So, what`s the problem?
The organization has no heart and soul anymore. There is no clear purpose. No clear comparative advantage to other UN entities and child-focused, international NGOs. There is no engine-room, or narrative, that keeps the organization together and gives it a distinct identity. There is just more money. Most likely, not because UNICEF is getting better, but, simply, because the world became richer. More money makes the organization bigger, but not necessarily, more relevant. The problem is that UNICEF is about to become just another UN organization, just another UN bureaucracy.So, what`s the solution?
Well. It is not HQs’ Strategic Plans. They are too diluted, too inclusive, and too general, because in good democratic tradition, they are negotiated internally with every corner of UNICEF and, then, with the governments that happen to sit on the UNICEF Board. It is not UNICEF’s Regional Priorities lists. Today, countries within each region are just as diverse as they are globally. I lived and worked in the Latin America and Caribbean region for 25 years, and I cannot think of a list of regional priorities that fit both Haiti and Costa Rica!The solution is still the CP, but a very different one.
Current CPs are prepared with - and requested by - the host government and mainly aim to support short-term programs which aim to get the party in power re-elected in next national election. They support governments more than children.
Current CPs are negotiated with some 20 other UN entities, members of the UNCT, with overlapping and competing mandates and agendas to UNICEF. Current CPs are reduced to be instruments for implementing components the UN Sustainable Development Cooperation Framework which are approved by the host government and the Resident Coordinator. Current CPs support RCs more than children and are, finally, approved by an UNICEF Board consisting of a random collection of government representatives with a minimum interest and understanding of Child Rights.
It’s been sliding for decades, but, today, UNICEF finds itself hostage to host government’s short-term agendas, Board Members’ backwards gender and reproductive health policies and, unfortunately, too mingled up with other UN bureaucracies at HQ, regional and national levels.
UNICEF should go back and take a fresh look at the key documents that justify its existence:
- The UN Charter
- The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
- The Convention of the Rights of the Child
UNICEF is not supposed to be reduced to be just another entity supporting governments short-term programs.
States have three powers:
- Legislative (parliaments)
- Judiciary (courts)
- Executive (president or prime minister and ministries)
The new UNICEF CP should be based on the “suggestions and general recommendations transmitted to the State Party” by the Committee of the Rights of the Child every five years (Ref. Art. 45.), and become an instrument to support the financing and implementation the Committee’s recommendations. UNICEF’s identity should be to always promote and defend Child Rights, regardless of Governments’ and other UN entities priorities.
This approach and new governance structure would also be the basis for eliminating the current artificial distinctions between “donor and program countries” as well as “UNICEF Committees and COs”. For UNICEF, all countries should simply be Member States with an obligation to comply with the CRC.
A UNICEF presence in countries all over the world, beyond the control of host-governments and other UN bureaucracies, could also make the way for UNICEF as a “Billion People Movement”. A movement of “we the peoples” from all corners of the planet who support the CRC: The beneficiaries of our programs, our individual donors, members of civil society organizations as well as private enterprise. UNICEF needs to use its convening power and new technologies to connect all these people in a Global Movement in support of Child Rights. (Let`s build on the lessons learned from the half-hearted, abandoned intent to create a Global Movement for Children in the 90ties.)
UNICEF should not accept to be diminished to become just another UN agency, merely contributing to the plans of the winners of the last elections in programme countries. It needs to be the World Champion of Child Rights.
How much time do we have to get there? Probably, less than 10 years.
Without urgent action, before we know it: UNICEF Reps will report to RCs. Before we know it, the Board will assign UNICEF General Resources to RCs and not to UNICEF Reps.
Without urgent action, there is probably no UNICEF – as we knew it – by 2030.
This article is part of the XUNICEF News and Views Quarterly Newsletter, December 2021.
Given the way the UN is treated by the powerful countries it is not just UNICEF even the existence fo UN in its entirety is in danger.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Bernt, for candidly sharing your fears for UNICEF and some ideas for safeguarding it. Although at first, your reflections seem provocative and recommendations impractical, I happen to fully share your concerns and find some of your proposals very creative and worth seriously exploring. But who will bell the cat? The UNICEF Secretariat cannot initiate it, the Board will oppose it, the UN Secretariat will try to sabotage it, the CRC Committee will be very lukewarm thinking this would add to its already heavy workload.
