The following letter written by James Gustave Speth, UNDP Administrator, is a reply to a letter from international human rights, environment and development organizations which was sent on March 12, 1999.
Dear Friends,
I am writing, in response to your letter of 12 March 1999 on the subject of UNDP's ongoing efforts to work with the corporate sector as a partner in development. We, in UNDP, have had opportunities to work with most of you in the past for our common cause of sustainable human development or "SHD". Let me first say that I was disappointed by the fact that you chose to air your concerns in this manner without first seeking to discuss them with us. There is indeed much information that you do not have, and it would have been far preferable to do us the courtesy of seeking out accurate information, and all of it, and engaging in a dialogue with us on your concerns. Given the respect that we have for you and knowing that your concern arises out of your deep sense of commitment to the work of the United Nations, we would surely have listened to you very carefully and engaged in discussion - as we are now doing. And, as I indicate below, we look forward to an early meeting with you to review these issues.
It is misleading and unfair to suggest that you have uncovered some secret effort within UNDP on the basis of "leaked" information. Our process has been transparent and discussed quite openly, including a major workshop in South Africa. The documentation has been circulated rather widely, but given that we have a good distance still to cover, we have not yet had much about which to talk or a "straw man" proposal against which to solicit reactions.
Let me stress that I welcome your interest in this initiative by UNDP and have reviewed your concerns carefully. While I shall attempt to address some of them, I do not think that these concerns will be resolved by an exchange of letters, and thus I invite you and your colleagues to meet with us for a thorough and frank discussion on these issues in detail. As we are currently in the design and dialogue phase of this initiative, your inputs at this stage would be very valuable.
As a prelude to a fuller discussion, let me respond to some specific issues that you raise:
Firstly, and most importantly, you raise the question as to whether this initiative responds to the needs of the poor, UNDP's priority concern. You characterize these as the provision of basic health, education and food resources, with which we agree and would add sustainable livelihoods and access to empowering assets. You may be interested to learn that these are exactly some of the sectors on which we have been having our exploratory discussions with the corporations (e.g with ESKOM which has recently been given recognition by UNAIDS for their work on HIV/AIDS). Importantly, the initiative is about finding ways to improve livelihoods of poor people - through generating productive employment opportunities, including empowering poor communities with energy and communication services.
Our discussions with Oracle and Telia have been about exploring ways, together with local counterparts, to make available to poor communities the latest information and communication technology so that they can participate in dialogues such as these and express their own needs and viewpoints, as well as to exploit the opportunities offered through electronic commerce.
We are exploring with banks ways in which they might make resources available to microfinancing initiatives - initiatives which have proven not only to contribute to poverty eradication but are also financially viable investments.
We are studying carefully the potential of combining electrification and telecommunication projects with community and enterprise development. Such a project would work on the demand and supply sides of the equation, minimizing risk and, if well designed, accelerating the payback period. Through such projects we can graduate from a purely infrastructure project to a full-blown development project.
We are convinced that the innovation, technology and resources that corporations are known for can have a positive impact on SHD, and this is what we are exploring. If we can help bring new processes, products, technologies and partnerships to the poor, we will have contributed something important.
The reality is that developing countries are increasingly seeking out investments by the transnational corporations. Similarly, these companies are continuously searching for new production bases and new markets. The question, therefore is not whether global corporations will increase their investments in developing countries, but how can we, as the United Nations Development Programme and others who are committed to sustainable human development, seek to ensure that at least some of these investments occur in ways that are pro-poor, pro-environment, pro-jobs, and pro-women.
As you know, UNDP's work is not in the normative area, and thus we are not in a position to certify compliance with internationally agreed standards on labour, human rights and the environment. However, we will ensure that projects that would be coming under this initiative meet rigorous criteria and are in compliance with all standards that the United Nations stands by. To help ensure this, it has been our thinking to include very strong civil society participation, including participation at the highest levels, in any facility or mechanism that is established.
Thirdly, as you rightly point out, some of the companies with which we are currently engaged in dialogue have had controversial records on sustainable development, labour standards and human rights issues. Does this mean we should not be talking to them? I believe we should be engaging them in programmes that demonstrate that profitable pro-poor investments in developing countries are possible without the negative impacts with which they have been associated in the past. We believe that the latter approach has a greater impact on sustainable human development. Also, some of the companies with which we have been talking say they are prepared to make funding available in not-for-profit activities, for example in health, education, basic community development, and basic skills.
Fourthly, I am bewildered by your statement that the Global Sustainable Development Facility concept raises the "specter of UNDP programs and priorities increasingly being diverted to serve corporate shareholder interests rather than those of the poor" and that we are about to harm our own independence and credibility for it. It simply does not make sense to involve ourselves in activities that would be totally against what we stand for. To suggest UNDP is "selling out" after more than forty years of dedicated effort is very disappointing. And it is wrong. Let me repeat: any concrete cooperation between UNDP and the global corporations will have to meet United Nations standards in human rights, environmental sustainability and labour rights. This has been made clear, repeatedly in our dialogue with corporations.
Fifthly, you are making a link between this initiative and the United Nations difficult financial situation. GSDF is not a resource mobilization tool for the United Nations or UNDP. We do not intend that and the corporations have told us that they are not interested in dialoguing with us if it is about mobilizing resources for UNDP or for the United Nations. It is about exploring the common ground between the corporate objectives and SHD. As a condition for participating in this dialogue, corporations had to commit the time of a senior executive as well as $ 50,000 under a very strict co-financing agreement that spells out very clearly the rights and obligations of the parties. Our goal here was for them to underscore their seriousness and to help underwrite the costs of the dialogue with them. No one has bought the right to use the UN or UNDP logo or name. Nor will they ever.
The rules of engagement for a future operational phase are still being developed and, as I have stated earlier, your inputs into this would be welcomed.
We look forward to an early full discussion of these issues with you. It is premature to judge the GSDF in the absence of any model or pilot projects. Before you rush to conclusions, you might wish to examine specific outcomes of this project, or better still, help us shape the outcome. I look forward from hearing from you on when we can meet.
Finally, I can only say that I agree very much with your concerns regarding the risks of globalization. I have addressed this subject many times recently. Two statements I have made are attached [see UNDP site]. I hope you will make them available with this letter.
Yours sincerely,
James Gustave Speth
FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C íŸ 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
