After 32 years with UNICEF (and a total of 41 in the "development game"), I retired this past December. The Division of People and Culture (formerly DHR, and Personnel before that) dubbed this type of departure a "voluntary separation"—an option to leave ahead of first retirement age (62) during these times of upheaval.
I feel grateful for this incentive that allowed me to free up my post and make room for mid-career staff who had their posts abolished - and to exit with my head held high. It is a shame more staff didn't take the opportunity to leave so close to retiring; perhaps we were just lucky with the timing. My heart goes out to the thousands of staff currently facing immense stress; for those in the early and middle stages of their careers, this period is a brutal hardship. There are many lessons to be learned from how the herd was culled this time. More on that later...now to the cats....
As part of my "post-UNICEF therapy," I’ve been seeking out new hobbies to fill the time. Our first mission was to travel at our own pace and establish a base that makes exploration easy. We chose to return to Albania, where I served as Deputy Representative from 2006 to 2011. We fell in love with the country then and vowed to return—and here we are.
Of course, moving is only the first step; one needs meaningful engagement. Sundus and I have been busy reconnecting with old friends, making new ones, and embracing the Balkan pace of life: slow walks and frequent coffee stops (there’s a café every few meters in Tirana!). I even joined a gym for the first time. It felt strange at first, but waking up old muscles, swimming laps, and hitting the steam room has been wonderful for both body and soul. Oddly, I have not thought about UNICEF once since I left - the newness of retirement has filled my life, for now.
The best part of life in Tirana, however, is the travel. With frequent low-cost flights, improved roads, and ferries, the options to access Europe are limitless. However, as new expats seem to arrive each day in Tirana - it seems the secret is out. Our first excursion took us to the southern coastal city of Saranda, followed by a short ferry to Corfu and onward to Athens.
We are currently on the final leg of that trip. If you haven't visited southern Albania or Greece, I highly recommend a "shoulder season" journey. Spring is the sweet spot—nestled perfectly between the winter lull and the summer beach season (June to August) crowds. The weather is flawless right now.
I’ll admit, I’ve struggled a bit with dodgy internet connections while travelling and getting used to the Blogger tools while transitioning into my new role as XUNICEF editor, but I’m learning as I go. Please forgive any mistakes - let us not allow the aim for perfection to spoil the soup. Our goal is to make this a less arduous task for everyone; we want to move away from editors needing to hold hands and more toward a platform where contributors submit ready-to-post material. It doesn’t have to be perfect, and the photos don’t need to win a Pulitzer. Just write from the heart and share your world. It is far easier then a donor report, an annual report or a results based submission to the RAM or UNINFO (the dreaded UNRC version of RAM).
To kick things off, my first post features the wonderful cats of Greece and Albania. The Greek and Albanian people look after their street cats with such communal care; they seem to belong to everyone. I think you can tell alot about a nation by how they treat their animals.
Enjoy - and share your stories and pics!
 |
| Athens - by a church |
 |
| No cats here - but Sundus and I with Acropolis behind us. |
 |
| Catropolis. |
 |
| Award for most gorgeous. In Corfu, Greece. |
 |
| Corfu cat - well fed and self groomed. Olive tree for good measure. |
 |
| Hard to reach places. |
 |
| We both have pink noses and white hair. |
 |
Empress Elisabeth of Austria, known as Sisi (or "Ceci"), famously built the Corfu Town, this neoclassical villa was designed as a summer retreat dedicated to the Greek hero Achilles. |
This ginger enjoyed the Palace views.
 |
| Look very close. |
 |
| Not a cat - but segway to Saranda, Albania - magnificant macchiato on the water front. Corfu looming on the horizon. |
 |
| Not a cat - but honourable mention dog. Albania has made huge strides in spaying/neutering street dogs and making sure they are cared for. Well done! |
 |
| Fish mongers and their overlord.. |
 |
| The wonderfully looked after ruins on Butrint in Albania. With cats. |
 |
| Skenderbeg would be proud of this cast - keeping a sharp eye for encroaching enemies. Butrint is an amazing archeological site in southern Albania. A must see. |
You seem to recovering well from UNICEF!
ReplyDeleteVery nice!! I don't know Albania. Greece, Corfu or Albania, I hope to be able to travel again - once I find a new apartment, Will contact you for advice.
ReplyDeleteHey Luis, long time no see. have followed some of the photos you and Rashid have taken. The thing to avoid in Greece and the Balkans is to plan to avoid the summer months - (June to August) and aim for like March to May or Sept/Oct - as the summer season is too hot and too crowded. For me spring is perfect time.
