nextAre there irreconcilable views about quality programming?
Senior programme officers were recently quizzed about the relevance of quality
standards UNICEF in programming. Several respondents commented that the
compliance with quality standards requires time that they don’t have[1].
But there was the Government delegation, which complained that many annual
action plans between UNICEF and themselves remained of poor quality and unsigned
for five months into the year. How would you react if you booked a 12-day
vacation cruise, and you spent 5 days in the port discussing where to go?
But it’s more than that. If we can’t agree on an annual action plan on how to
spend some small-time UNICEF money, what are the chances of giving timely and
agreeable advice to Governments and the rest of the development community on
PRSPs, National Development Plans, SWAPs and NPAs?
Lack of own diligence was bravely reported by some respondents to be the main
reason for failing to integrate gender concerns.
And then there was the Country Programme submission that explained a good lesson
but didn’t apply it in the proposed new programme. And so on...
Isn’t it part of the core of our work to provide quality planning advice, to
promote gender analysis, and to apply lessons? And while it seems to be a widely
accepted fact that UNICEF staff do not have the time to write, I am getting
worried when we may not even have the time to think.
[1] This is a very widely shared view. The survey is available.
(3 July 2003)
previous
next