ReplyDeleteThe only possible way I see such an overhaul even being contemplated would require a group of very eminent "Friends of UNICEF" - like The Elders Group - to be formed (by whom?) to do an independent analysis of UNICEF's present, past & future and to come up with a compelling report and recommendations, along the lines of Bernt's ideas. If UNICEF had a dynamic and daring leader - like Jim Grant - he/she could find a creative way to make such a proposal - as he did with the "Initiators" when he dared to convene the World Summit for Children. Alas, I do not see that happening in the foreseeable future.
On Bernt's worries about UNICEF Rep's being reduced to serve as specialist aides of the RC, this is already beginning to happen. Some of DSG Amina Mohammad's recent directives envision the RC as a super-UN ambassador, and the other UN agency Rep's as his/her subject-matter assistants. Some RCs are now already preventing or dissuading UNICEF Reps from meeting Heads of Govt/State or even senior Ministers; attending high-level meetings of donors at the country level; accessing VIP lounges at airports, etc. It is conceivable that some large NGOs like Save the Children, World Vision, etc. may have easier access to govt leaders than UNICEF Reps, if current trends continue. And if the RC gets embroiled in some political issues or controversies (as this is bound to happen when dealing with politically sensitive issues - e.g. good governance, electoral assistance, human rights, etc where the incumbent govt perceives the RC as being closer to the agenda of its opposition parties, the whole UN might suffer.
This is an issue that UNICEF leadership at the highest level needs to take up - very delicately and skillfully - with both the S-G and member-states, before thee DSG's well-meaning push to strengthen the RC system inadvertently runs the risk of weakening the effectiveness of the whole UN system, including UNICEF. Grant & Bellamy were able to skillfully protect UNICEF when similar proposals were floated in the past in the context of UN reform and "One UN". I am not sure the current UNICEF leadership is fully aware of this risk on the horizon, and daring to challenge it - constructively, I know some UNICEF Reps' are already feeling the pinch.
The ‘pinch’ was felt by many representative and many staffmembers already 20 years ago. Some of us have been raising concerns, since 2002, with the leadership of UNICEF about the course of the reform of the UN Development Group. At the time, as UNICEF’s programme focal point, I was told not to obstruct anything, as it would damage UNICEF’s reputation. I can only conclude that the leadership of UNICEF had no knowledge about the operational framework at the country level, and its implications for UNICEF programming. When I later fought, as Representative in Albania, epic battles with the RC about the issues we are decrying here, and raised alarm with the Regional Office and Headquarters, I got zero support. Independent thinking and analysis was not welcome. UNICEF leadership, and most senior and middle managers in UNICEF, wanted to go mainstream. That’s where we find UNICEF now.
DeleteUNICEF preferred to welcome friends who were glorifying UNICEF’s past. The other friends, who saw the writing on the wall, have been driven away for the last 20 years.
I am afraid that UNICEF will not be able to pull itself up by its own bootstraps, nor with the help of any imaginary friends. It requires a larger effort, where the aid industry and the role of the UN Development group as a whole will have to be reassessed.
Kul and Detlef,
ReplyDeleteMany thanks for mindful comments.
As Kul points out, the drive for One UN, UN Coherence and Strengthening of the RC function has, inadvertently, lead to a weakening of the UN system at country level. When I was back as LAC-RD in 2019-2020, it was painful to have to conclude that in many countries, the UN and UNICEF were irrelevant, or even worse, young people demonstrating in the streets, regarded the UN as part of the political order, as part of the problem, rather than an entity presenting solutions. For UNICEF the consequences of UN Reform, are close to catastrophic. The process of preparing our Country Programs has slipped away from our Reps and RDs. This process is now controlled by RCs and interagency set-ups who are not guided by the CRC, but driven by a desire to get ``likes`` by the host-government.
Detlef is right that there were no lack of warnings sent from the field to HQs about the impact of increased UN bureaucratization and UNICEF loosing of the control of the content of CPs, but, unfortunately, HQs did not understand, or have been unable to engage Board Members and donor countries in productive discussions.