP, could be explored. Co-operation with these
organisations could bring added value in areas related to development such as transport,
information society and telecommunication and environment.

Whilst the value of predictable funding to both sides is clear, it must be underlined that
predictability of funding cannot imply a guarantee of EC funding at a certain level. Rather, its
requires the EC to set out its priorities clearly and to ensure a higher degree of coherence with
other Community policies, allowing UN agencies, funds and programs to better take into
account EC priorities while devising projects and to know better what to expect in terms of
funding. Building on Country Strategy Papers, this includes pursuing a pluriannual approach
to programming.

It should also be underlined that the Commission is not, at this stage, suggesting to make core
contributions (contributions to the core budget) to activities of UN agencies, programs and
funds. In fact, as mentioned above, the EC development policy as set out in the Council and
Commission Statement is based on an analysis of EC added-value vis-à-vis the Member
States. This principle is also valid for EC relations with the UN. The adequate financing of the
core budget of these UN agencies remains the responsibility of UN member states and there
would be no added value for the EC simply to substitute for this and pass on the resources
entrusted to it by Member States to the UN agencies as “core contribution”.

4.

RECOMMENDATIONS

In order to implement the changes advocated in this Communication the ongoing reform
efforts in EC and UN development co-operation and financial management overall will have
to continue. The objective of the present Communication is to ensure a better link between the
political commitments taken at the global level, the policy development and the programming
and preparation and implementation of project activities. The full support of the Member
States is important in this context. The sections below set out the concrete measures that need
to be taken by the Commission, by EU member states and by the UN to attain the objectives
of this communication

a) Policy – speaking with one voice whenever possible

It is clear from the above that the possibility of the EC to provide a concrete, distinguishable
input into policy debates in many of the global fora provided by the United Nations is
determined by a co-ordinated and coherent approach by the EU. Such an approach would
have to integrate the EC’s role in global discussions at the policy level, an increased policy
co-ordination and dialogue with relevant parts of the system, and should also result in co-
ordinated activities and programs in the field. Our policies and activities should be coherent
and our suggestions put forward in the global fora should be backed up by financial flows
where appropriate.

Concrete measures to be taken by the Commission include:

11

–

–

–

Strengthening efforts to present, explain and project our policy priorities in the UN
context;

Increasing our presence and input into different governing bodies of the UN entities
as well as in the political and statutory bodies of the UN and participating more
actively in policy debates in these fora;

Matching the human resource requirements,
in particular in EC Delegations in
relevant UN sites, resulting from a stronger emphasis on ensuring a full and active
participation in the work of UN bodies and on reinforcing co-operation on the
ground.

To fully achieve their objectives, these measures need increased co-ordination within the
Union and a higher degree of consistency in EC and Member State positions in international
fora as foreseen by the EC treaty in Article 180. The present communication constitutes a first
step in this context. At the same time it would be important to ensure a better consistency
fora.
between position established in the capitals,
Reinforcement of upstream policy co-ordination within the Council and Member State and
UN support for strengthening Commission participation in the work of UN bodies are thus
essential to greater Union credibility and influence in the development and humanitarian
fields.

in Brussels and in international

b) Operational level – matching mandates and defining areas of common interest

The objective would also be to be more proactive vis-à-vis the United Nations. The
Commission will shift emphasis from funding on a case by case basis towards programme
funding. This could be done either by selecting parts of UN programmes that dovetail with the
EC’s own intervention strategies and/or by the establishing clear general political guidelines
for the co-operation with specific entities. This would need to be done on a sectoral basis.

The Commission will also consider providing funding to the UN funds and programs which
should enable them to focus on strengthening and re-asserting those key competencies, which
are of particular interest to the EC.

