nextAt the last meeting of the Executive Board, one speaker said
that his country’s support would cease to agencies that may not actively engage
in harmonization. What was he trying to say? And to whom? Is there evidence that
we are not actively supporting harmonization?
Given the like-mindedness of this donor with others, there is reason to believe
that the speech was about joint programmes. The donor seemed to imply that there
will be no more funding if we don’t engage in joint programmes. But then, if we
do engage in joint programmes, we may not get money either, because it might be
given to another agency administering the joint programme.
This is the hour of the day, where I am getting a little tired of the
discussion. Especially as the donor belongs to the group of donors who are
genuinely concerned about the poor and vulnerable, and the underdogs of this
world. Can this donor afford to walk out on UNICEF? Can he really walk away from
the staff of an organisation, who are still recognized as doing great field
work, risking their lives, trying to be innovative, and are working as close to
the communities as you can get as an UN organisation? Exactly this field
presence was lauded by two other donors at the same meeting of the Executive
Board.
And what do we make of all this, at the same time when we are reaping bumper
incomes every year?[1] Just last week, two Country Offices prepared
stand-alone programme submissions because they bust their ceilings. And another
donor wants UNICEF to administer his entire funding to multilaterals in a
certain country, for the full UN programming cycle.
Trying to read all those signs together, we seem to be far too defensive. Can we
not pursue good programming and good joint programming at the same time? At the
end of the day, we may be winning on all fronts. Perhaps, we can do joint
programmes and run with all the money. Who knows. We only need a vision to grab
these opportunities. Life smiles on the daring.
[1] The additional income is mainly OR. And so will be any funding for Joint Programmes.
(18 June 2004)
previous
next