 |
UNITED NATIONS |
HS |
 |
Commission on Human Settlements |
Distr. GENERAL HS/C/12/3 9 February 1989 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH |
Twelfth session Cartagena de Indias, Colombia 24 April-3 May 1989 Item 5 of the provisional agenda Global Strategy for Shelter to the Year 2000 | ||
| IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING OF THE GLOBAL STRATEGY FOR SHELTER TO THE YEAR 2000 | ||
Report of the Executive Director | ||
SUMMARY
This report proposes a series of activities which should be undertaken by UNCHS (Habitat) in support of the first phase (1989-1991) of the Global Strategy for Shelter to the Year 2000 (GSS). These activities cover: (a) technical assistance in the formulation of national shelter strategies; (b) support to lead countries in the establishment of strategy monitoring and evaluation capabilities; (c) development of shelter-sector training capacities; and (d) promotion of GSS awareness among policy-makers and professionals in developing countries. A budget is suggested for which donors may make contributions to a special GSS account under the United Nations Habitat and Human Settlements Foundation.
The report also suggests guidelines for the monitoring of national shelter strategies by governments. A series of indicators are identified for discussion and selection by the Commission, so that they can be elaborated by the Centre in a monitoring manual for distribution to governments implementing their own shelter strategies. It is intended that national monitoring reports also be used for compiling biennial reports to the Commission on the progress of GSS.
| CONTENTS | ||||
| Paragraphs | ||||
| Introduction: the Global Strategy for Shelter to the Year 2000: First phase, 1989-1991 | 1 | |||
| I. | Monitoring and assistance component | 2-36 | ||
| A. | Assistance in formulating national strategies | 4-5 | ||
| B. | Monitoring and evaluation requirements | 6-36 | ||
| 1. | 1. National indicators. categories and descriptions | 10-28 | ||
| (a) Group 1 indicators - strategy formulation | 14-17 | |||
| (b) Group II indicators: Strategy implementation, monitoring and evaluation | 18-22 | |||
| (c) Group III indicators: Strategy performance | 23-28 | |||
| 2. | Information and funding requirements | 29-34 | ||
| 3. | Monitoring timetable | 35-36 | ||
| II. | Human resources component | 37-45 | ||
| III. | Promotional component | 46 | ||
| IV. | Financial implications | 47-51 | ||
| A. | Action elements | 50 | ||
| 1. | Monitoring and assistance activities | |||
| 2. | Human resource activities | |||
| 3. | Promotional activities | |||
| B. | Global Strategy for Shelter account | 51 | ||
| Notes | 51 | |||
1. The General Assembly, on 20 December 1988 adopted the Global Strategy for Shelter to the Year 2000(1) and the associated Plan of Action.(2) In its resolution, the General Assembly designated the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat) as the lead agency in co- ordinating and implementing the Global Strategy for Shelter to the Year 2000 (GSS). While responsibility for carrying out GSS lies essentially with national and local governments, the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat) has a key role to play in: (a) promoting participation in the GSS and disseminating information about its technical components; (b) supporting the development of the human resources needed to implement GSS; and (c) monitoring and evaluating the results of GSS. These activities have extrabudgetary implications which must be considered by the Commission in order for UNCHS (Habitat) to fulfil its role in executing the Commission's approved Plan of Action for GSS.
2. The Strategy stresses the crucial importance of monitoring and evaluation as an integral part of national strategies. In its capacity as the co-ordinating agency for GSS, the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat) has been requested to prepare a monitoring format that can be followed by governments in assessing their progress in implementing national strategies. Paragraph 130 of the strategy states that:
"This format would define the action areas to be covered and would suggest the kinds of indicators to be presented by Governments as the basis for strategy monitoring.(3)
It is important to emphasize that the purpose of monitoring is to enable each government to appraise its own achievements in executing its own national shelter strategy: secondarily national monitoring reports will enable the Commission on Human Settlements to compile a global picture of progress towards the goals of GSS.
