nextBrowsing through my notes of the MTR-MTSP reference group
meeting, I cannot but agree with Sam Bickel who observed beforehand: everybody
wants more focus, but everybody also wants their specific priority included.
Three regions reported that the present MTSP was not for them, at least not the
girls-education part of it. Is this so, because these regions weren’t part of
the consultations three years ago? Or is it, because the regions significantly
progressed and now got all girls into school? Wouldn’t this be good news to be
celebrated in Dubai?
And I worry about the worries of those regions and countries where the girls’
education priority doesn’t apply. Be happy, I say. Haven’t you got your hands
full tackling the other four corporate priorities? Why would anyone want to
split our meagre resources over five instead of four programme areas? And then
go on about insufficient staff capacity? As for the education officers, promote
them to Ethiopia, Afghanistan, or Croatia to help us meeting our corporate
goals.
It is hard to see how an education officer, a malaria expert, a polio
eradication specialist, an obstetrician, and emergency officer, a lawyer, a
water engineer and an economist can all agree on the same priority. The broader
the framework, the better the chances for everyone to contribute something, but
the less concrete or tangible the results. This is a clear dilemma in our
corporate planning, because more flexibility and more focus are conflicting
demands and cannot be reconciled. Indecision appears to be the key to
flexibility, and focus implies making tough choices about what not to do.
This, by the way, is exactly the dilemma that befalls the preparation of any
UNDAF by UN Country Teams. If all agencies had their MTSPs, we could ensure that
they focus on complementary contributions in support of the Millennium Agenda.
Such delineation of organisational responsibilities and organisational
strategies would help our staff when negotiating the UNDAF. And it would help us
to stay more focused on our comparative advantages.
(4 June 2004)
previous
next