We were having lunch in Ferney-Voltaire, France when I met accidentally with Philip O'Brien. We chatted, he asked what I was doing in retirement, I congratulated him on his posting in Geneva as the new Regional Director for the Central & Eastern European region, and he invited me to his office for further discussion. We went through many aspects of the new UNICEF region and some of its growing pains. He asked if I would consider a consultancy to look into the issues that had arisen in the past decade that the region was formed.
The outcome was a mission that I carried out for the Regional Office which turned out to be the "Mother of all Missions"...in all my years of service with UNICEF I had gone on many official trips and missions , but this was, frankly, the most complicated, the most interesting, the longest as well as the most personally gratifying for me. My personal involvement in the Region started when I was still Director of DOP and member of the Budget Committee at HQ. Often, I was the dissenting voice on many policy and strategy issues being discussed. My experience with the Africa restructuring in the 1980's was not lost on me. Also having been the internal "Sherpa" of the Booz-Allen management review in 1993-94 gave me another perspective on field offices and their functioning. This mission was a challenge I could definitely not pass up.
Some background
When the USSR and Yugoslavia broke up and a number of new independent countries emerged in the early 1990's, UNICEF and the UN rushed in to provide assistance. Mostly this was done through visiting missions to the countries and the gradual development of packages of support to the governments concerned. For UNICEF it was somewhat of a "deja vu" situation, as it went back to assisting countries in Europe where we had started our programmes from 1946 until the 1970's. Thereafter our presence in European nations changed as we moved from Paris to Geneva in 1973, and our focus became more geared to supporting NatComs and other "headquarters type" operations.
The situation having changed dramatically, UNICEF once again began child related assistance projects in these newly independent countries and we gradually established offices in most of them. In the beginning the Regional Office was based in NYHQ (called REECA, the regional office for East Europe & Central Asia) while much discussion went on as to the best location for it within the region. Many countries solicited UNICEF to set up the RO but in the end it was decided on Geneva where there was already a setup with staff and facilities. As for the countries served, the early strategy was to set up a few "area" offices headed by Representatives, which covered a number of countries in which there were Assistant Representatives and other programme and administrative staff. Thus, while the RO was meant to provide support to the Area Offices, its own capacities were quite insufficient, compared to other ROs. As a result, the Area Offices became the main UNICEF entities for providing assistance to the countries.
At the time of the mission there were 5 area offices, in Moscow (covering Russia, Belarus and Ukraine), in Bucharest (covering Romania and Moldova), in Tbilisi (covering Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan), in Almaty (covering Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan...the CARK setup) and in Belgrade (covering Serbia & Montenegro, Croatia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Macedonia, Slovenia and Kosovo). Also within the region were the three Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, covered by the Regional Office, as well as two Country offices in Albania and Turkey. It was agreed that the mission would not include these five nations.
Mainly because of expediency, inexperience, misconceptions, lack of data or other factors each area office setup of the region took on characteristics of its own; the following typologies could be observed:
*The Bucharest Area Office… resulted from the "merger" of two independent offices which joined in 1997/98. They worked separately with virtual autonomy, minimal AO involvement, and a mutually beneficial relationship.
*The Belgrade Area Office...covering four countries and the UN-run territory of Kosovo constituted the remainder of ex-Yugoslavia. The AO is a separate (detached ) entity providing overall supervision, coordination and fund-raising support but with no direct country responsibility. The AO was first located in Zagreb and moved a number of times. The AO costs (staff and non-staff) come from UN consolidated appeals (CAP) as a separate cost item and thus from supplementary funds.
*The Tbilisi Area Office...this 3-country setup is another "merger" of previously independent offices in 1998. While programmes are largely autonomous they share the costs of 3 international staff, one in each country. The Representative has country responsibility for Georgia.
*The Almaty Area Office... the most "centralized" of the five, initially set up in Islamabad, and from 1998 was moved to Almaty. The country offices are semi-autonomous but all programmes are from a single CPR. There are some area-wide activities and the costs of the AO are pro-rated among the five offices. The AO resembles a regional office in having "advisers" in programme areas and provides a distinctly separate administrative level.
*The Moscow Area Office...the last to emerge in the region, it groups 3 very different setups. One office is headed by the Area Rep, another by an Assistant Rep. and the third without an international post is headed by an NOC. All programmes are funded from the region's Multi-Country Programme, through 2002.
