The scandal shook the UNICEF bubble. The USA had forced a vote on the five UNICEF Country Program Documents that the Executive Board intended to approve on a no-objection basis.
That the CPDs got approved by 31:1 votes must have been clear to the US delegation before they even raised their objections. Meanwhile, four delegations from programme countries must had gone shopping, because they even abstained from abstaining. Following the vote, 13 delegations, some on behalf of many more countries, expressed their collective indignation, condemned the USA for forcing a vote on the CPDs, defended the practice of not-objecting to a UNICEF-tabled CPD, and passionately pledged their unwavering faith in UNICEF and the country programme process.
I also was shocked - because:
- There is nothing wrong with voting. Most delegations protesting against the vote would otherwise want to vote all the time. Except, inter alia, Eritrea that hasn’t had any national election for the past 30 years, but is a voting member of the Executive Board and has a lot of experience in dealing with objections.
- The practice of approving a CPD on the basis of 'no objections' was not adopted to demonstrate unanimity among the Board Members, but because of the exigencies of the approval process. The earlier two-step process allowing discussions and revisions got contracted in unison with the introduction of UNDAF/UNSDCF and the rigor of the Strategic Plan that made all CPDs look alike. As total allocations are determined by a formula, there really is nothing left to debate and approve by the Executive Board, and the CPDs could as well be abolished.
- The original intent of the CPD was to determine whether a country was serious about its own reform plans and hence worth of being provided with funds. Regrettably, none of the members of the Executive Board seemed to be interested in plans of the host government. For example, one could have asked the Iraq delegate how the Iraq government is going to protect young girls after Iraq’s parliament very recently passed amendments to the country’s personal status law that give Islamic courts increased authority over family matters, including marriage, and which opponents say would in effect legalise child marriage. One could also have asked UNICEF, how exactly the 5.9 million USD flexibly earmarked for its own effectiveness (representing 77 per cent of all Regular Resources) in Iraq make any national intervention to stem child marriage more effective.
- Board members seem to have delirious assumptions about the current programming process that they believe ensures country ownership. During my many engagements on CPD preparation during and after my time at UNICEF, the programming process increasingly became a convoluted, purely internal process that resulted in unspeakable generalities and platitudes crafted by consultants sitting in their home office. The best one could hope for was that no senior government official would object to what UNICEF would write.
Boards should provide oversight. This meeting was troubling not only because of the misguided US intervention, but also the display of the Board Members' blind faith in existing UN procedures, which prevent a thoughtful discussion about how programme countries can make serious progress.
I totally agree the Board should vote and the process is very flawed relative to the original intent of a CPD. The other more shocking thing was USA delegate using the DEI card - that since the US hates to hire people based on diversity, equity and inclusion - then any UNICEF document where a WORD SEARCH churns up those words - should be banned. I think this was a pre-text for USA to do this next week at WFP board any other board - and to use it as a reason to slash their contributions. One can only hope that as UNICEF reels from this shock - and the budget cuts to follow - the belt tightening will shake up the way UNICEF does business. We cannot have donors fund a model where 49% of international staff in the world are sitting at a HQ or Regional office location? We need to look at our business model and streamline the layers and steps we create. We have a great asset in our natcoms - but are they thrilled with our top heavy approach?
ReplyDeleteAlot to think - i just wish we had the fortitude to think about our way of working without having to get kicked in the head at a EXBRD meeting. We have financed millions in studies on our structure - the BOOZ ALANS and all - but do we ever learn?' A glimpse of the new strategic plan looks like business as usual.
You suggest that the CPD process is not very relevant – for all the reasons you listed.
ReplyDeleteIf the USA is sufficiently motivated to vote against the process, maybe the time has come for Members of the Board to consider the relevance of having a US National as the ExDir, by default.
Yes, the CPDs in this form have become totally irrelevant.
DeleteAll those who spoke up at the latest Board meeting should collectively urge the SG, at the end of Russel’s term, to appoint as ED a national from a middle income country, who knows what it takes to get a country from low-income to middle-income status – even if it results in a reduction or loss of US ODA to UNICEF. An ED from a programme country is more likely to cut out self-serving bureaucracy, identify and reduce inefficiencies and pet projects, and be interested in real results. The aid industry would not have to react to Trump’s antics, but be in the driving seat.
Was the CPD ever relevant?
Delete@ Anonymous. The CPD was relevant 50 years ago, when it was written by the host government, explaining what it is going to do about a problem. It was a contract between the UN and the host government. Today it is a piece of paper, written by consultants hired by UN civil servants who have a hard time understanding what this is all about.
Deletefinally some introspection!
