Brexit's
UN Fall-Out, Can UK
O'Brien Keep
OCHA Under
Next SG, What
Of Malcorra?
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS, June 24
--
With the world
awash in
Brexit
punditry, how
will the UK
vote to leave
the EU impact
the UN? Ban
Ki-moon came
out with a
wishy-washy
statement from
his meeting
with six ad
agencies in
Cannes,
linking the EU
with
humanitarian
and the UK
with
development.
The UK's
Stephen
O'Brien, said
by other
senior UN
humanitarian
officials to
be trying to
stay on atop
OCHA under a
Next SG, may
find it more
difficult.
And speaking
of Next SG,
how might this
impact the
chance of
Susana
Malcorra,
campaigning
for Malvinas
only this week
as Argentina's
foreign
minister? She
also chaired a
meeting about
sexual
violence in
conflict,
which some
found ironic.
We'll have
more on this.
For
now, Inner
City Press
entrance
Periscope
here. In the
UN system,
UNHCR and IOM
rushed this
video out.
At
the UN Office
for the
Coordination
of
Humanitarian
Affairs, a
Functional
Review
circulated on
June 10 by USG
Stephen
O'Brien, and
exclusively
published by
Inner City
Press
here, lays
bare (some of)
the problems
at OCHA. Examples
below.
On June
15, Inner
City Press
wrote to Ban
Ki-moon's two
top
spokespeople
and asked them
for the
UN's response
to or comment
on this
report that
the UN - that
is, global
taxpayers -
had paid for.
Neither
similarly UN
paid
spokesperson
ever confirmed
receipt of the
Press
questions.
So on
June 16, Inner
City Press at
the noon
briefing asked
Ban's lead
spokesman
Stephane
Dujarric about
it - and he
refused to
comment,
calling it a
"leaked"
document, akin
to internal
email (on
which, of
course,
comments are
often made.) Vine here.
Now we
publish the
response by
many OCHA
officials and
experts, some
of whom Inner
City Press has
previously
reported about
and supported,
when for
example they
faced de facto
expulsion from
a country.
Some tell
Inner City
Press O'Brien
is trying to
angle to stay
one when Ban
Ki-moon
leaves. Here
is the letter,
exclusively
published by
Inner City
Press:
From:
Vincent
Lelei/OCHA/FD
To:
Stephen
O'Brien/OCHA/NY@OCHA
Cc:
many
Date:
14/06/2016
01:12 PM
Subject:
Critical
observations
by the Heads
of Office on
Functional
Review Outcome
Dear Stephen,
We would like
to thank you
for sharing
the Summary of
Preliminary
Findings of
the OCHA
Functional
Review and
welcome your
leadership in
having called
for the
Functional
Review and
taking on the
difficult task
of making OCHA
more fit for
purpose.
We have many
detailed
comments to
offer on the
diagnosis and
look forward
to providing
them and
engaging in
discussions on
possible
solutions in
the coming
weeks.
However, as
some of the
preliminary
findings
appear to us
to have been
heavily
influenced by
the HQ
dynamics, we
thought it may
be useful to
share our most
immediate and
important
observations
ahead of any
next step in
the review
process,
including
ongoing
engagements.
As we are sure
you can
imagine, we
were very
disappointed
to read of the
degree of
dysfunction at
the HQ
management
level. We have
found it
immensely
frustrating
that key
issues
affecting our
field
operations -
such as UMOJA
and mobility -
have not been
responded to
with one voice
from HQ, and
that we have
been left at
field-level to
deal with
incoherent
messages on
OCHA's
direction.
However, while
the morale and
motivation of
our
organisation
may have
suffered, as
field
leadership we
have
gratefully
been spared
the most part
of the HQ
dynamics and
been able to
implement our
field
operations -
which after
all represent
the bulk of
OCHA’s staff,
work and
branding of
the
organization -
in line with
the vision and
trajectory
laid out in
the Strategic
Framework.
First and
foremost, we
appeal to you
to fix HQ
through
rationalising
and realigning
structure with
function. From
a field
perspective,
there are
simply too
many
disconnected
entities -
indeed, this
is why many
colleagues put
forward the
concept of a
Functional
Review several
years ago. To
this end, we
were deeply
concerned to
read the
diagnosis that
"formal
connections
between the
field and
relevant
functions in
HQ would allow
for improved
quality and
consistency
throughout the
organisation".
We in
the field
believe that
there is
clarity around
what is
expected from
us and how
best to
achieve this
from our line
management,
and such
clarity
empowers us to
lead our teams
and enables
effective
engagement
with our
partners in
the discharge
of our duties.
Under no
circumstance
should we
countenance a
return to the
notion of
multiple
reporting
lines from the
field to HQ.
Many of us
have painful
memories of
that chaotic
experience in
past years -
it
disempowered
field
management and
made it highly
difficult for
us to deliver
on the outputs
expected of
our offices
when our staff
were being
tasked by, and
reporting to,
different
units in HQ,
creating
diffused and
confusing
accountability
arrangements.
We can already
see this
happening in
some instances
in the absence
of formal
reporting
lines, as with
the management
of pooled
funds.