Concrete measures to be taken by the Commission include:

–

–

Analysing the mandates, strengths and weaknesses of partners in the United Nations
in order to match their key capacities to EC policy priorities, thereby identifying
“strategic UN partners” and therefore considering support for the ‘key’ capabilities
of “strategic UN partners” and increasing program funding to these bodies;

Strengthening the dialogue with “strategic UN partners” on programming and policy-
making including in particular by participating in activities of governing bodies as
active observers and in relevant donor group meetings);

Ensuring adequate articulation of program funding and pool funding with thestrategies set out
in the Country Strategy Papers and integrating funding envelopes in multi-annual budgeting
processes to guarantee predictability and stability. Integrating the implementation of these
guidelines with the process on increased co-ordination and complementarity with EU-MS,
other donors and multilateral agencies;

–

Establishing clear general policy guidelines for the co-operation with specific UN
entities;

12

–

–

–

Improving the general operational guidelines contained in the Framework Agreement
for the co-operation with UN entities and encouraging all UN entities to adhere to it;

Supporting the European Anti-Fraud Office in the establishment of closer operational
links between it and the UN partners to prevent and detect fraud involving
Community funding as well as ensuring an appropriate follow-up to instances of

Continuing project funding, where appropriate, to UN partners.

Member States’ contribution to improved efficiency of EC/UN operational co-operation in
development and humanitarian fields is crucial: their support is pivotal to create an adequate
legal and financial enabling environment (in particular, through their commitment to create a
more flexible Financial Regulation) as is their determination to improve information
exchange on policy and implementation within the Union.

Finally, the new approach by the Commission can only succeed if the institution can count
upon active collaboration from the United Nations. In fact, improving EC/UN policy and
operational co-operation in the development and humanitarian fields is conditional to the UN
strengthening in-house co-ordination, focus on its thematic strengths along the lines of its
ongoing reform process and pursue in negotiations on the legal and financial co-operation
framework. This implies that the United Nations urgently and constructively engage in a
dialogue recently resumed with the Commission on a revision of the Framework Agreement,
in particular on reporting and on the Verification Clause.

13

ANNEX 1

1. UN SECRETARIAT AND STATUTORY BODIES

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

United Nations Secretariat (UN) - New York, USA

United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) and Committees – New York, USA

Economic and Social Council
Switzerland, and functional Commissions

(ECOSOC) – New York, USA and Geneva,

United Nations Office at Geneva (UNOG) - Geneva, Switzerland

United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Office of the (UNHCR) -
Geneva, Switzerland

United Nations Office at Nairobi (UNON) – Nairobi, Kenia

United Nations Office at Vienna (UNOV) - Vienna, Austria

Office for Outer Space Affairs (OOSA) - Vienna, Austria

United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) - Vienna,
Austria

United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS) - New York, USA

Economic Commission for Africa (ECA) - Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) - Geneva, Switzerland

Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) - Santiago,
Chile

Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) - Bangkok,
Thailand

Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA) - Beirut, Lebanon

2. FUNDS AND PROGRAMMES

–

–

–

–

–

United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) - New York, USA

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) - Geneva,
Switzerland

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) - New York, USA

United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) - New York, USA

United Nations Volunteers (UNV) - Bonn, Germany

14

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) - Nairobi, Kenya

United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) - New York, USA

United Nations Drug Control Programme (UNDCP) - Vienna, Austria

World Food Programme (WFP) - Rome, Italy

United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East
(UNRWA) - Gaza, Gaza Strip & Amman, Jordan

United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (UNCHS (Habitat)) - Nairobi, Kenya

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Office of the (UNHCR) - Geneva,
Switzerland

United Nations University (UNU) - Tokyo, Japan

International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women
(INSTRAW) - Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic

United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) - Geneva, Switzerland

United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) - Geneva, Switzerland

International Institute on Ageing (INIA) - Valetta, Malta

United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) - Geneva,
Switzerland

United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI) - Rome,
Italy

International Trade Centre (UNCTAD/WTO) - Geneva, Switzerland

3. SPECIALISED AGENCIES

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

International Labour Organization (ILO) - Geneva, Switzerland

International Training Centre (ILO/ITC) - Turin, Italy

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) - Rome, Italy

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) - Paris,
France

International Bureau of Education (IBE) - Geneva, Switzerland

International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) - Montreal, Canada

