nextWhat 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