What we need
is more
disciplined
and
coordinated
engagement
with the field
to achieve the
vision
outlined in
OCHA's
Strategic
Framework, not
more reporting
lines. We are
fully
committed to
continue to be
held to full
account for
the
performance of
our offices -
through our
direct
reporting line
to CRD and
CRD's
reporting line
to you - but
will be unable
to deliver if
we are unable
to oversee the
performance
and tasking of
our teams.
In the same
spirit, we are
having
difficulties
understanding
the logic that
informs the
recommendation
from the
review team
about the need
to ensure an
“appropriate
span of
control and
balance within
the
organization”.
We trust that
this is not
implying that
there is a
need to
somehow
arithmetically
balance the
relative size
of the
different
parts of the
organization,
as this would
seem to run
counter to the
imperative of
ensuring that
form follows
function, and
to the stated
need of
keeping a
single
reporting line
for maximum
accountability
for field
operations
both of which
we feel are
imperative.
We
enthusiastically
welcome the
reference to
decentralization
of
decision-making,
and hope this
translates
into immediate
implementation
of the
long-standing
commitment
from the 2013
Global
Management
Retreat to
delegate
meaningful
administrative
and budgetary
authority to
Heads of
Office. We
also welcome
the proposal
to have
additional
surge capacity
and expertise
placed at
regional
level, in
support of
country-level
requirements.
However, we
would like to
encourage you
from the
outset to
ensure that no
additional
reporting
lines,
structures,
layers or
complications
are introduced
for us at
country-level
under the
rubric of
decentralisation.
Our current
direct
reporting line
to CRD allows
us to function
with the pace,
flexibility
and delegated
authority
(with the
exception of
finances and
administration)
demanded by
the high-paced
emergency
settings we
operate in. We
are able to
seek and
obtain
guidance and
support from
our Section
Chiefs in
real-time –
regardless of
the hour or
day – when
needed, and
hope this
light and
effective
structure will
remain in
place moving
forward. We
are all
acutely aware
of the lessons
from the Ebola
crisis, where
one of WHO's
biggest
obstacles was
its cumbersome
regional
structure, and
sincerely hope
we avoid such
challenges in
OCHA.
While we
welcome and
very much
support your
efforts to
overcome the
dysfunctional
HQ dynamics,
we were
concerned to
read the EMC
described as
an inclusive
body when it
has no direct
field
representation.
We have not
seen any
agendas,
readouts or
outcomes
circulated
from EMC
meetings,
which used to
be the case
with SMT
meetings. We
are of course
eager to know
the direction
of the
organisation
and to be able
to represent
this, and your
vision,
faithfully. We
therefore hope
that, whatever
comes next,
keeping field
management
engaged and
informed in
key
decision-making
processes will
be a priority.
We welcome the
strong
emphasis in
the report on
a revitalised
and refocused
human
resources
management
services.
However, we
were of course
very
disappointed
that the
exceptional
challenges
faced with
UMOJA roll out
was not
mentioned even
once in the
report. We
highly
appreciate
your personal
leadership on
this issue
since our Head
of Office
workshop in
December.
However, we
are compelled
to remind the
authors that
without an
effective and
efficient
administrative
services,
supported by
an effective
platform to
facilitate
field
operations in
crisis and
emergency
settings, OCHA
will
inevitably
fail in its
mission, and
fail in its
duty of care
to our staff.
OCHA is now a
serious player
in the
humanitarian
sphere. The
importance of
our mandate
needs to be
matched by the
robustness of
our
administrative
systems in
supporting the
only asset
that we have
(our staff),
and enabling
our field
operations to
function
optimally in
increasingly
challenging
locations. We
need
operational
support and
systems that
are solid from
the outset of
an operation -
not one or two
years down the
line - and
regularly
reviewed in
existing
operations.
Above and
beyond
fit-for-purpose
systems, we
need a
wholesale
change in the
attitude and
orientation of
the
administrative
support that
we receive –
one that puts
the needs of
the field, and
the treatment
of our staff,
front, back
and centre.
Please be
reassured,
USG, that we
are fully
committed to
supporting you
in ensuring
that this once
in
decades
functional
review
delivers real
and important
change for our
organisation,
at a time when
the demand for
our services
is escalating.
As those on
the front
lines of
humanitarian
action, we
will be proud
to be the face
of that
change.
Finally, allow
us to
congratulate
you on the
success of the
first-ever
World
Humanitarian
Summit – this
is a very
exciting time
for OCHA and
for the work
that we all
do.
Yours
sincerely,
Mark Bidder,
HoO
Philippines
Justin Brady,
HoO Somalia
David Carden,
HoO oPt
Bamouni
Dieudonne, HoO
Niger
Helena Fraser,
HoO Regional
Office for the
Syria Crisis
Ivo Freijsen,
HoO Sudan
Paul Handley,
HoO Ethiopia
Trond Jensen,
HoO Turkey
George Khoury,
HoO Yemen
Ute Kollies,
HoO Mali
Vincent Lelei,
HoO Nigeria
Susan Le Roux,
OiC Iraq
Sarah
Muscroft, HoO
Jordan
Rein Paulsen,
HoO DRC
Caroline
Peguet, OiC
CAR
Johan Peleman,
HoO Lebanon
Esteban Sacco,
OiC South
Sudan
Sebastien
Trives, HoO
Syria
Heli Uusikyla,
HoO Pakistan
Markus Werne,
HoO ROAP"
Here
were some of
the critique
in the report:
"The
leadership
team does not
work well
together.