DeleteAlbania sounds more like an ideal holiday/retirement location than a UNICEF duty station.
ReplyDeleteTo be honest - there are many UNICEF duty stations that are tourist destinations: Vietnam, Kenya, Tanzania, Thailand, South Africa, Mexico, South Pacific, Sri Lanka, the list goes on and on and includes the Balkans - imagine if there was a tourism tax in all these countries to finance these countries' services for children? The entire UN family could go home in those locations and childrens' lives may progress on a better trajectory than using DCT and HACT?
DeleteRob, you make good points. History suggests that improvements in social welfare have followed, rather than preceded, periods of economic growth. When societies begin to produce more wealth, people eat better, live longer, invest in their children’s education, and gradually build the institutions that support public health and social protection.
DeleteBy contrast, development strategies that attempt to reverse this sequence, constructing social service systems in the absence of a growing economic base, have struggled to deliver results. In many cases, the aid community has searched for “magic bullets”: interventions that promise to leapfrog structural constraints, only to discover later that they fade away once external funding declines, or produce consequences that were not anticipated.
None of this is to dismiss the importance of social services; they are indispensable. But historically, they have tended to flourish when supported by an expanding economy. It is time, as you suggest, to restore a more balanced perspective, ensuring that we once again place the horse of economic development firmly before the cart of social provision.
I have been thoroughly impressed with progress made in Albania - especially under the government in power since 2013. This progress had nothing to do with the work of the United Nations (I was UNICEF Rep in Tirana from 2009 to 2014). The UN was marginal. Many government officials and staff were switched on, smart and determined. They were driving change, not the UN.
ReplyDeleteAre there many examples where the UN drove change and development?
DeleteRegretably, I can't think of any
DeleteIt might be worth pausing for a modest moment of reflection and self-criticism. Institutions rarely find themselves under such scrutiny as the UN development system by pure accident. For many decades, it has enjoyed considerable support from taxpayers in wealthy countries. That support rested on the assumption that the system was making a meaningful contribution to development and poverty reduction. When that confidence begins to erode, it is too simplistic to attribute it solely to shifting political winds.
ReplyDeleteHow did the system arrive at its present position? Donors do not normally reduce budgets or quietly contemplate closing institutions if they are firmly convinced that those institutions are delivering strong results and driving real progress.
Institutions, like individuals, occasionally benefit from a degree of self-criticism. Honest reflection about why things did not work out as planned might be more useful than assuming that the problem lies elsewhere.
After all, development success has, looking back at history, been driven by national leadership and economic change, as Detlef suggests in the case of Albania. The obvious question becomes: how could we have done better?
Thomas - there were voices in UNICEF (mine included) years ago questioning why we had record income yet our growth was concentrated in upper level posts in HQ and the regional office--it was an absolutely insane growth trajectory or posts and levels in those 2 locations - at its peak half of the international staff in the world were based in HQ or Regional office locations - HALF. Those of us who questioned it were publicly rebuked and may have had our careers plateaued. UNICEF could have, alternatively, invested more at country level and moved towards a model that would engage more with governments on economic growth fueling services for children. Instead of that we mired ourselves in pet projects, UN frameworks and flying in Natcoms, celebrities and donors. We missed a grand opportunity to engage differently for children. What we are doing now - in the ashes of the cuts - is something totally different. I cannot honestly comprehend wby most governments pay attention to us - other than out of some nostalgic sense of brand recognition and the UNICEF funds sweeten the pockets of a few. I agree with Detlef - living right now in Albania as a retiree - Albania has moved forward tremendously since I left in 2011 - and in no part was that due to UNICEF or UN .
ReplyDeleteRob, thank you for such a candid reflection. That level of honesty is refreshing, and in truth, the system would have benefited from hearing more of it much earlier. Voices raised concerns over the years, but in hindsight, they were far too few to influence the institutional trajectory in any meaningful way.
DeleteLarge organisations inevitably encounter difficult issues, like corruption, fraud, and even cases of sexual abuse. No institution or company is immune. The real test of governance is not whether such problems occur, but how they are addressed. When dealt with decisively, transparently, and with appropriate consequences, they can be contained and credibility maintained. When handled without transparency or resolved quietly through internal arrangements, they tend to accumulate and erode confidence.
Governance also matters. Executive leadership naturally shapes the direction of any organisation, but boards exist precisely to provide oversight, strategic guidance and, when necessary, restraint. At times, the balance between these roles may not have worked as well as it should have.
Donors, too, were of course very much part of the broader ecosystem. Many of the underlying issues were rather visible, and continued financial support inevitably reflected a certain level of acceptance of how the system was functioning.
