Some thoughts on the collapse of the international aid system, the implications for UNICEF and the potential role for retirees: Paul Edwards
By Paul Edwards
United Kingdom Prime Minister Starmer’s announcement yesterday that the UK will cut its aid budget by 40% in order to boost defence spending is another sign of the collapse of the humanitarian aid and development assistance system as we used to know it. This is not just about funding, though that is serious enough. This is about the whole approach to supporting the development of countries of the world and responding to humanitarian crises. Everything that we have taken for granted, such as the UN system, the role of NGOs, the relationships with governments, can no longer be relied upon. We are truly in new territory, and it is extremely scary.
What should we do in this situation? We first need to know what is the foundation that, no matter what, we can rely on and build upon. For UNICEF that is our mandate to serve the world’s children. Arguably, there has never been a greater need than there is today, and yet we are in danger of being in the worst possible position to fulfil that mandate. So, we need a radical rethink of how we can adjust to the new paradigm and be relevant and effective. This is not about tinkering with the existing set-up. This will require the courage and determination to make radical changes, driven by the needs of the children of the world, that our mandate demands that we serve.
The problems facing UNICEF today might have been exacerbated by the recent decisions by the US, the UK and other donor countries. But the truth is that UNICEF has been heading towards this situation for some time without fully acknowledging the looming crisis. We have been content to see metrics such as the overall level of funding, the continuing increase in staff numbers, as signs of a healthy organization. Whereas in truth we have seen our ability to act as the number one agency for children eroded by the increasing politicization of donor assistance, the conditionalities of funding and the competition amongst UN agencies and NGOs for the funding available. We have always suffered from the challenge of having such a broad mandate, after all everything is about children, isn’t it? This has led us to lack focus, to try to do everything and end up with many areas of poor achievement. In a world that will increasingly demand clear results this will be fatal. The need for clear, focused, strategic, realistic UNICEF country programmes has never been greater
What role can we, the retirees, play in this process? I am sure, like me, that many of you wish to be involved. We come with some advantages but also disadvantages and baggage. We might assume that our many years of experience are a valuable resource to draw upon and there is some truth in this. But there is also danger. Have not we all been part of the system that has led us to the state we are in today? Some of us even in retirement have continued to support UNICEF offices produce country programme documents that have perpetuated the lack of focus and strategy that I mentioned earlier. How many of us have complained that most country programme documents look the same, both across countries and across time? Yet we have been the ones responsible for producing them! So, we should not assume that, now we are retired, we somehow have all the answers. Yes, our experience can be beneficial but tempered with a dose of humility.
Nevertheless, the wisdom that comes with age, together with our ability to have a certain detachment and objectivity, could be extremely useful as UNICEF grapples with the challenges of reshaping its future. Staff who are still within the system will no doubt face constraints to say what really needs to be said. Whereas a retiree can do this. It may not always be appreciated, but our aim is not to be appreciated but to be useful. And this is perhaps the time of greatest need for useful people to contribute to maintaining our organization’s mandate to secure a bright future for the children of the world.
Paul Edwards, UNICEF retiree, Dodoma, Tanzania. 26th February 2025
Great article with thoughtful insight!
ReplyDeletePaul, you are absolutely right. Let me add a twist to the discussion:
ReplyDeleteI have heard more noise from the aid industry about the funding cuts, worrying about their line of business and their pay-checks, than from the countries that are meant to benefit.
We should be asking what programme countries need, based on their own plans, and how they want any remaining assistance to be provided. I don’t think they would want thousands of UN staff sitting in HQ and regional capitals talking to each other and creating busywork for everyone. Most likely, they need better conditions under which they can develop.
The effect of aid is overrated.
Paul and friends, i agree it is better not to try and assume that as retirees, we know the answers and propose to act directly or indirectly and churn out exactly the same documents over and over again, believing that change will happen.
ReplyDeleteWhat is more depressing is that the leadership in the last three-four rounds of ExDirs surrounded by their kitchen cabinets on the 13th floor have systematically dismantled any and every part of the human rights based programming and the gender mainstreaming work. They somehow assume that having more staff from among females and from 'programme' countries will change the dynamics. So much so that even at ASG level life-long donor country staff have now documented themselves as 'programme' country staff.
Amongst the over 7000 staff who are below the ages of 40, nobody knows what CRC or human rights is all about. They completely believe in the "benovelent charity work" that they think UNICEF ought to do in LICs and LMICs.
All these will obviously lead to the question - SHOULD UNICEF really be getting any more funding?
Simplicity and straightforwardness of the unicef mission has been put through convoluted and meaningless jargon. The core of the mission has been diluted to the point that a very small percentage of unicef staff take the time to think and understand it. Structures have been triplicated with little or even less so globally recognized in-house technical expertise despite a sizable expenditure on sectoral work. I believe the current suspension of some grants and the anticipated budget cuts should be used as an opportunity to streamline and reduce triplication of structures and the unrelated jargon based divisions and functions.
ReplyDeleteI understand the desire of retirees to remain connected, if relevance is not possible. However, such connections will need to be beyond nostalgia if it were to make a meaningful contribution.