l'he Four Nations Initiative on Governance and Management of the UN CHILE . SOUTH AFRICA I SWEDEN . THAILAND The Four Nations Initiative addresses issues of governance and cooperation among the UN Member States and the UN Secretariat. This paper is intended as a starting-point for further dialogue and consultations among Member States on central governance issues. For more information, visit the website www.the4ni.or~. In Search of a Compact The UN has grown both in diversity and in size. Operations in the field have expanded dramatically; in 10 years there has been a tenfold increase in number of staff deployed in peacekeeping operations, from 10 000 to 100 000. During the same period the staff employed in the UN Secretariat almost doubled; more than half are now in the field. The UN is unique, in its tasks and its structure. The UN is frequently debated, sometimes criticized, but the governance and management problems of the UN system are the result of rising expectations, not of diminishing demands. However, expectations of the UN are on par with its vision, not with its capacity. The UN is highly respected, but more for what it represents than for what it achieves. While the most important global issues continue to be brought to the world body for deliberations the organization is hampered by a lack of consensus among its stakeholders. Agreement among members is scarce both on what constitute basic priorities, especially between security and development, and on what to do about them. The Secretariat has provided the members with its best advice on how to improve its functioning. Nonetheless, lack of trust and confidence between Member States, and between Member States and the Secretariat has delayed decisions on management reforms, even when there is broad acceptance of the need for and urgency of such reforms. Many Member States, as well as the Secretariat, are not happy with the present state of affairs, but for different reasons. Many feel that they lose out, both as countries and as part of the international community. There are no, or few, winners. But some lose more than others, notably small countries, not least poor countries with weak entrances into the UN System. Many studies are available, the concerns or problems are known and recipes are documented. This knowledge, the widespread discontent and the anival of a new Secretary-General create a window of opportunity for changes in both Governance and Management, not least in their relations with each other. However, change, or refonn, in an atmosphere of lack of trust and transparency means that all fear that they might lose. Of course, the chances of mounting a s~lccessful reform program increase if many stakeholders see gnirzs from the process. But it is equally important that all stakeholders see the process. Thus, we firmly believe that efforts to increase ncco~rr~tnbility nrzd trcmspnr-ency are central to restoring trust and increasing efficiency. The Four Nations Initiative (4NI) has now reached the point of consultations on what the main problems of Governance and Management are about. We are asking questions and we want your answers. Based on this we will present proposals - probably in May 2007. There are no quick fixes in refonning the UN but we think that a Compact - finding agreements on reforms that would lead to better governance that improves management - should be possible. Our proposals on issues for dialogue and consultations on Governance and Management within the UN Secretariat seen from the Member States perspective are presented in the following five clusters: Trust, as a prerequisite for agreements on reform; a Compact * Govemance and Management, the fundamental division or responsibilities These two issues constitute both objectives and areas of reform. In addition, three issues of a more specific nature have been chosen: Accountability and Transparency, the necessary tools for building trust Decision-making, overview and evaluation, the major interfaces between Governance and Management Dialogue and arenas, places for informal and transparent contacts We invite you to participate in dialogue and consultations on these issues, 1. The Four Nations Initiative The 4NI was originally conceived by four members of the UN; Chile, South Africa, Sweden and Thailand. It aims at enhancing UN Secretariat and Member States efforts in reforming the UN system, by underlining a Member States perspective. It has its focus on Govemance and Management and on the relations between them. It builds on the assumption that better governance improves management and that governance is the responsibility of Member States whereas management is the responsibility of the Secretary-General and his staff. The Initiative has secured close collaboration with the Secretariat, including the new Secretary-General, who has welcomed the Initiaf ve. The 4NI has divided its work into phases. The first phase focused on identifying areas of concern based on studies' commissioned in late 2006. This was followed by an analytical phase, narrowing down these areas, identifying priorities for the Initiative. The aim is to have consultations during the first part of 2007 and ultimately, around May 2007, to submit recommendations. However, this timetable is not cast in stone; it depends on the consultations and on developments within