None of this diminishes the commitment and hard work of the many colleagues who genuinely tried to make a difference. But institutions benefit from moments of honest reflection about what might have been done differently. If the present upheaval leads to a better understanding of past poor choices, something constructive might emerge.
@ Thomas: on governance. I have not seen that executive leadership in UNICEF has significantly shaped the direction of UNICEF; it rather went with the flow drifting along with the waves of misguided UN reform. The Executive Board had long given up providing meaningful oversight or strategic guidance. The board and major donors to UNICEF were not interested in the effect of development expenditure. If a board member and donor country approves a few hundred million Dollars of expenditure for five years for certain countries, shouldn’t one expect a report of how the money was spend and what came out of it? For the big donors, it was easier to send their money to a UN organization that seemingly was beyond scrutiny, than to send it to some government or local initiative with all its associated headaches.
DeleteMany senior positions in UNICEF are currently held by nationals of countries that continue to face profound governance and development challenges. Diversity, equity and inclusion in staffing are, quite rightly, core principles of any United Nations organisation. Representation matters, and the system should reflect the diversity of the world it serves.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, diversity should not become an objective in itself. The overriding consideration must always remain competence, managerial capacity, and the ability to deliver on UNICEF’s mandate in the service of children. At times, one cannot entirely dismiss the impression that the balance between these considerations may occasionally have been inverted.
A simple thought experiment may be useful. If an impoverished African country were suddenly to find itself blessed with both capable leadership and significant new resources, it seems unlikely that its first instinct would be to seek policy advice primarily from neighbouring states facing similar governance and development difficulties. More plausibly, it might look to countries that have, within recent decades, demonstrated a strong record of rapid and effective development.
Examples may include Singapore, South Korea, China, and Taiwan, societies that have transformed themselves within a short historical period. Albania, judging from what has been mentioned above, might also qualify as a good source of advisers. UNICEF never had many staff from these countries.
Perhaps this is a reflection worth keeping in mind when thinking about how international institutions assemble the expertise needed to deliver on their mission.
Controversial, but interesting points. One might also reflect on whether staff drawn predominantly from North America and Northern Europe are the most natural “development experts.” They have grown up in societies where prosperity, institutions and welfare systems were already firmly established. As a result, their professional experience often begins with managing distribution rather than understanding the far more difficult process by which wealth, productive capacity and functioning markets are first created.
DeleteThere is also a sociological dimension. Those from these regions who gravitate toward multilateral organisations tend to come from the political left of their own societies. This naturally inclines them toward policies that prioritise redistribution. Yet history suggests that development does not begin there. In most countries that successfully reduced poverty, sustained economic growth came first; social protection systems followed later, once there was something meaningful to redistribute.
None of this argues against social services or equity; both are vital. But redistribution in the absence of growth is a limited instrument. If the economic pie remains small, dividing it more carefully and equally will achieve little. Development, as history repeatedly shows, depends first on expanding that pie.
We all remember the countless national strategies and national action plans that were drafted with UNICEF help – but never funded by the national budget, because the governments and parliaments did not find the money.
DeleteDetlef, intellectual migration toward the political centre seems to be a reliable occupational hazard of prolonged exposure to development economics, national budgets, and encounters with reality. Some of us began our professional journeys with an elegant belief that redistribution could solve most problems. After a few decades of observing how economies actually grow, how governments actually spend, and how incentives actually work, many gradually developed a certain sympathy for the old-fashioned idea that wealth must first be created before it can be redistributed.
DeleteThe process is rarely dramatic. It tends to occur slowly, almost imperceptibly, somewhere between the third national development strategy that nobody funds and the fifth donor coordination meeting that produces another beautifully worded framework that no one follows. At some point, one begins to suspect that economic growth might deserve a slightly more prominent role in the story.
With a little more empirical observation and perhaps a few additional case studies from East Asia, we may yet see you complete your journey toward the political centre. In development circles, this might qualify as a successful example of gradual and sustainable reform.
Thomas, I don't know where you place the political center, but I will gladly stay a bit to the left of it.
DeleteYour remark is a little puzzling, which is unusual coming from you. The difficulty with declaring where the political centre lies is that it can be moved easily. If I simply place the centre far enough to the right, even you would suddenly find yourself standing to the right of it. I suspect that may not be the destination you intended.
DeleteFor that reason, it might be wiser not to move the centre around too much. The old advice attributed to Gautama, "Buddha's middle road", was probably designed precisely to avoid confusing the political geography.
