The United Nations is no more and no less than the contributions of individual nations. As long as States lack the political will to make it a powerful organization, how realistic is it to expect it to play a pioneering role in tackling global issues? The need for effective multilateral policy is more pressing than ever. Rapid globalization has clearly shown that global governance is not keeping pace with new problems and challenges. Investment in "public goods"— maintaining the quality of the atmosphere, protecting biodiversity, fighting infectious diseases, reducing the gap between rich and poor, preventing violations of human rights and intervening where necessary — comes under inevitable pressure if left to market forces and individual States, as is largely the case nowadays.

The United Nations has to acquire greater political authority and financial resources — that has long been the aim of Dutch policy. The Netherlands is the only country in the world with a Constitution that obliges the Government to promote the development of international law. Multilateral organizations are an essential part of this; support for them and the active exploitation of their potential, not without a critical eye, have therefore been an established feature of Dutch policy for decades. The Netherlands is one of the few countries to surpass the target of 0.7 per cent of gross national product for aid, and it has done so for over 25 years in succession. The Government wishes to increase the share of the development budget earmarked for multilateral aid.

The potential advantages of multilateral aid compared to bilateral aid are enormous. Multilateral organizations often have more knowledge and experience in their particular field than individual donor countries. Channelling aid through them prevents fragmentation and overlap, reduces the administrative burden on the recipient country and increases the effectiveness of aid. What is more, it facilitates coordination because the number of parties involved at the local level declines. Multilateral aid also promotes ownership, since it is less driven by the interests of donors — economic self-interest or geopolitical goals — although, sadly enough, there are donors who even tie their contribution to multilateral agencies for these purposes.

Unfortunately, many of the advantages are lost in practice as a result of poor cooperation, lack of coherence, misplaced priorities and bad management. The United Nations Funds and Programmes and its specialized agencies can expect a lot from The Netherlands, and from other countries too, I hope. But what can the world expect from the UN system? Its agencies bear a heavy responsibility to achieve the maximum result with the given political and financial input — to be a model of efficiency.

An effective, efficient United Nations can boost confidence in global governance. But if this is to happen, UN agencies must be prepared to take an honest look at the way they operate.

• The lack of coherence between multilateral organizations and their compulsion to achieve a higher profile stand in the way of close cooperation and, therefore, the optimal functioning of the system as a whole. "Showpieces" and institutional egos can obstruct results, especially at the country level.
  
  
• There is also a degree of "over-ambition" where mandates or geographical scope are concerned. Concentrating on core tasks should prevent organizations from constantly expanding their role. UN agencies should concentrate their development activities much more on low-income countries.
  
  
• The United Nations is good at formulating policy objectives, but poorly equipped when it comes to implementation and monitoring. UN conferences are all too easily reduced to renegotiating earlier agreements. Instead, these conferences should focus on implementing agreed aims, monitoring results achieved and analyzing factors that limit or even prevent success.
  
  
• Management and administration are still ineffective, despite considerable improvements in some UN agencies. This results in a failure to set priorities, inefficient deployment of personnel and funds, or insufficiently transparent management and accountability.

Greater coherence, fewer pretensions, better monitoring and stronger management — these are the practical challenges confronting the UN family. At the same time, it must not be held back by thoughts of what might have been. Some UN agencies were once intended to play a pioneering role in their field, but do not have the necessary capacity, largely as a result of the years of zero growth demanded by industrialized countries. They now lag far behind the financially stronger World Bank. This is the reality that the United Nations has to face, cruel as it may be. Instead of mourning its lost leadership, it should be actively seeking new coalitions and new forms of cooperation. The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations is a good example (see box on page 23).

Reforming the international development architecture, including the United Nations, demands coherence, and this begins at home in the capitals of Member States. Lack of coherence within the family of international organizations reflects the incoherence and compartmentalization in our own national governments. At the end of the day, what we can expect from the United Nations remains limited by our own political will.