3. At present, few countries have a national-settlements strategy in place, and many require skills to prepare an implementable strategy with outside support. Obviously, before any monitoring can take place, governments must devise their rational strategies and formally adopt them as policy documents. The United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat) intends to extend assistance to selected requesting governments in carrying out this process.
4. The fundamental requirement of a national shelter strategy are that it should:
The United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat), within the limits of available resources, will provide selected assistance on elements of national shelter strategies, as set out above.
5. Such assistance will be provided in response to requests from governments, and, at this stage, it is not possible to predict the number of requests which might be forthcoming. Furthermore, it is not possible to predict the scope of such requests. Therefore, no firm estimate can be made of the likely resource requirements for such services. The notional figure of $3 million is suggested as an indicator of the possible level of need.
6. In the process of preparing the present document, the Centre has consulted and held meetings with professionals of various international agencies who have accumulated considerable experience in the monitoring of similar international initiatives and programmes. The first Inter-Agency Consultative Meeting on GSS, held in Geneva in July 1988, also discussed the monitoring and evaluation component of GSS. In October 1988, a one-week workshop, led by the Director of Health for All Co ordination of the World Health Organization (WHO), took place in Nairobi, with a view to drawing upon WHO's rich experience in the monitoring and evaluation of the Health for All Strategy.
7. The design of a monitoring system requires the selection of indicators by which progress can be measured. Indicators can be of various types, and measurement of them can be made in various ways. This makes the identification of indicators a complicated task. It is particularly difficult in the case of shelter because of the enormous differences in shelter quality and distribution throughout the world. Indicators which will be meaningful in both least developed countries and highly industrialized countries are hard to find. It is further complicated by the fact that most countries have no reliable shelter statistics, so that quantitative indicators would have to be selected with great caution.
8. There is also the problem of measurement of the indicators. The use of quantitative indicators would imply that there are normative targets to be reached and that the problem is to close the "gap" between the existing situation and the target. With these kinds of indicators, measurement of progress is quite simple, because it is only a matter of calculating the speed at which the "gap" is being closed. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to imagine a global norm which could be applied to the shelter sector.
9. Furthermore, bearing in mind that the purpose of GSS is to "facilitate" adequate shelter for all by the year 2000, the most appropriate indicators would obviously be process-oriented. The purpose of GSS is to encourage national governments to put in place the institutions and procedures which will lead to the solution of the shelter problem. Accordingly, the monitoring of national shelter strategies and of GSS should be based on an assessment of institutional and procedural improvements in the shelter sector and not on such simplistic exercises as the counting of "standard" shelter units.
10. The principle for selection of national indicators is that:
Experience suggests that more than a dozen indicators will be unworkable, placing too much of a burden on least developed countries and, incidentally, excessively complicating global compilation of national monitoring reports. There would, of course, be nothing to prevent individual governments, who feel it worth-while, from adding to the basic indicators, as long as the core monitoring requirements are met.
11. Some indicators will be absolute, i.e., yes/no situations; some indicators will be judged on a scale of achievement, i.e., progress towards fully meeting the criterion on a scale of, say, 1 to 10; and some indicators will be specific measures of budget figures etc. which will indicate the level of commitment in relation to level of need. These last indicators will be the most difficult to determine accurately, since they will have to be drawn from a database which, in most developing countries, is weak if not non-existent: It is extremely important that every country establish baseline figures from which progress can be measured and from which global comparisons can be drawn. However, the establishment of an adequate database is not, in itself, an indication of progress in the shelter sector. It is, in fact, a prerequisite for progress in the shelter sector - an indispensable forerunner of rational decision-making but not a contributor to progress in its own right.
12. The list of indicators suggested below is only a general specification of items. After acceptance by the Commission, they would have to be expanded into a set of monitoring guidelines which would explain exactly how the indicators are to be judged/measured by each national government. Uniformity in applying the indicators is essential, otherwise assessment of progress will have no basis for comparison.
