By Detlef Palm
If you don’t know how to pronounce the German Word Quatsch - [kvatʃ] – click here.
And if you ever wondered why UN reform is not getting anywhere, have a look at the rather listless 38-page UNICEF report on the implementation of the quadrennial comprehensive policy review of operational activities for development of the United Nations system, which UNICEF had to send to the Executive Board for its session in June.
The Quadrennial Comprehensive Policy Review, lovingly dubbed by the cognoscenti as the QCPR, has replaced the Triennial Comprehensive Policy Review (TCPR). The TCPR was invented when you could still make calls from a telephone booth. Perhaps you never heard about the TCPR or the QCPR; you are not alone, and you saved yourself from a lot of worry.
The QCPR has been set up by ECOSOC to drive the reform agenda for the 27 UN agencies and institutions of the UN Development Group, and continues to produce a lot of generalized bumf about UN reform and the Resident Coordinator system. Should you really want to see for yourself, here is the latest 73-page Report of the Secretary General to ECOSOC, whose findings are mainly based on a survey of Resident Coordinators. The report answers to the latest relevant resolution adopted by the General Assembly, where – prompted by the drafters from the UN coordination office - delegates have on 23 pages reaffirmed, recalled, re-emphasized, recognized, welcomed, reiterated, stressed, acknowledged and urged more coherence within the UN development system.
Here is why this reform process is going nowhere:
More coherence would certainly be required among donor countries and their national aid agencies, because of their often-conflicting strategies. One donor favours community based schools, another donor a centrally managed education system; one donor advocates for free health care, another donor wants to support an insurance-based system. Most donors want to export their worldview. Much of the minister’s visiting time would also be taken by mission-based institutions, such as the World Bank, which incidentally has no time for this QCPR or such Quatsch.
In contrast, UN agencies are specialized institutions with clear and separate mandates, often resident in the country, with comparatively very little overlap in expertise and rarely conflicting advice. Different UN agencies mostly talk to different Ministers.
Compared to the serious reforms that the UN should be undergoing, the stipulations of the QCPR are of low priority. Authorities in programme countries know very well where to turn to for help – they will not mistake the WHO for UNCTAD, nor WFP for the IAEA. Governments have no time to look at UN tables and frameworks.
Any half-witted UN expert will coordinate with other specialists from government, research institutions, businesses, civil society and even other UN agencies when needed and without having to be prompted by a Resident Coordinator. Most UN agencies feel no need for this kind of reform. It does not help them fulfilling their mandate and, just like UNICEF, they simply tick some box to comply with the resolution. The QCPR helps mainly those who make a living out of it.
Sadly, the QCPR exercise is not only a waste of time for UN agencies and member states. It deflects attention away from the much more dramatic reforms that the UN system has to get on its way.
It is time that heads of agencies take a stand and put an end to this Quatsch.
And if you ever wondered why UN reform is not getting anywhere, have a look at the rather listless 38-page UNICEF report on the implementation of the quadrennial comprehensive policy review of operational activities for development of the United Nations system, which UNICEF had to send to the Executive Board for its session in June.
The Quadrennial Comprehensive Policy Review, lovingly dubbed by the cognoscenti as the QCPR, has replaced the Triennial Comprehensive Policy Review (TCPR). The TCPR was invented when you could still make calls from a telephone booth. Perhaps you never heard about the TCPR or the QCPR; you are not alone, and you saved yourself from a lot of worry.
Here is why this reform process is going nowhere:
1. The need for increased UN coherence is based on a myth
In the late nineties of the last millennium, some Nordic countries traded an anecdote of a Minister in Tanzania, who was quoted saying that he couldn’t get any work done because there were too many visiting donors and aid agencies. The anecdote has been told often enough to become the irrefutable truth. The anecdote was addressed to the typical donors and not the UN, but the UN made it the basis for its reform, while the donors did nothing.More coherence would certainly be required among donor countries and their national aid agencies, because of their often-conflicting strategies. One donor favours community based schools, another donor a centrally managed education system; one donor advocates for free health care, another donor wants to support an insurance-based system. Most donors want to export their worldview. Much of the minister’s visiting time would also be taken by mission-based institutions, such as the World Bank, which incidentally has no time for this QCPR or such Quatsch.
In contrast, UN agencies are specialized institutions with clear and separate mandates, often resident in the country, with comparatively very little overlap in expertise and rarely conflicting advice. Different UN agencies mostly talk to different Ministers.
2. Coherence is no substitute for performance
Every multilateral aid review ranks UN agencies according to their demonstrated relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, and so on. The ratings vary greatly. Typically, UNICEF is rated as very good, and some others very low and some even below repair. The answer to low overall performance is not for poor performers to sit in even more meetings and talk to themselves, but to shape up.3. The process has been going on for almost 20 years, without new ideas
The UN report mainly discusses the ‘better functioning’ of the RC system and RC office, not the overall performance of UN agencies whose results, effectiveness or efficiency should be under scrutiny. The RC system has not been producing results for children.4. Nobody is seriously interested in the QCPR
Hardly any of the 193 delegates of the General Assembly will be reading the QCPR with its endless boring detail. Country delegates will dump the report on their interns, so they learn how the UN is conducting business. The interns will want to make intelligent comments without questioning the big picture, and some of these comments will be read out in the next meeting, giving the pretence of a discussion and general agreement.Compared to the serious reforms that the UN should be undergoing, the stipulations of the QCPR are of low priority. Authorities in programme countries know very well where to turn to for help – they will not mistake the WHO for UNCTAD, nor WFP for the IAEA. Governments have no time to look at UN tables and frameworks.
Any half-witted UN expert will coordinate with other specialists from government, research institutions, businesses, civil society and even other UN agencies when needed and without having to be prompted by a Resident Coordinator. Most UN agencies feel no need for this kind of reform. It does not help them fulfilling their mandate and, just like UNICEF, they simply tick some box to comply with the resolution. The QCPR helps mainly those who make a living out of it.
Sadly, the QCPR exercise is not only a waste of time for UN agencies and member states. It deflects attention away from the much more dramatic reforms that the UN system has to get on its way.
It is time that heads of agencies take a stand and put an end to this Quatsch.
The current UN reform agenda is not kind to UNICEF and is moving to fast!!!! We have lost control of the content of our CPDS and cannot longer focus on promoting Child Rights and measures to avoide gross violations of Child Rights, - mostly committed by Member State's public institutions.
ReplyDeleteNext to come is losing the supervisory role of our own Representatives and control of our general resources. And, that, colleagues, is the end of UNICEF, as we know it.
The UN reform is on the wrong track.......and moving too fast. With its current course, before we get to conclude the SDGs have not been reached, UNICEF will be gone.