Division for Social Policy and Development, DESA
NGO Forum
Statement by Johan Schölvinck, Director
Division for Social Policy and Development, DESA
9 February 2003
Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen,
Last year, almost to the day, I stood before you as the freshly minted Director of the Division for Social Policy and Development. In fact, my participation in your meeting at that time was my first official act as Director. Therefore, it gives me great pleasure that you have invited me again to your gathering, which for me will always be a reminder of an anniversary.
Clearly we are here to exchange views on the upcoming Commission for Social Development, a Commission that only a year ago was seen as moribund and was to be absorbed by the Commission on Sustainable Development, the other CSD, the new kid on the block.
Today this sentiment would appear to have receded. Just the fact that some 120 NGOs with over 350 representatives have registered to participate in the Commission shows that it is alive and well. However, this does not mean that we should relax and rest on our laurels. The risk of isolation and the concomitant result of irrelevance are never far away from those of us who pursue social development objectives.
Why do I say this? Because no matter what we experience among ourselves, the economic realm and the international cooperation that goes with it, still dominate our discourse on development.
A while ago, I had the opportunity to speak at an informal gathering of the Second and Third Committees on the topic “Cooperation for Social Development: the International Dimension”. Unfortunately, the gathering was so informal that hardly any of the delegates of either Committee showed up; delegates, who, to begin with, already only too fleetingly rub shoulders on substance of their respective remits. The realms of the economic and the social in this house seldom intersect substantively.
True, in the Second Committee, the Committee that deals with Economic and Financial matters, the social consequences of economic policies are mentioned, but only mentioned; they are not dealt with in an integrated way. Equally true, in the Third Committee, the Committee that deals with Social, Humanitarian, and Cultural issues, the importance of social matters is pressed and the economic policies that thwart them are deplored. But deploring is not the same as integrating social and economic policy.
There is, for reasons long forgotten, this artificial divide between social and economic development. This situation, I would venture, has created the untenable reality where we, in the United Nations, discuss in two separate fora, the ends, by which I mean the social, largely long-term, development objectives, and the means, which are, by and large, economic and short term in nature.
It is high time that we bring together the means and the ends. This is true from a logical point of view, from a policy coherence point of view and, perhaps most importantly, from an intellectual point of view.
A while ago, first here and subsequently at the Commission for Social Development, I made a distinction between those who had hard minds and hard hearts and those with soft minds and soft hearts. Often those who operate in the economic realm are associated with the former while those dealing with social issues are seen as belonging to the latter.
Intersecting these two mindsets is, I believe, of paramount importance. Not to end up with soft minds and hard hearts, the worst of all possible worlds, but to set the stage, to create the conditions where hard minds are ruled by soft hearts.
Somehow we seem to believe that international cooperation is only valid or applicable in the economic sphere. This is, of course, not surprising: issues such as trade, foreign direct investment, capital movements, exchange rates regimes, are all part and parcel of economic cooperation for which rules of the game at the international level have to be set.
But what about international cooperation for social development? Here the discourse quickly falls silent. Social development is largely seen as a national task, supported by the international community largely by means of aid, capacity building and technical cooperation and much contingent on such things as good governance, the rule of law etc.
This is altogether strange. Why? Because the Millennium Declaration with its Millennium Goals is most decidedly of a social nature. In other words, the international community has committed itself to reaching a number of profoundly social goals by 2015 but at the same time has no vehicle, no mechanism to deal with these goals directly.
Instead it approaches them by focusing on the means: Monterrey being the prime example. I'm not here to denigrate the achievements of Monterrey but what I would say is that in terms of achieving the ends, it fell far short of what will be needed. As an expert at a recent seminar said: an extra $50 B in ODA would be needed to meet the MDGs; Monterrey yielded only $18 B, so where is the other $32 B to come from?
So, is there an international dimension to social development? On the surface, the answer would seem to be "Yes" but not very seriously.
When I say “not very seriously" I know that I'm risk being tarred and feathered by those who embed social development in human rights. After all, human rights are very much a part of the international discourse. But are human rights a substitute for or the equivalent of social development?