The outcome was a mission that I carried out for the Regional Office which turned out to be the "Mother of all Missions"...in all my years of service with UNICEF I had gone on many official trips and missions , but this was, frankly, the most complicated, the most interesting, the longest as well as the most personally gratifying for me. My personal involvement in the Region started when I was still Director of DOP and member of the Budget Committee at HQ. Often, I was the dissenting voice on many policy and strategy issues being discussed. My experience with the Africa restructuring in the 1980's was not lost on me. Also having been the internal "Sherpa" of the Booz-Allen management review in 1993-94 gave me another perspective on field offices and their functioning. This mission was a challenge I could definitely not pass up.
Some background
When the USSR and Yugoslavia broke up and a number of new independent countries emerged in the early 1990's, UNICEF and the UN rushed in to provide assistance. Mostly this was done through visiting missions to the countries and the gradual development of packages of support to the governments concerned. For UNICEF it was somewhat of a "deja vu" situation, as it went back to assisting countries in Europe where we had started our programmes from 1946 until the 1970's. Thereafter our presence in European nations changed as we moved from Paris to Geneva in 1973, and our focus became more geared to supporting NatComs and other "headquarters type" operations.
The situation having changed dramatically, UNICEF once again began child related assistance projects in these newly independent countries and we gradually established offices in most of them. In the beginning the Regional Office was based in NYHQ (called REECA, the regional office for East Europe & Central Asia) while much discussion went on as to the best location for it within the region. Many countries solicited UNICEF to set up the RO but in the end it was decided on Geneva where there was already a setup with staff and facilities. As for the countries served, the early strategy was to set up a few "area" offices headed by Representatives, which covered a number of countries in which there were Assistant Representatives and other programme and administrative staff. Thus, while the RO was meant to provide support to the Area Offices, its own capacities were quite insufficient, compared to other ROs. As a result, the Area Offices became the main UNICEF entities for providing assistance to the countries.
At the time of the mission there were 5 area offices, in Moscow (covering Russia, Belarus and Ukraine), in Bucharest (covering Romania and Moldova), in Tbilisi (covering Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan), in Almaty (covering Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan...the CARK setup) and in Belgrade (covering Serbia & Montenegro, Croatia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Macedonia, Slovenia and Kosovo). Also within the region were the three Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, covered by the Regional Office, as well as two Country offices in Albania and Turkey. It was agreed that the mission would not include these five nations.
Mainly because of expediency, inexperience, misconceptions, lack of data or other factors each area office setup of the region took on characteristics of its own; the following typologies could be observed:
*The Bucharest Area Office… resulted from the "merger" of two independent offices which joined in 1997/98. They worked separately with virtual autonomy, minimal AO involvement, and a mutually beneficial relationship.
*The Belgrade Area Office...covering four countries and the UN-run territory of Kosovo constituted the remainder of ex-Yugoslavia. The AO is a separate (detached ) entity providing overall supervision, coordination and fund-raising support but with no direct country responsibility. The AO was first located in Zagreb and moved a number of times. The AO costs (staff and non-staff) come from UN consolidated appeals (CAP) as a separate cost item and thus from supplementary funds.
*The Tbilisi Area Office...this 3-country setup is another "merger" of previously independent offices in 1998. While programmes are largely autonomous they share the costs of 3 international staff, one in each country. The Representative has country responsibility for Georgia.
*The Almaty Area Office... the most "centralized" of the five, initially set up in Islamabad, and from 1998 was moved to Almaty. The country offices are semi-autonomous but all programmes are from a single CPR. There are some area-wide activities and the costs of the AO are pro-rated among the five offices. The AO resembles a regional office in having "advisers" in programme areas and provides a distinctly separate administrative level.
*The Moscow Area Office...the last to emerge in the region, it groups 3 very different setups. One office is headed by the Area Rep, another by an Assistant Rep. and the third without an international post is headed by an NOC. All programmes are funded from the region's Multi-Country Programme, through 2002.