There is
entrenched
polarization
and a lack of
trust among
many of OCHA’s
senior
managers, who
do not see
themselves as
part of a
single,
unified team.
This is
combined with
a sense that
everything is
a 'zero-sum'
game, which
drives what
are perceived
as 'turf
battles' and
'kingdom
building'."
"Decision-making
at the senior
management
level
generally
lacks
discipline,
transparency
and
accountability.
A lack of
transparency
in
decision-making
is felt
throughout the
organization.
Senior
managers do
not
consistently
execute
today's
documented
management
model, and
collective
discussion and
alignment as a
group do not
reliably
translate into
cohesive
action among
the members of
the leadership
team"
"The
leadership
team does not
work well
together.
There is
entrenched
polarization
and a lack of
trust among
many of OCHA’s
senior
managers, who
do not see
themselves as
part of a
single,
unified team.
This is
combined with
a sense that
everything is
a 'zero-sum'
game, which
drives what
are perceived
as 'turf
battles' and
'kingdom
building'."
The
report was
written by
Boston
Consulting
Group (BCG)
and MANNET.
And
this
contraction
has already
been raised,
between the
UN's "Aide
Memoire" to
the U.S.
Senate Foreign
Relations
Committee
saying there
is no written
records of the
underlying
January 29
meeting being
closed, and
Under
Secretary
General
Cristina
Gallach
telling Nobel
Peace Prize
winner Jose
Ramos-Horta
that her
ouster
decisions was
based on
considering an
"internal
report."
So
is it no
written
record, or
internal
report?
Was
inaccurate
information
provided to
the U.S.
Senate Foreign
Relations
Committee? Or
to Nobel Peace
Prize winner /
UN official
Jose Ramos
Horta?
The UN
Aide Memoire
says the
entire event
-- which
included UN
paid sound
engineering -
was organized
orally between
UNCA President
Giampaolo
Piolo and Ban
Ki-moon's
Spokesman
Stephane
Dujarric. So
on June 5,
Inner City
Press asked
Dujarric about
it, video
here, only
to have
Dujarric call
it a "leak" he
could not
verify and to
insist Inner
City Press
ask the
Department of
Public
Information.
The UN
"aide memoire"
also claims
that Stephane
Dujarric
orally told UN
Correspondents
Association
honcho
Giampaolo
Pioli, who
previously
demanded that
Inner City
Press remove
from the
Internet a
factual story
about his
financial
relationship
with Sri
Lanka's
Ambassador
Palith Kohona,
that the
meeting was
closed. This
is a joke;
this is a
pretext.
This is
censorship. Tweeted
photograph
here.
On May
19, a sign for
"Al Akhbar
Yom" went up
on Inner City
Press' office
- Inner City
Press has
STILL never
seen the
correspondent
being given
the stolen
office.
So on
May 20 Inner
City Press
went to get an
on the record
explanation
from Ban
Ki-moon's
spokesman
Stephane
Duajrric,
before Ban
sets out on a
campaign trip
to South Korea
(denied by his
senior adviser
Kim Won-soo).
But not only
did Dujarric
refuse to
answer the
question -
Gallach's DPI
intentionally
omitted from
the transcript
Inner City
Press'
entirely
audible
question about
Ban Ki-moon's
commitment to
freedom of the
press. The
question then,
answer itself.
This is
today's UN:
ham-handed
censorship.
The UN
says Resident
Correspondents
must be at the
UN three days
a week, but
Inner City
Press has
never seen
this person,
former UN
Correspondents
Association
president
Sanaa Youssef,
much less
asking a
question in
the UN noon
briefing.
Akhbar
Elyom, to
which
Gallach's and
Ban's MALU and
UNCA have
given Inner
City Press'
office, not
only gets
journalists in
Egypt attested
- it targets,
with a "Muslim
Brotherhood"
smear, a
journalist who
works right in
the UN. Arabic
article here.
This is
the journalism
that Ban
Ki-moon and
his Cristina
Gallach want
and reward. By
taking away
Inner City
Press' office,
it is now
required to
have a minder
and is told to
not ask
diplomats
questions.
This is
censorship.
Akhbar
Elyom has been
used to finger
for
imprisonment
non-state
journalists in
Egypt. For
example, in
July 2015
Aboubakr
Khallaf, the
founder and
head of the
independent
Electronic
Media
Syndicate
(EMS), “was
arrested after
a news article
was published
by the
government-owned
daily Akhbar
Elyoum.”
Inner City
Press has
formally
requested the
return of its
long time
shared office
and Resident
Correspondent
status, as
have 1,450
people in this
petition,
here.