Egypt - United Nations Development Programme

A) Review of literature and summary of interviews
Box I: The production process
• “UNDP’s country office in Cairo took the initiative to form a think tank in late
1991, to examine the various constituents of sustainable human development
and human development in the light of Egypt’s realities. The think tank brought
together an eminent group of Egyptian intellectuals of diverse ideological and
spiritual (both religious and secular) persuasions and professional
backgrounds.” (UNDP 1995, p 2)
• “The first step was to identify a legitimate national body that could undertake
analysis to upgrade the database and to establish a HDI for Egypt. The Institute
of National Planning was approached, and responded to the idea with
enthusiasm.” (UNDP 1995, p 5)
• “The global human development report supported by UNDP was a major
instrument for understanding the concept of people centred, environmentally
sustainable development and for data collection and analysis. UNDP also
enabled the national team members to access the international debate by
supporting their participation in international seminars and colloquia in Egypt
and abroad.” (UNDP 1995, p 5)
• The initial idea of preparing a short study was converted into the idea of
preparing an HDR following the international prototype report. Based on
UNDP’s request, a proposal was drafted to prepare the NHDR through INP,
rather than simply an intellectual paper to UNDP. A memo was sent to the
Minister of Planning to that effect (interviews).
• “The preparatory phase of each HDR included consultations with experts and
other relevant parties. There were no formal terms of reference for such
consultations or for the selections of the contributors.” (Moez, p 31)
• “To insure continued effectiveness of the report, its professional integrity and
the intellectual independence of its preparation must be consolidated.
Perceptions of the reliability of the report’s data must be further enhanced by
further strengthening transparency of its methodology and efficacy of its
consultation process. Presenting alternative estimates of important indicators
will give the report a stronger image of impartiality.” (Moez, p 32)
• “The consultative process should be expanded and made more systematic by
establishing an advisory committee (AC), as stipulated in the HDR document,
and a peer review scheduling mechanism to review HDR drafts. The HDR’s
coordinator would prepare a timetable scheduling the meetings of AC and its
inputs as well as those of the peer review. The consultative process would look
into the adequacy of, and any modifications to, the indicators to be
strengthened.” (Moez, p 33)
• To become demand driven, the report’s theme could be selected by the
ministerial cabinet (interviews).
29