I understand the document is a summary and we don't have the details of the analysis that has gone into it. However I can't help thinking that this is tinkering rather than a radical shake-up, and I fear that tinkering is not going to be enough. I am also concerned that this financial/operational document is not clearly linked to an adequate statement of strategic direction. I have my concerns about the draft Strategic Plan in any case, but don't see adequate linkage between the two documents. For example, there is no discussion on priorities for funding and what is the absolute minimum to be delivered with core (IB/RR) resources. Should IB be cut or should it be defended as the minimum functioning of a UNICEF office when no other funding exists. If so, what are the agreed core functions of such an office? There is no discussion about RR and how to balance using RR to cover salaries and office costs not covered by IB versus programming needs. There is no discussion on the nature of OR and how its increasing inflexibility and short-term nature impacts on the financial planning and ability to meet cross-cutting costs. There is no discussion on the nature of the humanitarian/development funding divide and how this impacts UNICEF's ability to deliver the different types of programming. There is no discussion about how much of the funding is passed on to implementing partners, both government and NGO, and whether this approach enhances or diminishes UNICEF's ability to delivery on its mandate. The paper assumes a 20% cut in overall funding. This should be broken down but also there should be some scenarios. What is the overall cut is greater than 20%, or if there is a greater cut in RR with a smaller cut in OR? In short, I feel that there is a missed opportunity here, to reposition UNICEF both financially and programmatically. Without such a clear statement that shows we have clarity on what we should do and how we will fund it, I fear that the remaining donors will look elsewhere.
Paul, you have too many questions. I suggest that all posts with post numbers ending with 1 and 6 be abolished and the incumbent terminated. In the unlikely event that the thus cancelled post is absolutely necessary, the next in line shall be promoted to this post, and his/her post be abolished. This method will result in a 20 per cent reduction of staff, without any bias, in line with the expected reduction of funding,
Also, Figure 7 omits that staff are not only outposted to Istanbul and Budapest, but also to Valencia, Barcelona, Brussels, Stockholm, Helsinki, Tokyo, Seoul, Berlin, Rome, Washington, and possibly a few more that I can’t remember.
If you are a member of XUNICEF, you can comment directly on a post. Or, send your comments to us at xunicef.news.views@gmail.com and we will publish them for you.
I understand the document is a summary and we don't have the details of the analysis that has gone into it. However I can't help thinking that this is tinkering rather than a radical shake-up, and I fear that tinkering is not going to be enough. I am also concerned that this financial/operational document is not clearly linked to an adequate statement of strategic direction. I have my concerns about the draft Strategic Plan in any case, but don't see adequate linkage between the two documents.
ReplyDeleteFor example, there is no discussion on priorities for funding and what is the absolute minimum to be delivered with core (IB/RR) resources. Should IB be cut or should it be defended as the minimum functioning of a UNICEF office when no other funding exists. If so, what are the agreed core functions of such an office?
There is no discussion about RR and how to balance using RR to cover salaries and office costs not covered by IB versus programming needs. There is no discussion on the nature of OR and how its increasing inflexibility and short-term nature impacts on the financial planning and ability to meet cross-cutting costs. There is no discussion on the nature of the humanitarian/development funding divide and how this impacts UNICEF's ability to deliver the different types of programming. There is no discussion about how much of the funding is passed on to implementing partners, both government and NGO, and whether this approach enhances or diminishes UNICEF's ability to delivery on its mandate.
The paper assumes a 20% cut in overall funding. This should be broken down but also there should be some scenarios. What is the overall cut is greater than 20%, or if there is a greater cut in RR with a smaller cut in OR?
In short, I feel that there is a missed opportunity here, to reposition UNICEF both financially and programmatically. Without such a clear statement that shows we have clarity on what we should do and how we will fund it, I fear that the remaining donors will look elsewhere.
Paul, you have too many questions. I suggest that all posts with post numbers ending with 1 and 6 be abolished and the incumbent terminated. In the unlikely event that the thus cancelled post is absolutely necessary, the next in line shall be promoted to this post, and his/her post be abolished. This method will result in a 20 per cent reduction of staff, without any bias, in line with the expected reduction of funding,
DeleteAlso, Figure 7 omits that staff are not only outposted to Istanbul and Budapest, but also to Valencia, Barcelona, Brussels, Stockholm, Helsinki, Tokyo, Seoul, Berlin, Rome, Washington, and possibly a few more that I can’t remember.