13. The following categories of indicators are proposed:
A description of the meaning and significance of these categories is given below, together with a suggestion of the indicators which would apply to each category. In the initial stages, it is necessary to use indicators which can be measured without elaborate statistical data. Yet one of the purposes of GSS is to support improvements in the assessment of shelter and shelter-sector situations and trends, and methods of measuring the indicators can be made more exact as accurate statistics become available.
14. The General Assembly has defined "strategy" as a "plan of action that defines in specific terms the goals of the action and the ways in which they can be attained". This group of indicators is designed to give indications on the process followed in the formulation and implementation of national shelter strategies.
15. What steps have been taken by governments as an immediate follow-up to the adoption of the GSS by the General Assembly? As the goal of GSS is to facilitate adequate shelter for all by the year 2000, has an official definition of adequate shelter been formulated? Are specific targets being set for the year 2000, quantitative, qualitative or both?
16. No national strategy can be implemented without the explicit and continued support of the highest level of government. In what way has a national strategy been officially endorsed, and by which specific authority in government? What indication is there of the human and financial resources to be devoted to its sustainable implementation?
17. What process has been followed in designing the national shelter strategy? In what way were the strategy's enabling principles followed in its formulation? Which of the actors listed in GSS participated in the formulation Process, and in what way? What difficulties or conflicts were encountered during its formulation? Which aspects follow the guidelines of GSS? Which others can be considered new or substantially different and in what way are they so?
18. It will be essential for countries to follow closely their progress in achieving their strategy's targets and in implementing the actions planned. Indicators will cover such matters as institutional reorganization, process improvement and resource mobilization.
19. Have specific mechanisms been put in place as an integral part of the national strategy to monitor and evaluate progress? Have those responsible been trained in monitoring techniques? Have data-collection procedures been introduced to ensure a reliable and continuous flow of monitoring information? Is a national monitoring report being presented on World HABITAT Day?
20. Is there legislation covering such issues as: (a) land tenure; (b) title registration; (c) squatter-settlement regularization; (d) tenancy protection; and (e) mortgage conditions? Do health and building regulations observe appropriate and affordable standards? Has there been a general review of laws and regulations to identify unintended negative impacts on the shelter sector?
21. What responsibilities have been assigned to ministries of national development, housing, lands, public works, transport, health, education, industry, employment, finance and local government? At what level has coordination taken place?
22. What was the flow of shelter financing during the reporting period, measured in United States dollar equivalent per capita per annum? How has it been affected by measures taken in the context of the national shelter strategy?
23. These indicators are intended to provide an assessment of shelter- sector conditions, so that improvements brought about through strategy implementation can be measured. This measurement has to be made in terms of overall performance and in relation to the needs of specific target groups. The indicators are designed to measure the extent to which shelter production is being improved in quantitative and qualitative terms through the increased participation and involvement of the various actors from government, the private sector and the social sector.
24. What is the value of building materials used per annum, how has this changed, and how is it projected to change? What is the added value of building materials produced in the country per capita per annum, how has this changed, and how is it projected to change? How do these data compare with building materials imported from abroad? Is infrastructure being provided to meet demand for: (a) water supply; (b) off-site sanitation; (c) on-site sanitation; (d) energy supply; (e) transport; and (f) surface drainage? How has this figure changed, and how is it projected to change?
25. Since equitable access to total shelter output is an important factor in GSS, this indicator is intended to measure national strategy impacts on low-income groups. Every country has a different proportion of low- income households, and the term "low-income" varies in definition from country to country, so that globally consistent indicators are difficult to find. In many developing countries, the proportion of low-income households is so great that a national shelter strategy is synonymous with a low-income shelter strategy.
26. Some suggested issues are:
(a) Housing finance mechanisms for low-income households. Do housing-finance institutions offer broad access to small or progressive housing loans? Are down-payments, interest rates, payment schedules and mortgage terms geared to low-income requirements? Are there tax, interest-rate or other subsidies related to household income?
