Before I joined UNICEF, I thought that any project had to do
with the construction of a shopping center, and a programme was supposed to tell
you the sequence of events in a variety show. Meanwhile my kids had projects in
kindergarten and in high school, and I began to wonder how humankind ever
learned to walk upright without a clear programme of action and carefully coded
inputs, activities, outputs, short- and long-term outcomes, low- and high-level
objectives, inter-sectoral strategies, purpose, goals, expected immediate and
strategic results, and an all-encompassing vision.
Most people do not think in projects or programmes. The only time I hear real
people talk about projects is when they plan to paint their dining room.
As development agents, we are helping our - real-life - national partners to
solve problems. We select a problem that is bothering both of us, we help to
analyze it, and we suggest steps that our partners should undertake to sort out
that problem. And when our advice involves action that our partners cannot
afford, we provide some money and call it a programme.
Clearly, we are dealing with big and complex problems. We don’t have all the
answers to all the causes of the problem, and we don’t have the money to finance
all the action. Thankfully, our national partners can rely on many more experts
and donors than just us. Our collaborative efforts are bound to make a
difference.
So then, as we all sit around the table to discuss the problem and its solution,
someone walks in and demands to know our short-term outputs and medium-term
results, the strategic intent, the low-level inputs and cross-cutting themes,
the project-level-objectives, the component outcomes, the long-term strategy and
the immediate effects, and what’s the purpose of it all.
What would you do?
--…?
Exactly. When reviewing an UNDAF or a CPD, I would be looking for coherence, and
whether the proposals make sense. As long as our contributions logically add up
to the solution of the problem, let’s not confuse ourselves with knotty
terminology.
(16 May 2003)