ReplyDeleteFor those of us old enough to remember and still with a working memory, UN Reform and the way UN Agency leaderships took what little prospects it held for a more focused, cost effective, values driven UN and drowned it in the framework of over complex frameworks typified by what passed for the UN working as One. The CPDs later were more the product of inter agency, govt word smithing which in passing muster by all, also made is mush for all. Now Trump and his insurgents are getting on with the deconstruction of what they see as an over arching secular, Liberal democratic ideologies and programmes that to them, could spell the end of White America. The major corporates are now also busy scrubbing their public and private references to Climate Action, DEI etc. Which really speaks to their original espousal of same values and approaches as being nothing more than skin deep. What then of the UN and UNICEF, multilateralism is the arch nemisis of the Ultra Right and its armies of the Night, there is a point beyond which we cannot bend, because we will break. So, can we de-link from the US? Relocate to Bonn ( there was an offer once), scale down programmes and wait out this phase, though I beleive that the US landscape may not be the one we now know. And yes, time to do away with the unofficial official norm that UNICEF has always got to have a US national. The other story is the increasing role of other rising economies like China who are also in their imposing costs and barriers to the UN's work. No time to wring hands. Time for evasive actions and new alliances.
ReplyDeleteI left UN service before the UNDAF/UNSDCF era but recall hearing about it from friends working in South Africa - they hated it.
ReplyDeleteIt seemed like a certain megalomania took over in trying to make the UN think it could plan and execute far beyond its actual capacity/credibility.
UNICEF was actually launched in 1946 slightly before UNDP (end of 1965) and got off to a better start, having good will and a clear reason to exist.
Its first Director set the tone with regard to who to assist by stating that he could not ask a child what its politics where before deciding whether or not to help.
This allowed it to work on both sides in cases where civil strife/war deterred others from getting involved.
A report in 1969 by a group headed by Sir Robert Jackson, recommended that UNDP try to adopt/follow local planning priorities.
After that UNDP tried, perhaps too hard, to accommodate itself to local political priorities; and, this seems to have deprived it of a clear identity and policy.
It appears to have struggled to decide if it was: to fund technical assistance; be the anti-poverty agency; be the sustainable development agency; be the head of an orchestra, etc. Or maybe just be an alternative (or an opposition) to the World Bank.
Below is what the founders of UNICEF successfully launched:
The asset of good-will, however, would not have lasted if UNICEF had not achieved credibility through its work.
In its first eighteen years, this credibility was predominantly the handiwork of its first Executive Director, Maurice Pate.
Pate imbued the organization with three main characteristics - a spirit of self-criticism, a willingness to learn from “experience, and a deep sense of trusteeship for the funds contributed to it”.
In addition he firmly established UNICEF as a field-oriented organization, keeping the headquarters role to the minimum necessary.
Maurice Pate would not recognise UNICEF to today. Rarely self-critical. Not learning - doing the same things over and over. And hardly field oriented - almot 50% of international positions, especially those P5 and above - are clumped at Regional and HQ level. Back in 2000 I was deployed to support a Regional Office - it consisted of 1 RD and 3 senior advisors and maybe 5 or 6 support staff. Maybe 10 people - that same Regional Office has exploded to consist of: 140 staff of which 100 are P5 to P3. What more programming for children are we delivering in that region with 140 staff than when we had just 10? Our business model is top heavy, multi layers and sluggish. The belt tightening will be ugly.
DeleteToo bad Germany is not a middle income country, otherwise I'd support Detlef's nomination as ED. Given Trump's actions (or is it Musk?) in recent weeks, a non-USA ED might happen sooner than we might have expected. Thank you again Detlef for yet another thought-provoking piece.
ReplyDeleteIt begs the question - why spend a year working on a 5 year CPD? Then "implement" for 2 years, then do an MTR for a year and change it, then implement a year then go right into the 1 year process to prepare a new CPD - not to mention this entire process for the new UN Cooperation Framework goes on in parallel to this and absorbs a huge amount of UNICEF staff time as we do most of the heavy lifting in that process as well.
ReplyDeleteThe above suggestions amount to rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. That has been tried several times over the years. It did not help Africa catch up. Aid, the way it has been provided over the past 60 years, has not worked. We refused to admit the obvious even as Africa kept falling further behind. We have claimed that GDP per capita is a crude indicator, that may be so, but most Africans would like to get wealthier, not relatively poorer. But we knew better and produced framework after framework from the comforts of the skyscrapers of New York as Africa got relatively poorer. It is time to admit that we failed to help Africa develop. There would be ways to provide aid that would further economic growth. GDP per head has always been the best single indicator for development, it's time we stop denying that.
ReplyDeleteThere is some truth to this. If you look at the countries that developed fast over the past 100 years, it was always done by growing the economy, which was then followed by better nutrition, healthcare, sanitation, education, etc. It started a virtuous spiral of growth and social development. The Western development experts working for the aid agencies advocated for doing it the other way around in Africa.
Delete