This is going to be a tough one.
The country programme approach is holy to all of us. Introduced in the sixties by the ingenious Dick Heyward, it emphasized (i) the responsibility of the host country to take care of its children; (ii) the situation of children in the context of a country’s socio-economic status and national and global goals; and (iii) the roles of different sectors in the overall wellbeing of children and the enjoyment of their rights.
It is a long story, and there are many good reasons why UNICEF developed – and arguably mastered – the country programme approach. For many, it explained why UNICEF is so much better than any other organization under the sun.
- The reform of the United Nations Development Group – aka UN reform – destroyed the understanding that UN agencies would help governments to live up to their role to safeguard the rights and welfare of their people. The reform put the onus on the UN agencies to ‘deliver’, and left governments off the hook.
- UNICEF is no longer able to usefully analyse the socio-economic situation and the political environment that furthers or hinders the wellbeing of children. The all-out view of the entire situation of all children in a country was interesting, when little was known about those foreign distant countries, and analyses usually started confirming that Burundi is a landlocked country. I haven’t seen any new country situation analyses prepared by UNICEF for a long time.
- The recognition of the ‘role of different sectors’ in addressing specific child rights issues was arguably best understood in the UNICEF nutrition framework. Scholars will talk about it 100 years from now. Now, UNICEF shrouds the admittedly complex realities of today in bizarre visuals and theories of change with cross-cutting and multi-dimensional elements that do not even quicken the pulse of their authors. I have learned – and so may you - that the typical UNICEF counterpart is a politician - and not a gender-sensitive and results-managing public health economist, with inter-sectoral visions of participatory budgeting, community capacity development, life-cycle approach and rights-based policy and legal reform frameworks on his mind.Having lived outside the bubble, I realise that development is problem solving – one or few problems at a time, whenever they capture the fancy of public.
The selected objectives would be the core of the rolling strategic plan. The plan, only a few pages long, explains how UNICEF prepares itself for the task. Funds would be allocated to offices in countries that still struggle with the problematic issue. Countries would not be able to dodge the subject, if they wish to avail themselves of UNICEF funds. Rich and neighbouring countries would be called to task if they are part of the problem or the solution.
The Executive Board would decide on the list of 5 to 8
results every four years. Allocations follow a formula considering the extent
and severity of the issue, the number of affected children, and the country’s
GDP. To have the Board agree to the change of allocation formula is not an
unrealistic proposition. UNICEF has overcome much bigger hurdles.
My tentative selection of concerns that UNICEF could adopt
for a period of the Strategic Plan, next to life-saving measures in emergencies
would be: Education and integration of migrant children, eradication of FGM, ending
open defecation, Learning with Covid, children in Institutions, and good
parenting including peaceful conflict resolution.
I am sure you have your priorities. I never understood why,
but I know you want to keep them to yourself.
 |
| Lyrics by Bob Dylan |
Sounds like music to my ears! wish this would be true as soon as possible. Enough to fantasize about the country Programme approach. I have never seen a 5-year evaluation of any CP. Just check the annual reports of any country office finalizing its cycle. They will always report on what was done that year, but never what was achieved as per their proposed CP.
ReplyDeleteCountry approach is as decadent as a bigot that insists in not realizing at least the benefits of jumping into regional options.
Wishing the best to more dynamic and broader approaches
Not sure which is more disappointing: Detlaf's article or Ivan's comment. The CP and SitAn have been excellent instruments - but only as good as HQ/ROs/CO managers require them to be. Done well, they can be - and have been - robust tools for planning, monitoring, and reporting - making a defined and measurable difference for children. That there has been a shift speaks volumes of UNICEF's shifting capacities at senior management levels.
ReplyDeleteI’ve always thought that a five-year planning cycle is far too short to achieve change-for-the-better, whether it is within the UN system or within a political system such as in the UK. However, when tied to a particular system, it is probably better to manage that system rather than change it because one doesn’t have the management skills to make it work for the objectives.
ReplyDeleteIf UNICEF/the UN was unable to manage the Country Programming System effectively, doesn’t that tell us something about the management skills available to UNICEF/the UN ? A change in the system won’t suddenly provide enhanced management skills for whatever system replaces it. This sounds rather like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
The CP approach is the best development method (diagnostic & action), the problems have been capacity & political both in UNICEF structures and governments. In few years , they will come back ...history repeats.
ReplyDeleteRead your article and am confused about next steps in Unicef programming …I remember we did mid- term review- another time consuming bureaucratic process , so that gets eliminated?
ReplyDeleteWhat would be the benchmarks for for the 7-8 goals set by the Board for country support- government’s indicators?
Will the Situation analysis stay or go? Sree
Tough one yes, but not crude,
ReplyDeleteFor long the CP you have poo-pooed;
Hope your OpEd wont be misconstrued
Like UNICEF giving world's children all that food.
Your articles have XUNICEF members glued
To their PCs to read what news has accrued.
You've peeled off the layers and the Emperor stands in the nude,
I dont want to sound lewd
Nor am I naive and a prude
So wish not to be misunderstood.
Or even be royally sued.
The CP and SitAn have solidly stood
For decades and have been true'd
Although much tweaking has them both flued.
We dont need to fret and brood,
Much of what we accomplished has been good.
Whether in country, village or neighborhood.
So thank our Founding Fathers and touch on wood
I am sure that they well understood,
UNICEF has done what it could
Not always what some of us would
Nor what we all thought it should.
I hope that this ditty improves our collective mood.
Organizations die eventually, or become of little relevance.
ReplyDeleteThought provoking indeed. Will politics ever replace enhanced capacity or the other way round ? They go hand in hand and ends up in a catch 22 situation. The ultimate sufferers are the children most in need of the services.
ReplyDeleteSaid Detlef while hurling his spears,
ReplyDeletethe CP is long dead my dears
but as theres no one to fix it
so like a stale sea biscuit
it will be mixed with water and tears!!
But seriously, our seniors lost the battles that were waged in the corridors and meetings hosted by the UN Reform folks, assidiuosly attended by bottom feeders like the UNDP to the myth of one analysis, one approach and yes, in the end one budget!! And on the other end, the INGOs were stealing our clothes and language, post retirement, I actually volunteered for an INGO on the Rohingya response to get a sense of how they do things: they are pretty good first responders, but not great at the more structural stuff. Also, they deploy a Childrens Crusade so bags of energy and thats great but relatively light on the interface with local/national structures and actors and sometimes, cultural understanding...In this regard, the fact that we deploy national professionals is a real plus...
Samphe Dorje Lhalungpa
Retired from UNICEF but not LIFE