(b) Accessibility of utility services. Are there progressive consumption charges for water-supply and waste-disposal services? Are there appropriate levels of service and charges available to each income group for each utility, through, e.g., (i) street standpipes, (ii) yard standpipes, (iii) single-tap connections and (iv) multiple-tap connections in the case of water supply and similar graduated systems for other services? Is there a system of income-related transport subsidies?
(c) Special programmes. Has special provision been made for meeting needs of women-headed households or of ultrapoor and indigent households?
27. To what extent is community participation an integral part of shelter decision-making? Are shelter decisions taken principally at local, state/ provincial or national level? Is there a system of fully representative local government? Are women guaranteed equal rights of participation in all aspects of shelter programmes? Do community organizations participate in the operation and maintenance of neighbourhood systems? Is there a legal framework which recognizes community groups, nongovernmental organizations, co-operatives etc.?
28. Have environmental conditions been improved, particularly in low- income neighbourhoods? Are there procedures for monitoring air-quality and water-quality standards? Is there an effective system of solid-waste collection and recycling?
29. Information requirements for the above examples of indicators and questions can be quite substantial. The organizational, technical and financial efforts involved in obtaining and analysing these data are the decisive factor as to whether or not to use a certain indicator. Another issue is the degree of accuracy required. In general, there is a trade-off between what is relatively simple and cheap to obtain and the degree of accuracy of the information. Typically, those countries with the greatest information needs are the ones which are most limited in terms of available resources and data-collection mechanisms. Quite often, however, the degree of accuracy is not a matter of highest importance: a reasonable order-of-magnitude figure can be sufficient. Also, quite a number of important indicators, such as political commitment and legislative action, do not require exhaustive data-collection efforts.
30. Monitoring and evaluation have, of course, budgetary implications. The Strategy clearly spells out(4) that the Centre's task as co-ordinating agency will not imply new institutional arrangements and that co-ordinating activities will be integrated with the existing mandate and organizational structure of the Centre. Further, GSS has to be incorporated in future medium-term plans and biennial work programmes. However, preliminary study suggests that only the initial phase of monitoring and evaluation of GSS can be carried out within existing budgetary resources.
31. The Strategy emphasizes that global monitoring will rest on national monitoring.(5) The proposed indicators have to be compiled at the national level and then aggregated for global reporting purposes. In some instances, it might be desirable to have regional or subregional compilations of monitoring reports. Regional compilations might be regarded as the responsibility of regional commissions under their regular work programmes. The global compilation will be done by UNCHS (Habitat) as part of its programme output, and no additional financial resources are called for this work. It is assumed that United Nations agencies will contribute monitoring information to the Centre for global compilation.
32. However, in order to test the monitoring scheme, a pilot programme of assistance to, say, eight developing countries might have to be instituted. In these countries, a national monitoring team would be set up, provided with information, training and, possibly, equipment, and supported by technical expertise in the collection and analysis of monitoring data. These pilot countries could then become the demonstration core-unit in a subregional grouping which would draw on experience gained in the test exercise.
33. This exercise would necessitate additional extrabudgetary resources in the range of $800,000, reckoning approximately $100,000 per country. The actual funding requirements will, of course, vary with the existing statistical data-collection capabilities in the countries. Funding of the implementation of a monitoring and evaluation system can always be considered a worthwhile exercise, as such a system would generate shelter- related statistics essential for government's assessment of human settlements conditions and trends.
34. Beyond the pilot schemes, the on-going operation of a monitoring system would incur costs in the order of $700,000 per annum, over and above existing resources which would be made available by the Centre. These funds would be basically intended to provide national focal points with the external support necessary to link national monitoring programmes with the global exercise. Over a three-year period, the cost would come to $2.1 million, and adding in the cost of pilot schemes would bring the total to $2.9 million.
