nextThe new CCA/UNDAF guidelines are out.
Prepared over the last couple of months by an inspired inter-agency,
multi-lingual, gender-balanced, multi-ethnic team of upper-mid-level UN staff,
consolidating lessons and inputs from everyone who cared to comment.
Ok, the guidelines are a consensus document with all the associated
deficiencies. But they are non-controversial, politically correct, employ
reasonably plain language and don’t contradict agency specific procedures.
And now the headache begins…. The roll-out monster is going to take its toll on
precious resources, travel budgets, and staff time.
And I wonder: Why can’t the Resident Coordinators, Country Representatives, and
Senior Programme Officers just download the guidance and get on with it? Why do
they need another bunch of facilitators, trainers and consultants to read the
guidelines to them?
Is there anybody who would not understand that to achieve agreement on the
analysis of a situation is the first step in programming – something the CCA is
meant to do? And why would anybody think that country representatives should not
sit together, prioritise and divide up the needed work among their agencies –
which the UNDAF is about? What do facilitators know that we don’t expect studied
and experienced representatives and senior staff to know as part of their
regular work?
I am going to talk this training business over with my buddies. And decide
whether we need a facilitator to structure our discussion[1].
[1] I am supportive of well designed learning strategies for new staff that may involve training. But why would any team with a collective development experience of over 50 years need training whenever some rules change?
(21 November 2003)
previous
next