Recent PBR Decisions - Everybody's On the Road Again?

We heard from several staff this week on their concerns about the massive reorganization efforts underway in UNICEF. Some asked whether so many shifts in geographic locations and in reporting structures were really necessary given the disruption and costs involved. Others asked whether the changes linked in any serious way to a global vision of children's needs and a review of where and how the existing structures are falling short.

 
A particular concern raised was over the 'de-structuring' of the programme division and the creation of what seems to be a new bureaucratic layer of 'global technical teams' and 'multi-functional technical teams' located in various cities.

 
Interestingly the consultants who laid out the proposal claim that there would be considerable savings in costs each year over the present.

The starting point for much of this process seems to be the 'G12 report', a.k.a. The Road to 2.3 Billion: From Some to All of March 2021.  

If you would like to read more about the more recent Headquarters Efficiencies Initiative (HQEI) which ultimately led to these PBR recommendations, you can find the related documents here.  

Finally, you may want to reread Detlef Palm's article of April 2021 concerning the G12 report.  

Summary of main recommendations by the PBR

1. The PBR endorsed the recommendation to establish a Headquarters hub in Istanbul and a smaller one in Nairobi.
   
   
2. Merging OoR (Innocenti) and OGIP: The PBR reviewed the progress on the proposed merger of OGIP and OoR-Innocenti. The PBR agreed that the merger would position the new office as the “go-to centre” for data, evidence and research relating to children. The PBR endorsed the proposed new structure.
   
   
3. PG: The PBR endorsed the proposal to move the proposed functions to Istanbul. The PBR recommended that PG reconsider the proposed move of some positions to Geneva and suggested Istanbul as an option.
   
   
4. Relocating DAPM to Florence: DAPM presented two scenarios to the PBR, with some functions possibly moving to Florence (preferred by DAPM) or to Istanbul. The PBR endorsed the preferred scenario, subject to the Government of Italy’s support for a larger UNICEF presence. If no such support is secured, then DAPM would focus its efforts on moving to Istanbul.
   
   
5. EMOPS: The PBR endorsed the relocation of the proposed functions to Istanbul. EMOPS requested additional core funds to convert some existing OR-funded positions in line with the Humanitarian Review. The PBR noted that the additional funding requested was currently beyond the affordable amount.
   
   
6. PPD: The PBR acknowledged the need to strengthen the capacity of the Brussels office; however, given limited core resources, the PBR endorsed minimal strengthening at this time, and will consider the request for additional positions and reporting lines at an upcoming ad hoc PBR meeting.
   
   
7. GCA: The PBR noted that a separate meeting will be necessary to review the individual components of the Digital First initiative. The PBR acknowledged the need to strengthen UNICEF’s internal communication and staff engagement capacity. Given limited core resources, the PBR endorsed minimal capacity at this time.
   
   
8. PFP: The Division is conducting a broader review of its structure as part its ‘future proof initiative.’ The PBR recommended that PFP consult closely with OED as the exercise progresses and when exploring a European lower-cost location closer to markets. The PBR noted that PFP is exploring the options of using Budapest and Valencia for some of its support functions.
   
   
9. OIAI: OIAI submitted a proposal which included some relocations to Budapest and minor adjustments to positions, which the PBR endorsed. OIAI highlighted that it was continuing to look at relocation options, including continuing to move posts currently in the team to lower-cost locations.
   
   
10. Ethics: The PBR supported the Ethics Office proposal for core funding to establish additional positions, in view of an increase in case numbers; however, given limited core resources, the PBR endorsed minimal strengthening at this time.
    
    
11. Evaluation: The Evaluation Office presented several relocation scenarios to the PBR and requested that the decision be deferred until the DAPM and PG proposals to possibly relocate to Florence are confirmed.
    
    
12. DFAM: The PBR noted DFAM’s proposal to relocate the Contributions Unit to Brussels. The PBR advised that all positions involved in cash-based programming, including those within DFAM, EMOPS and PG, should be considered for co-location.
    
    
13. Legal: The PBR supported the request and endorsed one additional position, given limited core resources. Additional positions will be established from other funding sources (SD and PFP funds, linked to supporting those Divisions).
    
    
14. Strengthening regional supply capacity: As a cross-cutting initiative, Supply Division requested to fund regional supply positions. The PBR could only endorse minimal strengthening at this time, due to limited resources, and requested further analysis on the capacity of supply resources at Country Office level.
    
    
15. DFAM and GSSC provided an update on the proposed creation of the NYHQ Central Service Centre (CSC). The PBR noted that consultations would continue toward developing a business case and an Office Management Plan. The PBR appreciated the clarification that the CSC’s scope would exclude strategic operations, which would remain within NYHQ Divisions/Offices, and that the CSC would leverage the highly skilled and experienced GS staff currently in NYHQ. It was emphasized that the CSC would need to be funded from existing financial resources as no additional funding is available. The PBR endorsed the recommendation to build on the work done by the Programme Group in this area. The PBR requested that further details on the scope, plans, and the timeline, are shared with staff.