I would argue that it is not. Human rights, by and large, is the stick by which some members of the international community make sure that others adhere to certain universal values. As a counterpoint, the whole problematique of human rights has been expanded to encompass other rights, most prominently the right to development. But is the corollary, that is, a rights-based approach to development the substitute for or the equivalent of social development therefore true? And, thereby by extension, the justification for having an international dimension of social development?
I, for one, am not convinced. Social development, like human rights, is an end in itself, a moral obligation. But once that point is made, its operational application fades quickly.
Good health, education, decent work are all ends in themselves. But then what?
For the purists these questions are anathema. For the pragmatists, among whom I count myself, the point is that social development goals and objectives can be achieved by moving away from the moral and ethical justifications towards the more utilitarian rationale that social development is worth pursuing from an economic point of view because your economy will be much better off under positive social conditions than it will otherwise.
This last observation, to some extent, brings me full circle and is, I believe of direct relevance to the work of the Commission for Social Development. To convince the hard minds that it is in their own interest to pursue their goal with soft hearts while simultaneously convincing the soft hearts that having hard minds will do much to achieve their goals will go a long way towards making the Commission an important player in the pursuit of development in its broadest sense.
In his report “Strengthening of the United Nations: an agenda for further change”, the Secretary-General notes that “Increasingly, the world looks at the UN to address social problems that assume global importance – above all the eradication of extreme poverty – and to help to articulate a global consensus on how to deal with them”. Similarly, and I have said this before, the Millennium Development Goals are, by and large, most profoundly of a social nature. In fact both the Secretary-General’s observation and the MDGs are about ends.
Of course without the means, the ends will not be reached and in fact MDG number 8 is about the means. But an increasing focus on the means runs the risk of losing sight of the ends. I firmly believe that it is the Commission for Social Development that has the duty to keep, so to speak, "the eye on the prize".
"Keeping the eye on the prize" is particularly pertinent to the priority theme of this year's session of the Commission, namely "National and international cooperation for social development" as addressed in the Secretary-General’s report E/CN5/2003/5.
As you know this priority theme has 5 sub-themes: (1) sharing of experiences and practices in social development; (2) forging partnerships for social development; (3) social responsibility of the private sector; (4) impact of employment strategies on social development; and (5) policies and role of international financial institutions and their effect on national social development strategies.
It should come as no surprise that, at this juncture, I would say a few words about the priority themes adopted by the Commission in its multi-year work programme. There is no doubt in my mind that each sub-theme could have been a priority theme in itself. The risk in adopting vast and wide-ranging themes is that neither the report of the Secretary-General nor the outcome document of the Commission itself can do full justice to all the intricacies and nuances that are part and parcel of the priority theme. There is a German expression (I believe it was Goethe) which says: "in der Beschränkung zeigt sich der Meister", or loosely translated: "the Master shows himself in adopting limitations". I hope that in future, the Commission will adopt more focused and well-described priority themes. In doing so, the chance that the Commission's outcome document will have greater impact than thus far would be much improved.
Speaking about the outcome of the Commission’s work on the priority theme, a few remarks may be in order. The Commission, often after lengthy negotiations, adopts Agreed Conclusions that are subsequently brought to the attention of the Economic and Social Council.
What does this “attention” really mean? The reality is that ECOSOC takes note of the Commission’s Agreed Conclusions without ever reading them. ECOSOC only perks up when it is asked to take action. In other words, all the efforts, all the time invested in coming to the Agreed Conclusions fizzle out once the Commission concludes its work.
Clearly, something is severely amiss in this procedure. And the fault is on both sides: ECOSOC and the Commission. By pursuing Agreed Conclusions the ultimately adopted text contains virtually no operative parts. That is, the Agreed Conclusions are largely devoid of requesting, calling upon or inviting anyone to do anything. There is neither a follow-up nor a follow through mechanism. In other words, the Agreed Conclusions remain within the confines of the Commission.
Last year at the 40th session of the Commission I said: “The Commission for Social Development cannot remain a self-referencing body whose reports get only a cursory review at ECOSOC. The subject matter it deals with is far too important, far too fundamental to be relegated to the margins. “
One way to get out of this self-referencing mode is to transform the Agreed Conclusions into a resolution preferably for action by ECOSOC or even by the General Assembly, especially its Third Committee. Also, I believe that this course of action may lead to a more focused product than what has thus far been produced by the Commission in its Agreed Conclusions.
