There is no shortage of organizations who want to save children, ensure their rights, and do not want to leave anyone behind. Myriads of other international and local agencies, institutions, movements and individuals do nothing else than seeking to care for the most vulnerable children. Even most governments are trying their level best to improve the welfare of their children, or so they say.
We know their names: Save the Children claims to be the first children’s rights organization, and even Plan International is already 80 years old. Care International has aligned its strategy with the Sustainable Development Goals, and the Doctors without Border (MSF) have discovered mental health as a major issue, just like UNICEF. Many of them work in more than 100 countries, and have reached millions and billions of children. The websites of the international organizations and that of UNICEF often look similar: Who we are, what we do, where we work. All of us need money. We in UNICEF compete with the other agencies for money; and once we get the funding we often contract them to carry out the project.
What sets us apart from the bunch, is the authority bestowed upon as a UN agency. We should use it. It is our stand-out advantage; here is where we add value in spite of our costs. Our strategy should be based on it. Where the mediating effect of a UN agency is not needed, we should leave the field to those who can operate without the constraints of the bureaucracy and confusing governance mechanisms that we call our own.
What is it that requires The United Nations to come into play?
UNICEF or any other UN agency adds value, when a country finds it difficult to solve an issue. This happens when the issue is considered sensitive; different people have different ideas on what should be done. This is so when policy decisions imply costs to the taxpayer; seem to favour one people over the other; or hurt feelings no matter why. In such situations a ‘political’ solution is required, where the interests of one group have to be weighed against the interests of another group. Exactly here is the point, where UNICEF needs to come in to represent the global consensus – based on global science, globally endorsed values, experience and understanding. People are entitled to know about this global consensus, and UNICEF can bring it to the domestic policy discourse and political decision making – regardless whether this view is welcomed by the government or not.
The world needs UNICEF, more than ever – not as charity, but to help countries to go through the debate, guided by the global consensus, to arrive at solutions that all can support.
…and as stated so aptly, it behooves governments to become member states and adhere to their dues and their duties - specifically to appoint best leaders to oversee this organization as it continues to stand like a beacon among others, due to its unique nature and purpose as mentioned, its groundbreaking initiatives and accomplishments and its ongoing crucial
ReplyDeleteDear Detlef, I agree with your piece above. While Rep in Pakistan, I convinced the PM Benazir Bhutto to fund the purchase of polio vaccine to the tune of $8,000,000 per annum. The campaign was full steam ahead and making an impact on polio. One day I was at a meeting of the World Bank with other major donors and another donor wanted to fund the polio program to be able to get some publicized credit. I countered that the government had already committed to pay its own way on polio and that their generous government should put their support in another of the many areas that needed help. Sadly, we lost the battle as they managed to force the issue and waste a good example of the national government being more responsible for its children.
ReplyDelete…role to alleviate worldwide suffering whenever and wherever the need arises.
ReplyDeleteSpot on, Detlef! I've always fought against the notion of UNICEF as a charity....but it's a tough battle*. We have always been in a unique position but haven't always known how to use it. It's easier to be the bearer of gifts and the alleviator of whatever than the conscience of the world's children and the representative of a global consensus.
ReplyDelete(* I cringed when I read "UNICEF, the UN's children's charity" in a respected publication that I thought knew better!)
The discussion of Unicef as a "charity" is not so simple. Unicef UK, as a National Committee, is registered under charity law and subject to regulatory oversight by the "Charity Commission". Legally it is a "charity", even if we dislike the alternative definition of charity as being opposed somehow to a rights approach (which it really isn't). It is not legally part of the UN, yet it uses the Unicef name and advocates for children's rights in just the way this article describes, as of course do all the NGOs listed (they don't derive their authority to advocate from being a part of the UN, but they do derive it from the norms and standards adopted by the UN, particularly the CRC). The funding of NGOs and Unicef often comes from the same sources. The main distinction is the nature of the governance of these entities. In Unicef's case, governance is by member states, whereas NGOs (including NatComs) are governed independently, which brings both relative advantages and challenges. For NGOs and for Unicef, the provision of services for children is a foundation stone for advocacy for child rights, providing evidence for better approaches and the experience and expertise necessary for effective influence.
ReplyDeleteDoing Advocacy and speaking with the authority of a UN agency is not the same. See The Universal Mandate https://xunicefnewsandviews.blogspot.com/2020/11/bubble-thoughts-2-universal-mandate.html?m=1
DeleteThanks for the link. Interesting reflections, but unfortunately quite misplaced in its understanding of NatComs. The statement that NatComs "have not consistently promoted an image of UNICEF as a human
Deleterights organization" is simply incorrect, certainly in my 17 years experience as ED of Unicef UK. The implication that NatComs don't possess the expertise needed to be effective advocates for children's rights is also wrong. And of course those experts are well connected with the relevant people in the international organisation (though I'm sure that could be strengthened further). We don't, in my view, need someone from New York to bring the authority of the UN to the UK - we just need to ensure that the international organisation backs the work of the NatCom as being a part of its mandate (and NatCom accountability comes with that).