the UN. I Go~.ansson and Mnttsson: 111 serrrck of cornr~zori gr-ouiid. Mandate and Roles of the UN Heinbecker: Governance, Accoirr!tabilify and Trur~sparency in the Ut~ired Natiorls Sagasti; Casabonne; Prada: Power, Pnr:re and Number-s: A Diagiiostic Srudy of the UN Bi~rlget arid Finnrlce Process and Str~ictrri-e 2. Trust Lack of trust between Member States and between Member States and the Secretariat is not a new phenomenon; it has been a fact of UN life since the outset. But it has deepened in recent years. It is in this context that government and management operate and reform attempts are made. The question of trust should influence both the choice of reform areas and the design of reform initiatives. When tackling issues related to governance and management the ways and means, the methods, are not neutral. Tn~st has both political and technical aspects, but they are related, and they can be the subject of systematic efforts, be important elements of a reform agenda aiming at a Compact. In the prevailing atmosphere Management of the Secretariat tends to become risk-adverse and reform efforts turn into high-risk projects. Inaction is the result. If this vicious circle could be reversed, an atmosphere of trust could pave the way for exercising full authority. The leverage to increase efficiency is large if the handling of management and governance issues bridges the confidence gap, and low, even negative, if it results in further division. 3. Governance and Management Major observations from the three 4NI studies and from other reports are that: a. The roles and responsibilities of Governance and those of Management are not "universally" known or accepted. b. Governance and Management relate to formal structures but they also include systems and culture. These technical issues are politically charged and relevant. c. Decisions by governors on budget and mandates are not always used as strategic instruments for priority setting. d. Structures, systems and organizational culture related to feedback and evaluation are strong in writing, weak in practice. The observation that the distinction between the roles and responsibilities of Governance and those of Management is not "universally" known or accepted, is central to the Four Nations Initiative; both to its inception and to its continuation after analyzing the studies. There are a lot of forces working against the seemingly obvious tide of clear divisions of responsibilities between Governance and Management: Decisions on mandates cannot always be clear-cut. They deal with uncertainty about the future in the light of present political settings. They are sometimes made for the record, not for action. A creative ambiguity, not claiity, is sometimes the sensible way out for innovative and responsible diplomats. At times, what looks like a technical issue, part of the management domain, turns out to be extremely political. Budget allocation disagreements sometimes become proxies for political and philosophical differences. We are aware of these political constraints, they are the realities of the UN and one could even argue that they are the raison d'etre for its creation and existence. Still, we think that a clearer understanding and acceptance of the basic distinction between Governance and Management would be highly beneficial to the UN system. It is not only a question of good housekeeping, which is important but not sufficient. Separation of basic roles is fundamental for increased accountability and is needed to make the quest for increased transparency meaningful. What is the basic distinction? In theory quite simple: Governors should "steer", management "row". They carry out task that are similar, but from different perspectives and positions: Governors set priorities, provide guidance, set objectives, allocate overall resources, evaluate and follow up - the action and activities of those they govern (i.e. management). Management also sets priorities, provides guidance, sets targets, allocates resources (within the frames given by the Governors), evaluate and follow up - the activities of those they manage (lower levels). Practice, is of course more complex. But clearer interfaces between the entities could facilitate a clearer division of responsibilities and thereby increase accountability. The problem is not only at the interface; it also exists within Management and between Governors. There is a case to discuss the identities and the roles per se. Efforts must be made on both sides not only to clarify their respective roles, but also to create common acceptance of those roles within the volatile organizational setting that characterizes the UN. The 4NI has concluded that to build trust and to improve the relations between Governance and Management, efforts should be made to increase accoc~ntnbility and transparency, to improve decisiorz-making and to find new at-enns for clialogcre. Accocl~ztability nrzd transpare7zc.y. The need for increased accountability and transparency is an important observation in the studies. The UN Secretariat, mandated by the Member States, is working to create an accountability framework, to be completed by mid-2007. The Initiative intends to look specifically into this aspect, which could serve as an input to the work of the Secretariat. The focus for the 4NI should be accountability