Contents - Previous - Next

This is the old United Nations University website. Visit the new site at http://unu.edu

Regional and Global Projects

In addition to the country programmes already described, UNDP supports a variety of regional (e.g., for Africa or for Europe) and interregional projects. As these projects are generally organized by UNDP and do not require much in the way of negotiating and counterpart contributions, the tendency has been to increase the proportion of UNDP funds allocated for them, from 15 per cent in the first cycle to an estimated 22 per cent in the third cycle (UNDP 1982n). Given the concentration of developing countries in Africa, the regional programme for Africa generally receives about 30 per cent of the total allocation for regional and interregional funds. For 1972-1976 the regional IPF for Africa was set at $71.2 million, but this was overspent by $9.9 million. As a result the second cycle had its IPF reduced from $109.4 million to $99.5 million (UNDP 1982r).

During the second cycle (1977-1981) 308 regional projects were implemented. Those projects which facilitated regional and sub-regional integration had the highest priority, and these generally involved supporting a variety of intergovernmental organizations. While not all of these were necessarily relevant to the Sahel, assistance was provided to key organizations such as the Organization for the Development of the Senegal River, the Lake Chad Basin Commission, the West African Economic Community, the West African Rice Association, CILSS, and the Organization of African Unity. Selected meetings were also sponsored with funds from this sector (UNDP 1982o).

By sector, human resources development- including health, training, and employment projects - accounted for one-quarter of the regional IPF. Some of the activities directly relevant to the Sahel were the control of diseases such as onchocerciasis, trypanosomiasis, and schistosomiasis. Regional training courses were conducted on a variety of topics. Another 22 per cent of the regional activities were concerned with food production and crop protection. Projects in this sector included river basin development and irrigated agriculture, locust control, and support for regional institutions. Projects in the category of development administration accounted for 17 per cent of the regional IPF; for the most part these involved support for regional centres. Only 7.5 per cent of the regional funds were spent directly on science and technology, with the Sahel benefiting from a project to strengthen meteorological sciences and assistance in the fields of energy and mineral development.

For the third cycle, 1982-1986, the regional IPF was originally set at $283 million. The decline in UNDP pledges, plus 20 per cent overspending in the second cycle, resulted in an actual planning figure of $206 million (UNDP 1982r). In consultation with governments the three top priorities were identified as food self-sufficiency, regional and sub-regional co-operation, and transport and communications. However, over two-thirds of the available funds will be used for continuing projects, so there is limited potential for shifts in funding to meet these priorities. For the Sahel, this results in continuing support for projects such as regional pest and disease control, river basin development, agro-meteorology, village water supplies, a variety of regional organizations, transportation links such as the trans-Saharan highway, and a solar energy centre.

Interregional and global projects together account for about one-fifth of the overall IPF for regional and intercountry programmes (UNDP 1982i). Since projects in this category generally involve many countries from different regions, the direct impact on the Sahel is relatively small. Most of the activities in the interregional and global programme are training courses and meetings, ranging in topic from geothermal energy to financial co-operation, from electronic assembly plants to international trade. As a rule these types of projects are not as subject to delay, resulting in a fuller utilization of the funds available. Since this relative ease of execution has led to regional, interregional, and global projects receiving an increasing share of UNDP resources, UNDP's governing council has put a ceiling on the proportion of funding that can be devoted to these activities. In general, developing countries prefer to see projects in their own countries rather than more diffuse regional and global activities.

Synthesis

Table 11 presents a summary of UNDP's assistance to the African region and the Sahelian countries since 1972. This indicates that UNDP country assistance has generally increased by a factor of 2 to 4 from the first to the third country programme. Only Senegal, which is the most developed of the seven countries, experienced a smaller increase. This can be ascribed primarily to its initial ability to compete in obtaining projects and hence a relatively high starting point, and secondarily to its higher standard of living resulting in a lower per capita allocation. The table also shows the extent to which actual expenditures matched the available funds in 1972-1976 and 1977-1981. The available expenditures for 1982-1986 were obtained simply by multiplying the illustrative IPF by a factor of 0.55. In the case of Chad, actual expenditures may lag even further because of the periodic civil unrest.