World Health Organization (WHO) - Geneva, Switzerland

Universal Postal Union (UPU) - Bern, Switzerland

15

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

International Telecommunication Union (ITU) - Geneva, Switzerland

World Meteorological Organization (WMO) - Geneva, Switzerland

International Maritime Organization (IMO) - London, UK

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) - Geneva, Switzerland

International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) - Rome, Italy

United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) - Vienna, Austria

International Centre for Science and High Technology (ICS) - Trieste, Italy

4. AUTONOMOUS ORGANIZATIONS

–

–

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) - Vienna, Austria

World Tourism Organization - Madrid, Spain

16

ANNEX 2: Preliminary inventory of past and current co-operation with UN development and humanitarian entities

UN body or
specialized
agency

Core
mandate

EC policy priority in
relation to the UN body

Current funding
modalities

Volume in
MEURO (1)

Programmes, projects,
framework

EC
representati
on in
governing
bodies7

Developme
nt

Humanitar
ian Affairs

Developme
nt

Humanitaria
n Affairs

1992

1994

1997

1998

1999

-

-

good gover-
nance,
demo-
cratization,
capacity
building,
poverty
eradication

maternal
mortality
and family
planning

UNDP

Promote
sustainable
human
development

UNFPA

Assistance
to
developping
countries to
address
reproductive
health and
population
issues

Project-
based
funding
through
grants

Project-based
funding
through
grants

0,8
(ECHO
: 0,47)

1,1
(ECHO
: 0,57)

25,2
(ECHO
: 0)

22,4
(ECHO
: 0,25)

70,1
(ECHO
: 4,9)

Active
observer

-

-

0,1

4,8

1,5

3,1

Observer

Project-
based
funding
through
grants

7

The mentions in this column do not prejudge the policy choices to be made on the basis of the analysis to be undertaken .

Active observer means: participation in and contribution to the work of governing bodies including contribution to decision-making.
Observer means: participating in meetings and reporting on the proceedings to Headquarters.

17

UNHCR

Protection
and
assistance to
refugees and
research of
sustainable
solutions

OCHA

(UNDRO,
DHA)

Coordinat-
ion of
humanitar-
ian affairs

-

-

Support the
protection
mandate (2)

Project-
based
funding
through
grants

Project-based
funding
through
grants

221
(ECHO
: 78,4

235,5
(ECHO
:

49,1
(ECHO
: 31

71,5
(ECHO
: 51,3

76
(ECHO
: 84,3

DEV:

177,3

DEV:

DEV:

DEV:

3,9)

DEV:

18,1)

20,2)

0)

6,8)

Observer

EU co-
ordination for
annual
Executive
Committee
meetings (co-
ordination on
the
Presidency
and
Commission
statements.
HQ attends
ExCom
meetings)

0,1
UNDR
O 0,75
DHA

0,97

0,1

0,03

DHA

DHA

OCHA

0,44
OCHA

Observer

-

support
OCHA's
relief co-
ordination
role

Project-based
funding
through
grants
(hampered in
the past by
OCHA's
status as a
department of
the UN
Secretariat)

18

UNICEF

WFP

Assistance
in the
development
of
permanent
child health
and welfare

Food aid for
emergencies
and for
development

Child health
and
education

-

Project-
based
funding
through
grants

Project-based
funding
through
grants

4,7
(ECHO
: 12,3)

11,8
(ECHO
: 11)

17
(ECHO
: 6,8)

17
(ECHO
: 14,8)

20
(ECHO
: 15,7)

Observer

Emergency
food aid

Emergency
food aid

Annual and
national
programmes
through
grants

Project-based
funding
through
grants

281,4

(ECHO
: 37,8)

219,7
(ECHO
: 47,2)

237
(ECHO
: 24,4)

184

(ECHO
: 18,3

DEV:
154,7)

