Helen Clark

At a time when the entire UN system finds itself fielding questions about its relevance and effectiveness, the appointment of Helen Clark, with her reputation for straight-talking, to one of its most senior roles, could prove to be a sharp move. A three-term Prime Minister of New Zealand, Miss Clark is probably the most high-profile administrator that the United Nations Development Programme has ever had, and is already being touted as a future secretary general. Speaking in her New York office, Miss Clark says that she entered the UN with two preoccupations that are likely to inform her work: trade and climate change. A conversation on international financing for development and food security naturally turns to the stalled World Trade Organisation’s Doha Round, which has been locked in stalemate due to disputes over agricultural subsidies between blocs, loosely comprised of leading economies, led by the United States, and developing countries, led by India. A successful Doha Round, with concessions made on development and agricultural markets, could have huge development benefits. “You’re talking to a New Zealander,” Miss Clark says. “We’ve got a lot of interests in common with developing countries with respect to agricultural trade access, for example. The WTO round going through in a way that deals with agriculture and with fisheries… would be a huge thing.” She also agrees with the notion that the United States, which has pledged $3.5bn towards improving food security in the developing world, could have more impact by simply giving ground on its own subsidy programme. “Agricultural subsidies devastate developing world agriculture,” she says. “Again, a successful WTO round, which eliminates export and domestic subsidies, would be of huge benefit. But subsidies have led to first world production being dumped on the third world.” It is Miss Clark’s second preoccupation – climate change – that seems to be energising her and the rest of the United Nations system. An aggressive advocate of the Kyoto Protocol, Miss Clark made climate change mitigation an important part of New Zealand’s domestic and international priorities while she was in government. In the year that world leaders meet to discuss a second agreement on climate change, bringing climate change into the centre of the development agenda, and vice versa, are going to be critical.“Let’s be clear, there won’t be a deal at Copenhagen or anywhere else unless it’s a deal for development,” she explains. “In my past life, I’ve taken very close interest in the climate change talks, but also on the WTO rounds. You can’t get the WTO round through now unless it’s a development round. Why did Cancun fall over? Because small, least developed countries asked: what’s in it for us?” Miss Clark’s assertion seems to be borne out by statements made by Ethiopian prime minister Meles Zenawi, who has been chosen by the African Union to represent the continent’s interests in Copenhagen in December. Speaking at a climate change conference in Addis Ababa in September, he told delegates that Africa might use the size of its voting bloc within the UN to veto any agreement at Copenhagen that does not include substantial financial support for adaptation. “I’m actually looking at it through a very positive lens,” Miss Clark says. “I think there will be – whenever a deal is sealed – a deal for development. It will be positive for adaptation, it will be positive for new and inclusive growth models, and it will be full of opportunity.” Miss Clark is confident that developed countries do want a binding deal at Copenhagen, and there is a recognition amongst them that considerable resources will need to be mobilised. Estimates range from $100bn to $200bn per year, a tough prospect in a recession that has struck many major donors. “You’ve got to look at the counterfactual: What if this isn’t done? What sort of mess does that leave us with? The North is under pressure from issues in the South which have their root in underdevelopment. So you either deal with the problems at source, in a positive way, or you pay a very large bill,” she says. “I think there’s enough enlightened self-interest in the West to see this actually happen.” The amount of international aid and development assistance currently gravitating towards failed or fragile states is a demonstration not only of self-interest, but also a warning for donors who fail to realise that climate change can become a security issue where countries are unable to fund adaptation. “The UK [development] white paper is preoccupied by this; American foreign policy is preoccupied by this. Increasingly you see many of the European donors’ money drawn into the relief operations in the failed, failing or fragile states. That’s not the best place to be,” Miss Clark says. “The best place to be is putting the fence at the top of the cliff. What I’m saying is: if you don’t spend at the top of the cliff, you spend mightily more at the bottom of the cliff.” The damage that climate change could do to existing development work – some estimates suggest that 40 percent of current programming is vulnerable to climate change – is a compelling argument for incorporating environmental considerations into the UNDP’s work, she believes. “[Those estimates] tell us that if we do not bring those adaptations right into the heart of what we’re doing, then we’re really not spending the development dollar very well.” The UNDP’s role in assisting developing countries in the pre- and post-Copenhagen world – assuming that there is an agreement – is twofold, Miss Clark