The Joint is Jumping…

What years of programming advice couldn’t achieve - namely to be mindful of what others are doing and possibly join up in some purposeful action for a common result - is suddenly creating its own momentum. Country Teams from Eritrea, Sudan, Tanzania, Sri Lanka, Yemen, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Angola, Pakistan, Somalia, and former Yugoslavia, among many others, can’t wait to engage in joint programmes.

It’s a phenomenon worth pausing to reflect upon.

If reduction of transaction costs to host governments was the aim, then 8 Joint Programmes aren’t going to be more helpful than 4 agencies pursuing 2 programmes each. At least, in the latter case, agencies wouldn’t be in each other’s way, and there would be no need to sign volumes of inter-agency agreements. There also would be no need to mingle concrete results for children into conglomerates of woolly objectives reflecting as many agency mandates, MDGs, donor wishes, and summit resolutions as you can possibly make out. Staff from all agencies would have the time to talk to governments about the best possible actions and decisions for children, rather than merely talking to themselves. So much we knew already.

But now, many Joint Programmes seem to come in addition to what agencies were supporting already. While UN agencies worked hard to focus and reduce the number of programmes and projects, many new joint projects are created to take care of specific donor contributions and preferences. Our judgment – whether and when a joint programme makes good sense and is helpful for coordinating interactions with host governments – is at risk of being clouded by the prospect of money.

Let’s continue the analysis for one more minute. Clarifications and exemptions from policy and procedure on joint programming have mostly been sought to accommodate special donor conditions. Notwithstanding any OECD-DAC recommendations and best practice papers, donors from BMZ over CIDA to GFATM insist on their own and different disbursement methods and reporting requirements, which clash with the UN system’s common and harmonized procedure at every turn. “Jointness” and “harmony” seem to be applicable to UN programming only, not to donor operations.

Is it too early for the UN system to send out a loud and joint message, that it is now up to the donor agencies to comply with the harmonized UN procedures for fund management?

(19 November 2004)

previous         next