from a Member Stfltes/Govenzance perspective. Decisio~zs, overview and feedback/eval~~ation. The UN is similar to many other organizations in that it is a decision-making body with limited resources. What is unique is the complexity of its agenda and its priorities, which reflects the complexity of the decisions. This augments the need for robust, respected and transparent decision-making systems. The planningibudget process and the mandate cycle are central. They relate closely to the work of both Governance and Management and are central to their relations. They are also vital in the search for better accountability and increased transparency. Dialog~le and arenas. Many have remarked that there is a need for increased dialogue and improved inclusive arenas for building trust, increasing transparency and informal problem solving. 4. Accountability and Transparency An important starting point for the 4NI is the Govemance perspective and how increased accountability and transparency can contribute to building trust. Governance accountability has a political dimension - Member States' responsibility for resolutions and overall prioiities and for being Governors, not part of Management. The adherence to roles is important, but there is also a practical dimension - design of mandates, budget, reports, meetings, documents. Accountability also includes how and to what extent Member States get involved in and deal with various issues. Who does what in the field of Human Resources development; e.g. appointment of senior management, allocation and reallocation of staff? Increased leeway for Management, leading to clearer roles and accountability, has to be matched by, even preceded by, increased transparency - shared insight - in the process. This does not necessarily imply shared responsibility for the final outcome. Good systems provide a basis for ex ante accountability; it is clear who is responsible for what decision. That is necessary, but not sufficient. Decisions should be implemented, monitored, reported and finally evaluated. Without these full circle efforts, ex post accountability will not be achieved, as observed in UN reports. The Secretariat produces 1.200 reposts a year. Improvements in the reporting system could be part of a process to clarify roles; suggestions have been made. A common understanding on what constitutes a mandate, and what should not be part of one, is another reform that would increase both accountability and transparency. In the current environment, additional efforts to improve transparency are of vital importance. Information on the existence of consultations prior to discussing a mandate could be a way to reduce uncertainty and rumours. Debate, discussion and various forms of infolmal (but transparent) arenas could also play important roles in bridging confidence gaps. The building of a culture of accountability is complex; there are no short cuts. It ranges from organizational identity, to clear procedures, to the allocation of adequate resources and to rewards and sanctions. To a large extent these are the purview of Management. But it is not an isolated and exclusive top-management dimension; it has to permeate the whole organization. Even if one starts from the top when cleaning stairs, i.e. starts from Govemance and top Management, the effort has to embrace every single officer - accountability is also personal and individual. 5. Budget and mandates - overview and feedbacWevaluation Ultimately decisions on priorities, on resources and on actions are at the heart of the UN. And they are central to the relations between Governors and Management. What are the main problems in the Planning and Budget process and the Mandate cycle? One main problem is, of course, the sheer quantity of decisions; a second is the complexity of decisions. Given that, efforts to establish simple standard procedures and easily digested overviews should be given priority. As for marzdates, a process of looking at the present stock is under way. Guidelines for preparingfiltrrre mandates seem to be needed. They could take the form of standard "terms of reference" for mandates including the need for benchmarks, timelines, and reporting requirements. This would go in the direction of creating Results-Based Mandates, corresponding to the work to establish Results-Based Budget and Results-Based Management for the Secretariat. The plalzlzi~zg and budget system is complicated and lengthy, reflecting the complexity and uniqueness of the UN. However, there is a case for scrutinizing the process with a view to making it easier for Missions to grasp both the totality and the proposed changes (revised priorities). Some comments from a member States perspective on factors that render understanding, accountability and overview difficult seem to be that: The reporting requirements are burdensome and do not inform decision-making. The negotiations to reach agreements are time-consuming and the budget documentation is voluminous. The budget does not provide an overall picture of the organization's activities, since extra-budgetary resources are not presented. There is little variation in priorities, as presented in the Budget, from biennium to biennium. There is consensus on the need to implement Results-Based Management and Budget, with benchmarks and indicators and, not