My original point was about the negative depiction of the idea of "charity" as being some kind of neo-colonialist fund transfer exercise. This is also inaccurate. Charity is a legal term for a non-profit organisation pursuing social goals, eligible for tax exemptions, and regulated by the relevant Governmental body. Most international NGOs are registered charities and they don't limit themselves to fund tranfers or welfare provision. Amnesty International is a human rights organisation and a registered charity. When I was its CEO in the UK we fought for recognition as a charity as this gave us greater credibility.
I don't agree with the idea of appointing Reps in countries with NatComs. It is a recipe for confusion and conflict. You say "the representative is supposed to advocate, in support of the advocacy and work of the
Natcom", but it would never work that way - the hierarchy would be with the Rep and the NatCom would be undermined. Governments would be given a rationale for refusing to engage with the NatCom, which really would then be demoted into a fundraising outfit.
It is true that HICs have the capacity to look after the rights of their own children, but that doesn't mean they do it well. Hence the need to advocate for children's rights in HICs as well as globally. NatCom advocacy needs to focus on influencing children's rights in the country but also working to ensure that the HIC is supporting and promoting children's rights globally.
The collaboration and communication between NatComs and the international organisation can and should certainly be strengthened and mutual understanding improved. I have long argued that International org staff inductions should include a big section on NatComs (led by NatComs) so that all international staff can understand the role that NatComs can play in helping advance their agenda through influencing institutions, businesses and the public in NatCom countries.
Dear David,
DeleteI am acutely aware of charity laws and their equivalent in other countries. I have also not said that Natcom staff would not have the expertise to be advocates. But it makes a difference to government, whether the truth is being told by a member of an NGO or by a UN agency. I had the opportunity to work as the head of the UNICEF Berlin office, alongside the German Natocm, in a joint office for the European migrant response. Our government counterparts were adamant, that they could speak to the ‘international’ team (and not the national team) on important topics. This was especially so when UNICEF was asked to help convene partners, including numerous NGOs – for whom the Natcom was just one of their peers, while the international team was representing the United Nations.
It didn’t matter that even the ‘international’ team had mainly German members – because of language issues and the knowledge of national institutions, laws and processes. But it was important to government to have the assurance that they were speaking to a UN agency.
Look at it the other way round. Why should a Natcom be ‘good enough’ for advocacy in a HIC, but not in a last developed or middle-income-country?
Finally, I do not see why the head of a Natcom could not be a by HQ appointed and accredited UNICEF representative. The collection of funds – which presently dominates the websites of all Natcoms – could be put formally under the aegis of the associated charity. UNHCR is exactly doing this.
My comment on charity was a response to Tad's comment in the thread below your article, Detlef.
DeleteI understand that Governments sometimes feel a preference to speak to somone they think represents the UN agency more than a NatCom person. But I also think the independence of the NatComs is important. Their fundraising work is also important and should not be demeaned - they do a fantastic and important job and help UNICEF to maintain a degree of financial independence from donor Governments. NatComs know their domestic political environment, probably better than anyone in the international organisation. The two need to work together closely, but there is no reason for HQ to appoint and employ the NatCom ED or for an HQ Rep to be appointed. Solutions don't always have to be structural. If HQ fully engages with the NC in relations with its Government, the Government will see the two as different aspects of the same institution, mandate and purpose, which they are. In the UK there is now an HQ Government relations person based with and alongside the NatCom - this is good and I believe is working well. It allows full sharing of intelligence, perspectives and engagement, and the development of mutuial understanding and respect. I don't know if this has been tried elsewhere, but it could be.
Historically NatComs were established by volunteer supporters of UNICEF to promote UNICEF's mandate and values in countries where UNICEF itself did not operate. That's why there are no NatComs in MICs or LICs.
UNHCR has the equivalent of a NatCom in the UK (UK for UNHCR - a registered charity) as well as a Rep who focuses on UK refugee policy and protection, and a UK-based international private sector fundraising operation (all very confusing). UK for UNHCR raises less than £6m a year compared to Unicef UK's £100m+. UNHCR's profile and influence is very much lower than UNICEF's. It isn't a great model and I wouldn't recommend it.
Personally, I am proud to consider myself a part of the UNICEF family, alongside colleagues from NatComs, country offices and HQ, all working together in our common cause for children's rights.
I completly agree with Detlef. I was proud when in the past UNICEF was an innovator and used its intellectual capital to get others to support global policies and programs it devised. Moving forward that role is even more important. Not only UNICEF should not be replicating what International NGos can do, even the role of the International NGOs should be thought through. The work of local NGos and governments is more sustainable, less expansive and morally the right way forward. Bilge Ogun Bassani
ReplyDelete