From the country summaries and table 11, several general points emerge. First, UNDP is increasingly able to match expenditures to available resources. Obviously there will be some discrepancies, but the gross overspending that triggered UNDP's fiscal crisis in the mid-1970s is not likely to recur. Borrowing from future IPFs may well continue, but on a much smaller scale. On the other hand, the difficulty of matching resources and expenditures is compounded by the uncertainty of contributions. In the late 1970s nobody predicted that contributions to UNDP would remain constant in absolute terms for four years, although the optimistic character of the 1982-1986 IPF figures (i.e., a 14 per cent annual increase) was recognized. The increasing fluctuations in the value of the dollar have also made it much more difficult to predict costs accurately.

TABLE 11. UNDP allocations and expenditures by country, 1972-1986 ($000)

"Available" represents the amounts actually available for programme activities after adjusting for previous spending and the addition of LDC and other funds. The "available" figures for 1982-1986 were obtained by multiplying the original IPF by 0.55.

The second main tendency is the growing gap between the postulated budget and the actual budget. As indicated earlier, UNDP predicts a specific growth rate in contributions, based on consultations with member states and a dose of optimism. In previous years contributions more or less matched expectations, but this changed drastically in 1979-1980. For tactical/political reasons UNDP has maintained the existing, optimistic IPF figures as a target but operates on a much more prudent and realistic basis.

TABLE 12. Planned expenditures by UNDP for 1982-1986 by sector and country ($000)

^a This includes $11.5 million which is allocaed by sector but for wich project have yet to be formulated.
^b These totals, obtained by simply adding up the allocadet funds, are not the IPF figures shown in table 11 because of the many adjustments to the latter.

Another trend, which is not so apparent, is the increasing degree of co-ordination between UNDP and the CILSS countries, and among donors. In particular UNDP has made a strong and conscious effort to synchronize its planning cycle with the planning cycles of the Sahelian countries and to integrate its projects with national development plans. Considerable assistance has also been provided to strengthen the planning process.

UNDP has also tried to build more flexibility into the planning process by holding more funds in reserve-not only because of the financial uncertainties already mentioned but also because of the realization that in such a variable environment one cannot plan in detail on even a mediumterm basis. In hindsight, UNDP has not taken this policy far enough, as contributions have lagged much more than initially predicted.

Finally, and particularly in the Sahel, UNDP has tried to lessen the burden of development assistance. It is now absorbing more of the local costs, including local manpower and materials. It has also tended to programme fewer and larger projects in order to lighten the administrative burden both for itself and for the recipient organization. In some cases fellowships or expert missions are grouped under one umbrella project, thereby simplifying the administrative procedures.

Table 12 summarizes planned UNDP assistance to the Sahel by sector for the third cycle. Agriculture, forestry, and fisheries account for over one-fourth of planned UNDP assistance, in line with the CILSS goal of food selfsufficiency by the year 2000. Fifteen per cent of UNDP's assistance is devoted to the development of natural resources, and most often this involves the further exploitation of water resources through boreholes and dams.

Other sectors are much smaller-general development activities are targeted for 8.2 per cent of expenditures and industrial development for only 5.6 per cent. This de" emphasizing of industrial development is in strong contrast to the past efforts of many other developing countries. Education expenditures average just under 5 per cent for all the Sahelian countries, despite the low literacy rate and lack of trained manpower. Health, employment, science and technology, and human settlements account for the bulk of the remaining project funds,

TABLE 13. UN Capital Development Fund: voluntary contributions, commitments, and disbursements (million $)

Sources: UNDP 1982j; UNCDF (Personal communication)
^a Includes receipt of some contributions pledged in previous years
NA = not available

An average of 30 per cent of planned UNDP expenditures is devoted to ongoing projects, varying from under 15 per cent in Chad and the Gambia to over 40 per cent in Mali and Burkina Faso. This relatively high percentage is due in part to the longterm nature of building up the infrastructure. It can be argued that building a strong technical and administrative base is a prerequisite to all other activities and that UNDP's capabilities are much more suited to the former than the latter.

Care must be taken in interpreting tables such as this, as the assignment of projects to a specific sector is a somewhat arbitrary process. Many projects are multi-sectoral, and the categories themselves tend to change periodically in accordance with current development phraseology. Conventional activities may receive new names in order to satisfy some broader institutional goals of resource allocation.

Continue

Contents - Previous - Next