least, feedback and evaluations. More resources are needed to increase the scope of evaluations and make them integral parts of the learning process. The financial and budget aspects of peacekeepilzg operations are of concern. Peacekeeping operations have grown very fast during the past decade and mismatches between decisionmaking and resource allocation are not, as yet, too large. There is a fast track for decisions, which often is necessary, but might have negative consequences for the possibilities for Member States to consult, internally and with capitals. The rapid increase in the peacekeeping budget is beginning to generate serious strain, and major disagreements over financial issues are looming on the horizon. Some Member States are becoming concerned with the growing financial burden imposed by assessed contributions for peacekeeping operations. Both Member States and the Secretariat have highlighted the need for transparency and coherence in the management of trust funds. The funds create space or flexibility for the Management, but might distort priorities. The purpose of a reform would be to find ways of reconciling the use of extra-budgetary resources with the overall priorities of the UN as expressed in the regular budget. Reforms of trust fund management require better overview of total financial allocations and need to consider new or revised Governance andlor Management structures. While there are diverging views on this subject, enough tenitory has already been covered to warrant a search for common ground on how extra-budgetary resources are channelled and deployed within the organization, and on ways to use tnlst funds. 6. Dialogue and Arenas There seems to be a quest to strengthen dialogue between Member States and the Management. This improved dialogue should be complementary to the existing formal arenas, such as the 5Ih Committee. The trick is in the combination - informal, transparent and inclusive - thus avoiding the frequent fear that important issues are solved in informal and norl-transparent manners. In the same vein are proposals to have more systematic dialogue and contacts both with the Secretary-General and the Secretariat, informal and transparent. The initiative for such closer contacts should rest both with Governors/Member States and with Management. If these contacts are systematic (not necessarily frequent), transparency increases. Increased transparency is essential to build trust. Transparency stands on two pillars; openness and predictability. The need for this ranges from procedures in selecting (mainly senior) staff, budget mechanisms and regulations, type and design of reports - to evaluation and feedback. The staff of the Secretariat is fairly permanent; the staffs of the Missions are not, They are, however, asked to hit the ground running, upon arrival at their posts in New York. Much could be gained from improved introductory training courses and orientation for Mission staff, in order to learn more about the systems, culture, procedures and routines of the UN - but also on the difficult art of being a governor. Such training, conducted in close collaboration with the UN, and in which UN staff should participate, could also build bridges. 7. Finding Common Ground - Towards a Compact What do Member States want from a Compact? Some want changed power relations, some want more value for money, some want more resources to match expanded mandates, while the majority probably wants reforms that make them better equipped to play their roles as owners of the system. That demands new or modified governance tools, and corresponding responses from management: the Secretariat. What would improved governance mean? Good governance requires a clear and joint understanding on the role of gover~zarzce, as distinct from that of management. Accoll~ztability and trarlsparency are central to improved governance - as well as to management. We think there are possibilities for a compact on reforms leading to increased efficiency based on more accountability and transparency. The small countries and missions, not least the poor among them, are the ones that stand to gain most both from more transparent relations and from a more efficient and effective UN. The Secretariat also stands to gain from an improved atmosphere. The elements of a compact have been tentatively identified above. They include Attempts to find a joint understanding of the differe~zt but co~nplementary roles of Governors and those of Management. 0 Review of systems for deciding on mandates and budgets, aiming at increased nccourztability. Transpal-ency in decision-making, from budget to reports and human resources. Improved ove~vielv not least through streamlined reporting. Oversiglzt, feedback and eval~~atio7z as integral aspects of the work of the Secretariat. A search for comnzon grou~zd. More informal, transparent and inclusive arelzas for consultations and dialogue. Final words The objective of this brief paper is to present our understanding of the need for reforms of the Governance and Management of the UN but not, at this stage, concrete proposals. In this phase the 4NI wants to contribute to a broader common understanding of the main concerns and challenges. With your contributions to this process the Four Nations Initiative will present proposals, planned for May 2007.