35. The following timetable covers the period up to the thirteenth session of the Commission on Human Settlements. The starting point of the monitoring and evaluation process of GSS will be the approval of the monitoring framework outlined above at the twelfth session of the Commission. The next step will be the elaboration of monitoring guidelines, explaining sources and appropriate methods of data collection, and the development of a detailed operational questionnaire, incorporating the suggested indicators. The completion of these documents and the testing of the questionnaire in the eight pilot countries should be targeted towards the end of 1989. The distribution of the tested questionnaire to member countries could then start in 1990.
36. Starting from 1990, the observation of World HABITAT Day in Member States should be the occasion for national reporting on the monitoring of the national shelter strategy, based on the questionnaire. At the same time, Member States should send their written reports to the Centre for compilation of a biennial monitoring report on GSS. The first consolidated report of this kind will be presented at the thirteenth session of the Commission on Human Settlements which will also be the forum for the first global review of GSS, including the monitoring and evaluation component.
37. The human resources requirements of GSS are closely linked to the regular training commitments of UNCHS (Habitat) in supporting institutional expansion in the developing countries to produce skilled human settlements practitioners. Adoption of GSS implies a greatly multiplied effort in this area, particularly in bringing together the training resources of the developing countries for mutual support and strengthening of capabilities. The goal is to focus multilateral and bilateral training assistance on the enhancement of indigenous institutional capacities, through the provision of training materials and the improvement of training methods.
38.In this connection, it will be recalled that, at its seventh session, the Commission endorsed a theme paper on human settlements training.(6) Amongst other recommendations, this paper proposed that:
". . UNCHS (Habitat) should seek to:
- "(i) Promote improvement of the infrastructure and management of selected training centres that can play a role in supporting other training agencies within their respective regions;
- "(ii) create a network of training agencies, development agencies and individual trainers;
"(f) UNCHS (Habitat) should set up a global organization of universities and other training and research institutions through which it can obtain and publish information on innovative practices in the training field".(7)
The report pointed out that:
"The creation of information networks is an approach through which the efforts of the international community and of global centres of excellence can reach a wide audience of users. Costly materials, such as course designs, manuals and audio-visual presentations, which are often prepared for a single training event or for the use of a single training agency, can be shared. Information on new learning processes, procedures and methods can be exchanged, and resources for training in human settlements can be made available to a wide range of training agencies. Networks can link regions, nations and local areas into professional communities of trainers focused on the problems of human settlements, and newsletters, journals, workshops and symposia can all give a meaningful structure to those important networks."(8)
39. Since the seventh session of the Commission, the idea of global and subregional collaboration between human settlements training institutions has been developed further. The most recent specific proposal for creation of a global network of training institutions in human settlements was formulated following the Yokohama International Symposium on Housing.(9) Although efforts to set up such a global network of training institutions have been an important concern since 1984, progress has been limited by lack of staff and resources.
40. In order to establish a network of training institutions in support of GSS, there would have to be three steps:
These steps represent progressively increasing time and budget commitments.
41. In order to create functioning subunits of the network in different subregions, UNCHS (Habitat) would have to organize 11 distinct subregional meetings, in collaboration with regional organizations and principal donor agencies, covering the following areas:
On average, meetings would cost about $50,000 each, so that these meetings would require a budget of $550,000. UNCHS on-line costs for back-up and administration would bring the total budget for Phase I to $625,000.
42. The starting date of Phase I is mid-1989, and the target date for its completion would, then, be mid-1991. Phase 11 would need to be started at the beginning of 1990 and would require the following:
This would be an on-going activity and would have to have assured funding for a long enough period (say, a minimum of three years) to put the network into operating condition.
43. A rough annual budget for Phase 11 would be:
| (a) Staffing and equipment | $100,000 | |
| (b) Newsletter, travel, communications | $40,000 | |
| (c) Policy meeting | $50,000 | |
| Total | $190,000 |
Thus, a three-year initial funding would come to $570,000. The purpose of the policy meetings is to extend the dialogue between donor agencies and training institutions that was initiated by UNCHS (Habitat) in 1986.