The above conversation could be summed up as follows: Donor governments face a dilemma. Direct engagement on the ground requires time, administrative effort and close oversight. It can involve difficult conversations with partner governments and exposure to operational setbacks. Channelling resources through established multilateral organisations such as UNICEF offers a comfortable alternative. The funds are entrusted to a respected institution with a strong global brand, and the political and administrative burdens of implementation are delegated. In such arrangements, donors may not insist on rigorous scrutiny of results.
ReplyDeleteThe Executive Board, in principle responsible for oversight and strategic direction, has been more inclined to endorse programmes than to challenge them critically. Senior management, for its part, has often adapted to prevailing development fashions and reform agendas circulating within the broader UN system.
Recipient governments, meanwhile, tend to maintain a diplomatic posture. Openly questioning programmes financed by external partners can be uncomfortable, even when the effectiveness may be poor.
In this configuration, two groups remain largely absent: taxpayers in donor countries, who ultimately finance the system, and the intended beneficiaries in developing countries. Neither has had any voice in assessing whether resources were used effectively.
Within such an environment, institutional incentives drift. As funding expanded, a significant share of organisational growth occurred in headquarters and regional structures, where senior positions multiplied. From an internal career perspective, this was obviously rather beneficial; however, it created a situation where resources were not aligned with objectives or field-level impact.
Seen in this light, the present moment of financial pressure and institutional reassessment may not be entirely surprising. When systems evolve over long periods without sustained scrutiny of incentives and outcomes, reality eventually has a way of reasserting itself.
A better summary might be that the whole exercise resembles Kabuki theatre: a carefully choreographed performance where the actors appear busy and virtuous, while Western taxpayers and African children see little improvement in the final act.
ReplyDeleteI like the most simple summary of the busy bees and donors and children not getting much ?? All this due to some cat photos in Greece?
DeleteA Harder Look at the Record of Our Wonderful Organisation
ReplyDeleteAn AI‑generated political and economic assessment of development in Africa summed up the situation as follows: “While many African countries have stagnated or even declined since independence, others have made progress. Botswana, Mauritius, and Rwanda have shown improvements in governance, health, and economic development. However, the continent as a whole still faces deep challenges, and the gap between African nations and the rest of the world has widened, especially when measured against GDP per capita, education, and healthcare access.”
It is a bleak summary, and the reasons behind it are undoubtedly complex. History, governance, geography, conflict, global economic structures, and domestic policy choices all play their part. Yet it remains difficult to argue that foreign aid has delivered the transformative impact its advocates once promised.
Some will respond that conditions would have been even worse without aid. Perhaps, but this is ultimately impossible to prove, and many prominent African economists and political scientists have long challenged that assumption. Their point is straightforward: after six decades and vast sums of money, the burden of proof should rest with those claiming success.
Africa has received the largest share of development assistance from the wealthy world. Over the past 60 years, this support has amounted to trillions of dollars in various forms. It is also the region where UNICEF has invested most heavily. If any part of the world were to demonstrate clearly the power of sustained development assistance, it should be Africa.
And yet the overall record remains poor.
None of this diminishes the countless individual achievements: children vaccinated, schools built, water systems installed, and humanitarian crises mitigated. These efforts saved lives and alleviated suffering, and the many dedicated professionals who carried them out deserve respect. But the uncomfortable question persists: has the collective impact matched the scale of the resources deployed?
When XUNICEF bloggers refer to “our wonderful organisation,” one has to wonder what exactly they mean. It is difficult to believe they are referring to the development outcomes described above.
More likely, they are recalling how wonderful UNICEF was to its tens of thousands of staff and their families. For many of us, working for the organisation was indeed life‑changing. It offered meaningful work, international exposure, financial security, and the privilege of engaging with global issues. There is nothing wrong with acknowledging that reality.
But that was not why UNICEF was created.
The organisation was established to serve the world’s most vulnerable children. Its mandate was not to provide fulfilling international careers, however rewarding those careers may have been, but to improve the lives and prospects of those with the least power and opportunity.
Institutions benefit from honest self‑reflection. Development agencies have often been more comfortable celebrating successes than rigorously examining shortcomings. Yet without a clear‑eyed assessment of what worked, what failed, and why, genuine learning becomes impossible.
This is not an argument against aid, nor against UNICEF. It is an argument for humility.
If we truly care about the children we set out to serve, we must be willing to scrutinise our own record with the same rigour we apply to the policies of governments and partners. Sentimentality about institutions may be comforting, but it does little to improve outcomes.
Honest self‑criticism is not disloyalty. On the contrary, it may be the only way to ensure that the next sixty years produce better results than the last.