All recent-vintage CPDs or Strategy Notes identify droughts, floods, earthquakes and - nowadays - epidemics as the greatest risks to the achievement of results. Political instability or conflict is the next most frequently assumed risk, followed by a possible financial crisis. This is in keeping with the UNICEF Strategic Plan, which, however, is also concerned that other UN agencies may fail to prioritize children over everything else.
Compare plans and reports, and you discover that, unfailingly, achieved results are at great variance with what was planned – even in the absence of tsunamis, civil unrests and economic meltdowns. Something is capitally wrong with the genius of our plans, notwithstanding that we tend to forget about the plan whenever a new representative gets appointed.
I hear the uproar and the storm of indignation, among even the most avid bubble readers, asserting that I have no idea about the difficulties and the unforeseen constraints that happen when working in development or emergencies. And I roar back: We are great in identifying constraints and making excuses; but a constraint discovered in hindsight remains a non-anticipated and badly manged risk when planning and running your programme.
The frequency of past events or performance records is the best source for reliably identifying future risk. Farmers know the best time to plant, because they learned by trial and error. Since 2019, country offices are no longer required to discuss constraints in the ‘Lessons Learned’ part of the annual report. Even for the 2018 annual reports, it takes a fine comb to filter out what many tactfully refer to as challenges. Here is what was provided as (good) reasons for the shortcomings, by 44 offices that spent 3.1 billion USD in 2018:
The frequency of past events or performance records is the best source for reliably identifying future risk. Farmers know the best time to plant, because they learned by trial and error. Since 2019, country offices are no longer required to discuss constraints in the ‘Lessons Learned’ part of the annual report. Even for the 2018 annual reports, it takes a fine comb to filter out what many tactfully refer to as challenges. Here is what was provided as (good) reasons for the shortcomings, by 44 offices that spent 3.1 billion USD in 2018:
- 70% decried a lack of capacity among government partners, capacity gaps, frequent turnover of trained officials, or change of counterparts following elections or reorganization of government.
- 59% found that government adopted policies without budgets, that plans did not result in actions, or that government was insufficiently committed.
- 43% acknowledged that their own plans were bigger than the amount of money received; that plans were too ambitious and difficult to monitor, or that planned evaluations could not be done.
- 34% suffered from complex government systems, poor horizontal or vertical coordination by government departments, bureaucracy, and delays in government approvals.
- 27% deplored that data were unavailable or unreliable.
- 25% (reminder: this is one in four) got bogged down by a complex UNICEF and UN programme structure, little understanding by others of an integrated approach, duplication, and the absence of a larger vision.
- 25% discovered that marginalized people tend to live in remote areas, often scattered, and that they are difficult to reach, even where security is not an issue.
- 18% realized that traditional norms and beliefs frustrate their programmes.
- 11% were hampered by currency devaluations or economic crises that rendered government services defunct.
- 9% could not sufficiently progress because of insecurity.
Now the really bad news: these constraints are not going to disappear. They will be around next year. They will, again, be risks to the achievement of our carefully negotiated results. Not the earthquake is going to destroy our brilliant plan, but the erratic people and systems we are dealing with in real life.
The list is consistent with a similar list I drew up more than fifteen years ago. More than 60 years ago, UNICEF Deputy Executive Director Dick Heyward wrote “The Real Problems of UNICEF: UNICEF is not dealing with the needy children, but with Government officials who are frequently serving fairly short assignments because of political changes, and are usually so under-paid that they can give only part time to their Government work and have to earn their living outside. Many are removed by education and tradition from the under-privileged whom UNICEF is supposed to help ...” Etc.
For the last 60 years we know the real risks to achieving results. UNICEF has been in programme countries for decades. The nowadays-reported constraints are very predictable. Why don’t they show up in our strategy notes, logframes, theories of change, MoRes or whatever you call your favourite planning document?
They catch an office unaware, when the programme environment is not sufficiently analysed, guidance is inadequate or not read, organizational lessons are not absorbed, and plans are made without reality checks.
There is also a piece of good news: one actually can study the programme environment, understand power relations and politics, not blindly believe any promises, review past experience, and learn lessons.
👉The biggest risks are the uncertainties when dealing with people, government systems and lack of knowledge of the programme environment
The list is consistent with a similar list I drew up more than fifteen years ago. More than 60 years ago, UNICEF Deputy Executive Director Dick Heyward wrote “The Real Problems of UNICEF: UNICEF is not dealing with the needy children, but with Government officials who are frequently serving fairly short assignments because of political changes, and are usually so under-paid that they can give only part time to their Government work and have to earn their living outside. Many are removed by education and tradition from the under-privileged whom UNICEF is supposed to help ...” Etc.
For the last 60 years we know the real risks to achieving results. UNICEF has been in programme countries for decades. The nowadays-reported constraints are very predictable. Why don’t they show up in our strategy notes, logframes, theories of change, MoRes or whatever you call your favourite planning document?
They catch an office unaware, when the programme environment is not sufficiently analysed, guidance is inadequate or not read, organizational lessons are not absorbed, and plans are made without reality checks.
There is also a piece of good news: one actually can study the programme environment, understand power relations and politics, not blindly believe any promises, review past experience, and learn lessons.
👉The biggest risks are the uncertainties when dealing with people, government systems and lack of knowledge of the programme environment
The very presence of these "unforeseen" constraints is the raison d'etre of our existence. It is the reason we are in business and in those particular developing countries. So they are not truly unforeseen.
ReplyDeleteDetlef: Thanks for your observations. We can only hope that those that have the power to change will thoughtfully apply a big dose of wisdom to their decisions and actions!
ReplyDeleteGreat piece, Detlef! Right to the point in so many areas. What happened to the solid situation analysis we had to do in the country program preparation process? It was so important when we entered UNICEF but disappeared due the need of "simplification" ? It took time, energy and investment to get it done, but it provided a good basis for Strategic thinking and decision making. Societies are complicated entities and it is sometimes hard to understand the Basic and underlying causes to the situation of children and women. Hence we go for the immediate once and end up dancing on the surface. We also have to accept that development is about hard politics where we never should be neutral. UNICEF has a strong Human Rights mandate, which is too seldom used in Planning, negotions and actions. Governments get away with too much, even with HR breaches without being held accountable. That happens all the time in my own country, and everywhere else. Where is UNICEF then? Maybe the last 10 years before 2030 could be used to use that mandate to ensure that we are true advocates for children?
ReplyDelete