Privileged
Observer (the
Commission
sits at the
table of the
Executive
Board and its
participation
is deemed
necessary for
a consensus)

UNCTAD /
ITC

Promote
international
trade,
particularly
that of
developing
countries

Integration
of
developing
countries
into the
world
economy

-

Project-
based
funding
through
grants

-

1,6

1,8

3,8

3,5

-

Active
observer

19

UNEP

International
cooperation
in the field
of
environment

Implementat
-ion of
international
environmen-
tal
agreements
Specific
issue:
Globaliza-
tion and
environmen-
tal
protection

FAO

ITU

Normative
work and
operational
activities on
agriculture,
food
security,
fishing,
forestry and
sust. rural
development

Food
security,
standard
setting,
sustainable
management
of natural
resources,
work on
early
warning

International
organisation
within which
governments
and the
private
sector
coordinate
global

Facilitate
telecommun
ications
develop-
ment
worldwide
by
organising
and

-

-

-

0,1

-

-

-

Active
observer

2,0 (of
which
1,6 for
Conven
-tions)

3,6

9,1

16

18

21

Member

Work on
early
warning
and
emergenc-
ies

Annual and
national
programmes
through
grants

Project-based
funding
through
grants

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Active
Observer

capacity
building,
poverty
eradication,
good
governance

20

coordinating
technical
cooperation
and
assistance
activities;
normative
work on
telecommun
ications
standards;
ensuring
efficient use
of
radiocomm-
unications

assistance to
dev.
countries /
Help in
entering
WTO
(TRIPS
agreements)

-

telecom
networks
and services

WIPO

Protection of
intellectual
property

IMO

Cooperation
on technical
matters
affecting
international
shipping

-

-

-

-

-

Observer

-

-

-

-

-

Observer

-

-

-

-

-

-

21

ILO

WHO

Promote
social
justice,
elaboration
and adoption
of
international
labour
conventions
and re-
commend-
ations

Attainment
by all
peoples of
the highest
possible
level of
health

support
vaccination
campaigns

Combat
communic-
able and
non-
communic-
able
diseases,
reduction of
health
inequalities

ICAO

Develop-
ment of
international
civil aviation

-

-

core labour
standards

-

Project-
based
funding
through
grants

-

-

-

5

7,5

7,8

Active
Observer

-

-

Project-based
funding
through
grants

-

-

(ECHO
: 0,0)

(ECHO
: 1,5)

1,7
(ECHO
: 0,38)

4,4
(ECHO
: 1,4)

4,5
(ECHO
: 6,7)

Active
observer

-

-

-

0,1

-

-

Observer

22

UNESCO

UNIDO

IFAD

UNRWA

Education

-

-

-

Standardisat
-ion/
implement-
ation of
Montreal
Protocol

Food
security and
poverty
alleviation

Contribute
to peace and
security by
promoting
collaborat-
ion among
nations
through edu-
cation,
science and
culture

Promoting
and
supporting
industrial
development
in
developing
countries

Combat
rural hunger
and poverty
in
developing
countries

-

-

-

Project-
based
funding
through
grants

-

In future,
E8annual
and national
programmes
through
grants

-

-

0

0,003

0

Observer

0

0

0

0

0

Observer

0

0

0

0

0

Observer

Relief and
works
agency for
Palestine
Refugees

Food
security and
poverty
alleviation

Food aid

Annual
programmes
through
grants

Project-based
funding
through
grants

-
(ECHO
: 0)

12,6
(ECHO
: 0,45)

0,6
(ECHO
: 0,6)

1
(ECHO
: 1,02)

0
(ECHO
: 0)

Observer

23

-

-

-

0,37

3,4

1,4

Active
observer

UNDCP

Policy
making body
for issues
pertaining to
international
drug control

Drugs
control
(Precursors)
/Coop. in
the fight
against
drugs/
Alternative
develop.

-

Project-
based
funding
through
grants

(1) - : No data available

24