says. “Where we need to take this is obviously to support developing country capacity to negotiate, which means supporting small countries with small bureaucracies without a lot of specialisation to actually get their heads around the issues, which are of course extremely complex for all of us. “Secondly, knowing that there’s going to be more opportunity for carbon finance, to support capacity building so that countries can actually access that finance. With the clean development mechanism, it’s large developing countries with large bureaucracies and specialisation that can access the money. People you’d like to see access the money often can’t even get off first base, because there’s a lot of technical things that they’ve got to do,” she notes. “The chances are that the carbon financing possibilities will dwarf ODA in time, and potentially be very empowering for developing countries.” Alongside this, the programmatic work of the UNDP will focus on adaptation and the low-carbon route to development. Its existing network of offices around the world makes it, Miss Clark believes, well suited to lead the system’s efforts on climate change. “We have an incredible field presence. If there’s one UN agency in a country, it’ll be UNDP,” she says. The pressing need for solutions to the approaching environmental challenges has also increased the relevance of the agency in middle income countries, where the UNDP’s traditional range of programmes is less compelling. “You might instance parts of Latin America, you might instance parts of Central Europe that have gone into the EU, you might instance Russia, where we still have a programme. Increasingly, those countries are identifying this energy-environment-sustainable development niche as one where we can add value,” Miss Clark says. “But if we go then to what are really low income countries, I think we can make a tremendous difference by building these considerations into the national development strategies, helping them deal with the issues and implement solutions.” Development agencies of all backgrounds and sizes struggle with the perception that their programmatic work is ineffectual due to its inability to move to scale. The image of village-based project work is a common one, and is hard to shake. “I’m not interested in anything that’s small in scale,” Miss Clark states flatly. “We should not be in anything that is not capable of having system-wide impact. Otherwise we end up having one village which is very happy, and that’s fantastic for them, but we haven’t changed things for the whole country. In a sense, where I’m focused on is upstream, where we can work with governments to form policies that will have nationwide impact.” Climate change has, some analysts note, become the UN’s most visible battle, and a way to reinforce its relevance to the global system, in the same way that it has given the UNDP momentum in states that have developed beyond the agency’s usual programmes. Calls for reform of the UN intensified following the body’s apparent powerlessness to prevent the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The US and UK led the invasion in defiance of the UN, which viewed the operation as illegal. More recently, the body has been criticised for its impotence over the civil war in Sri Lanka. With the efficacy of peacekeeping operations and the behaviour of peacekeepers being called into question, as well as funding difficulties, the UN has been challenged on its core purpose of ensuring stability and keeping peace. There have also been public concerns over the leadership of secretary general Ban Ki Moon – although senior UN figures have expressed their confidence in private. Climate change and development together could provide the UN with a chance to restate its relevance and leadership, and although both have been on the agenda for many years, they seem to have additional prominence under Mr Ban’s leadership. “I think the UN’s had a hard time of it up to and around the time of the debate over Iraq,” Miss Clark says. “But in my view the MDGs and climate change together are huge agenda items for the UN.” It may also need to alter the tone of its engagement with countries, such as China and India, to ensure that it is more representative of the sensibilities and priorities of the emerging economic powers. It is a requirement that is preoccupying many within the development community, particularly at the international financial institutions. “We’re looking very intensely at the kind of conversation that we need to be having with the Brics [Brazil, Russia, India and China],” Miss Clark says. Traditionally, these have been viewed as programme countries, and the relationship has reflected that. The emergence of the Brics as major donors and investors into other developing countries has altered the development paradigm. She might be well-placed to negotiate, having built a constructive relationship with Beijing while in office in New Zealand, including signing the West’s first free trade agreement with China. Still, the agency, and the wider UN system, will have to battle against the sense of ownership that the North has traditionally felt over the development agenda. “Geopolitical realities of the early 21st century have got to be reflected,” she says. “I think at the G-20 this year, we’ll look to see a bit more structure around that conversation. We’re in the position of being a trusted broker. And the trusted broker has traditionally been funded by the North to disperse in the South. But, increasingly we have to work out what our role is alongside the South as a funder.”