44. The requirements of Phase III cannot be predicted at this time, since they would emerge as a result of the subregional meetings. The first steps would be targeted for mid-1991, with the initiation of the policy meetings on assistance co ordination. These meetings would produce commitments to the types of network support considered most appropriate.
45. Based on the above, the minimum overall requirement for human resources support to GSS in United States dollars would be:
| Phase I | Phase II | Phase III | |||
| 1989 | 130,000 | 130,000 | |||
| 1990 | 255,000 | 95,000 | 350,000 | ||
| 1991 | 230,000 | 190,000 | 320,000 | ||
| 1992 | 190,000 | 190,000 | |||
| 1993 | 95,000 | 95,000 | |||
| Total | 625,000 | 570,000 | 1,195,000 |
Phase II will be absorbed into Phase III by mid-1993, but, at present, it would be premature to suggest possible budget commitments beyond mid-1993.
46. National focal points for GSS, policy-makers who will direct formulation and implementation of national shelter strategies, United Nations resident co-ordinators, donor agencies and non-governmental organizations in the shelter sector must be briefed on and involved in the promotion of GSS. This will involve the preparation and dissemination of technical publications, the holding of policy workshops, the creation of awareness among national agencies in the shelter sector and the generation of support from donors in a position to fund the UNCHS (Habitat) action plan for the first phase of GSS. The professional backup for this work will be provided by staff members of the Centre, but all operational and support costs must be covered by contributions to GSS. Details of costs are given in the section IV.
47. Paragraph 118 of GSS emphasizes the difficulties inherent in estimating its financial implications - particularly in terms of national action, where success is going to be measured by the amount of resources and productive output mobilized outside the channels of governmental budgeting and expenditure. Comparable difficulties exist in producing a financial estimate of the external resources needed to provide support to national action, both multilateral and bilateral. This support action is a process which was started before the adoption of GSS and which must gain considerable momentum as GSS gets under way. The expectation is that all potential donors and supporters will be attracted not only by the merits of GSS in pointing at practical and realistic ways to pursue the objective of adequate shelter for all but also by its value in supporting important sectoral goals (notably indigenous industrial development and employment generation) and in promoting the pioneering concept of an enabling approach to development.
48. Paragraph 118 also assumes that "any estimate of financial resource components pertaining to the United Nations will have to exclude real budget increases". This instruction has been reflected in the 1990-1991 work programme of the Centre which has no real increase in regular budget activities but, at the same time, incorporates a number of extrabudgetary activities and outputs directly or indirectly related to GSS. Despite the unarguable support and credit the Commission has received for its work and its impact on the development scene and notwithstanding the concrete signs of encouragement received from some of the key donors, there are no indications, as yet, of a massive increase in voluntary contributions to the United Nations Habitat and Human Settlements Foundation (UNHHSF). Nevertheless, the draft work programme for 1990-1991(10) provides for a substantial additional commitment of general HHSF funds to outputs related to the GSS.
49. Despite all this, there are important GSS elements which cannot be accommodated within either the regular budget or projected extrabudgetary components of the work programme. These elements will require additional funding, and this report details some of these elements - international support actions specifically or implicitly contained in GSS - and costs them as accurately as possible. This will give potential donors and groups of donors, multilateral and bilateral alike, the opportunity to address their attention and support to specific action components of the GSS which they consider crucial. Contributions to support these action elements will be considered as counterpart contributions to GSS projects, outside the provisions of the work programme and in addition to general HHSF support by member governments.
50. The following is a listing of the previously described GSS action elements, with consolidated cost figures attached. It should be noted that these figures cover the period 1989-1991 which is the first phase of GSS. Therefore, the costs given for the human resources component are different from those given in paragraph 45 which covers the period up to 1993.