My itinerary
The main objective being the review of office structures in the region, it was agreed that I would visit all the countries concerned. A very complex travel plan was developed and my final itinerary had two tranches, including the following:
Montreal - New York (17/10/2001) – Geneva (24/10) – Bucharest (28/10) - Chisinau (30/10) - Belgrade (02/11) - Pristina (06/11, by car) - Skopje (08/11, by car) – Belgrade (11/11, by car) - Sarajevo (13/11, by car) – Geneva (14/11) - Istanbul (20/11) - Tbilisi (23/11) - Baku (26/11, by train) - Yerevan (29/11, by car) – Geneva (03/12) - Montreal (07/12)
Montreal– Almaty (26/02/2002) – Ashgabat (01/03) - Turkmenabad (03/03) – Bukhara (03/03, by car) - Tashkent (04/03) – Almaty (08/03) - Bishkek (08/03) – Almaty (10/03, by car) – Dushanbe (12/03) - Almaty (14/03) - Kiev (18/03) – Moscow (19/03) – Minsk (19/03) – Geneva (23/03)
After drafting the report, it was agreed to review the findings at the CEE/CIS/Baltic Regional Management Team meeting in Florence, Italy on 20 April 2002, which would conclude the mission.
Some outcomes
The main conclusion of the review was that the area office structure had served its purpose and that it should cease to exist and that all effort be made to enable and empower the country setups by upgrading them to independent Country Offices headed by UNICEF Representatives at the appropriate levels. Concurrently, since the organization had decentralized many functions and responsibiliites to the regional level, there was a need to strengthen the Geneva Regional Office to bring it up to the capacities of other regions and to enable it to provide the necessary support to the newly upgraded Country Offices
Understandably, at the RMT meeting in Florence, there was some reluctance and push back fom the incumbent Area Representatives, but this was more than offset by the almost unanimous support from the country offices in all the areas
In my final recommendations I underscored the following "guiding principles";
In retrospect this was an exceptional exercise in and of itself...such widespread and substantial organizational changes are rarely effected from a one-person review as we have seen in the other major management reviews carried out by external consultants. However, it would appear that the timing and circumstances that led to this review were favourable and the changes generally doable so that within a few years the region did accomplish its restructuring in a timely manner. Today the Europe and Central Asia region (as it has been renamed) has taken its rightful place in the UNICEF organizational setup and all 21 countries are served by independent Country Offices.
Finally, I would like to pay tribute to Philip O'Brien for his courage and determination in undertaking this major exercise, as well as the followup in implementing the re-shaping of the regional structures. I also want to underscore the contributions of Shahnaz Firouzgar, Maria Calivis, Steven Allen, Marie-Pierre Poirier and Afshan Khan in continuing to strengthen and develop this region and its programmes.
My special thoughts and thanks go to Martine Deletraz for her substantial support in organizing the complicated itinerary, keeping all parties informed of the details of the mission, coordinating the administrative aspects and not the least in the production of the report.
In my final recommendations I underscored the following "guiding principles";
- the need to have a game plan agreed upon by all the stakeholders;
- the importance of ensuring there is the political will to carry out the re-shaping exercise;
- implementation would depend on seizing opportunities that arise at the appropriate instances;
- the most essential issue was one of timeliness in implementing the restructuring:
- related to the above was to start with" opening moves" by implementing the obvious upgradings soonest possible;
- all actions should ensure that staff/personnel concerns are taken into account to the fullest ;
- the need to have a "change management" setup within the regional office until the process is completed;
- finally, to set up a system of monitoring the changes and assessing their results on UNICEF performance.
In retrospect this was an exceptional exercise in and of itself...such widespread and substantial organizational changes are rarely effected from a one-person review as we have seen in the other major management reviews carried out by external consultants. However, it would appear that the timing and circumstances that led to this review were favourable and the changes generally doable so that within a few years the region did accomplish its restructuring in a timely manner. Today the Europe and Central Asia region (as it has been renamed) has taken its rightful place in the UNICEF organizational setup and all 21 countries are served by independent Country Offices.
Finally, I would like to pay tribute to Philip O'Brien for his courage and determination in undertaking this major exercise, as well as the followup in implementing the re-shaping of the regional structures. I also want to underscore the contributions of Shahnaz Firouzgar, Maria Calivis, Steven Allen, Marie-Pierre Poirier and Afshan Khan in continuing to strengthen and develop this region and its programmes.
My special thoughts and thanks go to Martine Deletraz for her substantial support in organizing the complicated itinerary, keeping all parties informed of the details of the mission, coordinating the administrative aspects and not the least in the production of the report.
Comments
Post a Comment
If you are a member of XUNICEF, you can comment directly on a post. Or, send your comments to us at xunicef.news.views@gmail.com and we will publish them for you.