In contrast, items discussed under the rubric of social groups do result in resolutions, many of which find their way into ECOSOC and the General Assembly for action. Paradoxically, the outcome on the priority theme, presumably the core part of the Commission’s work, somehow languishes in the report of the Commission, often forgotten by the next session of the Commission.
In this regard it is again worth quoting the Secretary-General in his report on Strengthening of the United Nations and I quote: “the General Assembly should clarify its responsibilities vis-à-vis those of ECOSOC and its functional commissions, in particular in relation to the follow-up to conferences, on ways which will enable the Assembly to build on and add value to the work of these bodies”.
Having said all this let me now briefly touch upon some key elements within each of the five mandated sub-themes dealt with in the Report of the Secretary-General.
Sharing of experiences and practices in social development--the first theme-- is a vast, truly boundless domain in itself. Making the discussion more manageable was to identify several core issues pertinent to the theme, such as the framework of cooperation; capacity building; information and evaluation; priority setting and financing and official cooperation for development. The treatment of these issues in the Report helps to draw lessons from national experiences and practices as well as to put forward some practical recommendations.
National capacity building is essential and is rightly seen as a key to development. With the adoption of the United Nations Millennium Declaration, the UN system has focused on capacity building in its operational and various other activities, so as to enhance countries’ abilities to define and realize their development goals effectively. In this sense, building the capacity of developing countries to create effective structures and to formulate policies for development is a primary objective of international cooperation.
The second theme is that of partnerships and its growing importance for social development is one of the core themes permeating the Report as a whole. In discussing a variety of forms of partnerships at the national and international levels, including state to state partnerships, the Report highlights some important lessons learned from recent experiences with social development partnerships, including principles that can be used for forging successful ventures. For example, there is a substantial and often untapped potential for social development partnerships with the private sector, and ways to create more partnerships are being explored, including by the private sector itself. At the same time, the Report shows that partnerships are neither a panacea against all social ills, nor a magic key opening the door to solutions to all social challenges.
Partnerships should not be considered a substitute for multilateral efforts. The Report discusses at length those efforts, including the mobilization of resources for social development through official development assistance and the need to make ODA more effective, a need that is widely shared by donors and recipients alike. This need to make development assistance more effective applies equally to multilateral institutions. In this regard, the Report highlights the policies and role of the international financial institutions and their effect on national social development strategies. It argues that the international financial institutions should strengthen their efforts to ensure that concern for improved social outcomes is incorporated into their policies and the national policies they support. While the PRSP process that is currently underway in many countries, would appear to be contributing to these efforts, there is an obvious need to place the PRSPs within a wider context where social objectives, the mobilization of funds, budgeting and the allocation of resources underpin the poverty reduction objectives. In this context, the International Conference for Financing for Development provides a useful policy framework for further action.
The social responsibility of the private sector is another sub-theme dealt with at length in the Report. Many countries are placing increasing emphasis on the social responsibility of the private sector. This is in no small measure due to the growing awareness of the indispensable role of market mechanisms and market forces in the process of development as well as in the context of the increase in power of the private sector. The Report argues that as a basic guide to minimum standards, the private sector should adhere to and apply internationally acknowledged legal norms, treaties, and agreements, particularly those of the United Nations, the International Labour Organization and other international bodies.
The impact of employment strategies on social development is yet another complex and vast sub-theme. Social partners, especially employers and trade unions, are crucial in achieving national consensus on how employment policies are designed and implemented. Clearly, social dialogue should be the cornerstone of employment strategy formation. Furthermore, among the emergent issues of international concern, there is an urgent need for increased cooperation in the area of international migration to ensure that migratory labour movements at the global level do not derail national employment strategies.
Mr. Chairman,
I apologize for being lengthy and somewhat critical in my statement today. However, I believe it is necessary to reflect on certain shortcomings so that we can try to overcome them and ultimately find a better way to bring the social agenda to the forefront of the discussions at the United Nations.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I made a promise during my statement at the Second Committee last October where I referred to the Roman Senator Cato who ended every speech in the Roman Senate, no matter what the subject, with saying that he was of the opinion that Carthage had to be destroyed. Following his spirit, I believe that the artificial divide between the social and economic issues as exemplified by the agendas of the Second and Third Committees has to be overcome.
Thank you.
1