(a) Technical co-operation |
|
| Assistance to countries in preparing national shelter strategies | $3,000,000(11) |
(b) Monitoring activities |
|
(i) Information collection and dissemination: |
|
| This activity will cover development of a microcomputer database (HSDB/GSS), drawing on a combination of global human settlements data extracted from the existing human settlements database (HSDB.stat) and on information collected from global monitoring of the Strategy. The information would be for use by governments and research institutions all over the world for global monitoring purposes | $600,000 |
(ii) Monitoring and evaluation: |
|
| Assistance will be given to eight selected developing countries in setting up a monitoring and evaluation component of their national shelter strategy and in producing regular monitoring and evaluation reports | $2,900,000 |
| Subcomponent total | $3,500,000 |
| Component total | $6,500,00 |
| A global network of training institutions is to be established, with the purpose of enhancing the capacity of training institutions in the developing countries to produce the human resources needed to implement GSS in those countries. The programme will include subregional assessment of training needs, global policy meetings, staffing, equipment and the production of a worldwide newsletter | $800,000(12) |
(a) Policy seminars |
|
| Twenty subregional policy seminars will be held to promote action- oriented policy discussion among high-level decision-makers from developing countries on national shelter strategy formulation, implementation and monitoring. Support will include the services of a full-time international expert and of individual specialists to assist in the management of each seminar. Main costs will include travel and subsistence for participants | $1,300,000 |
(b) Workshops |
|
| (i) Global GSS workshops for communications media representatives | $90,000 |
| (ii) Workshops for national specialists to promote GSS in individual countries | $140,000 |
| Subcomponent total | $230,000 |
(c) Publications |
|
| (i) Ten Global Strategy for Shelter Kits (consultancy, editing translation, printing and distribution) first run of 10,000 copies | $80,000 |
| (ii) Shelter for All publication (consultancy, editing, translation, printing and distribution) first run of 1,500 copies | $200,000 |
| (iii) Eight issue papers on key technical aspects of GSS (consultancy, editing, translation, printing and distribution) first run of 2,000 copies each | $640,000 |
| (iv) Audiovisual productions on national shelter strategy case studies | $130,000 |
| (v) Photographic exhibition and brochure on national shelter strategy case studies (10 sets in English, French and Spanish) | $50,000 |
| Subcomponent total | $1,100,000 |
| Component total | $2,630,000 |
Thus, the grand total for the first phase of the GSS (1989-1991) comes to $9,930,000.
51. In accordance with paragraph 131 of GSS, a special account will be set up under UNHHSF to accept deposits for financing of the above programme. The deposits might be in the form of general contributions or in the form of counterpart contributions to specified action elements. In the latter case, the contribution will be reflected in a project document to be approved by the donor, and provision will be made for accounting to the donor for the outputs produced by the project.
1. General Assembly resolution 43/181. [Go back to text]
2. Official Records of the General Assembly, Forty-third session, Supplement No.8 (A/43/8), Addendum, chap. V.B. [Go back to text]
3. Ibid., chap. IV.D., para. 30. [Go back to text]
4. Ibid., paras 126-128. [Go back to text]
5. Ibid., chap II.c, para 22. [Go back to text]
6. “A systematic and comprehensive approach to training for human settlements.” [Go back to text]
7. Ibid., para. 56. [Go back to text]
8. Ibid., para. 52. [Go back to text]
9. Shunsuke Iwasaki, A Proposal for a Network of Training Institutions in Human Settlements (Tsukuba University, 1988). [Go back to text]
10. HS/C/12/7. [Go back to text]
11. This figure represents only direct assistance from the Global Strategy for Shelter account to least developed and other countries with insufficient technical co-operation funds to cover strategy formulation costs. It is assumed that governments of most countries will allocate IPF funds from the UNDP country programme to meet strategy-formulation costs. [Go back to text]
12. See paragraph 45 for costs beyond 1991. [Go back to text]