nextOne Executive Board session that I don’t want to miss happens
in June, when the draft Country Programme Document for Zimbabwe will be
presented for consideration.
Now that we have a beautifully worked out harmonized CCA/UNDAF and programme
preparation process, it seems to have fallen flat on its face in one of its
first applications. Preparation of the CCA and UNADF got deeply entangled in
Zimbabwean politics and the politics about Zimbabwe. There is no agreed CCA or
UNDAF. Agency representatives disagree over the length of the proposed country
programmes. Several scenarios are being discussed:
The agencies will present CPDs of five-year duration without any CCA, or with a CCA that skirts the main development issues. Some donors may be unwilling to support full length Country Programmes that are not based on an “honest” common assessment.
The agencies will present bridging CPDs of one-year duration. This is a declaration by the agencies that they haven’t figured out the main development challenges in Zimbabwe, in spite of being there for the last 20 years. And is there any hope that we know better 12 months from now?
The agencies prepare a one-year or full-length CPD on the basis of a CCA that does not have the agreement by government. But can government implement a programme that is based on an analysis government hasn't agreed to?
Agencies submit programmes of different length to their Boards. For instance three years. Or two? Why not four years? Nothing is going to be harmonized.
Will the donor-members of the Board refuse to approve a CPD
until we manage to write a CCA that points at the manoeuvres of Mr. Mugabe and
his executives as the major source of misery, and have the Zimbabwe government
signing it at the same time? Will the donors lambaste us as spineless
bureaucrats without capacity for deeper analysis?
The only thing that is certain is that with the amounts of money that the donors
may be willing to approve for our CPDs, we cannot influence the current
leadership in any major way or sort out the political mess. To become only a
little more influential on the political front, we don’t just need a simplified
and harmonized UN programme process, but we also need the combined donor
resources to back up our negotiations. With the promise of a couple of hundred
million dollars to support land and sector reform, the UN could negotiate and
programme differently.
Meanwhile, we cannot ignore the poor people of Zimbabwe, just because we can’t
deal with Mr. Mugabe. But will the Board members hear the voice of the
marginalized and poor people of Zimbabwe who don’t want to be punished twice for
living under a totalitarian regime? And while we plan ahead and try to help the
lives and growth of children orphaned by AIDS, we all may ponder whether more
united donor backing of the UN would have helped in rationalizing the political
debate before hell broke loose.
(5 March 2004)
previous
next