I came across this piece of interesting news: U.K. Pulls Plug on United Nations Spending, in Move That is Bound to Hearten U.S. Critics Buried in the story are 2 startling revelations for anyone concerned about disasters. The UK has decided to no longer fund these programs:
1. U.N. International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR): which describes its goals as "to build global awareness of disaster risk reduction benefits."
2. UN-HABITAT: which works to "promote socially and environmentally sustainable towns and cities with the goal of providing adequate shelter for all."
This is troubling because disasters are a growing problem. Scientists have shown that climate change will lead to more powerful disasters that will affect the poorest countries in the world. Millions across the world will need better housing and better preparation for disasters.
The secretariat of the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) has taken note of the Multilateral Aid Review issued by the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development (DFID) and is preparing a formal response based on a thorough review of the report.
Chart: How the UK rates various agencies
1. U.N. International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR): which describes its goals as "to build global awareness of disaster risk reduction benefits."
2. UN-HABITAT: which works to "promote socially and environmentally sustainable towns and cities with the goal of providing adequate shelter for all."
This is troubling because disasters are a growing problem. Scientists have shown that climate change will lead to more powerful disasters that will affect the poorest countries in the world. Millions across the world will need better housing and better preparation for disasters.
One can look at the UK's cuts in 2 ways. First, as an ideological move by the ruling Tories to limit spending on the UN and other international organizations (The Tories and their conservative counterparts in developed countries are wary of international institutions). Second, one can see the cuts as an objective, non-partisan move aimed at improving how the UN spends its money.
To be honest, I don't know what to make of the cuts. I have studied the UK report and it is hard, for an outsider, to ascertain whether its findings are (a) objective, non-partisan critiques of waste or duplication at the UN, or (b) ideological critiques aimed at reducing the UK's foreign aid spending.
What will be interesting to watch are two things:
1. How will other countries (especially European countries that have elected conservative governments) respond to the UN report. Will they follow with their own cuts in UN funding?
2. How will the 8 UN organizations that the UK has labeled as poor respond to the criticism (the picture below shows how various UN agencies were rated by UK analysts).
It is critical that the agencies respond quickly and accurately to this criticism. They should admit any missteps but at the same time, should be ready to address unfair, ideologically based critiques that may arise from this report.
It is not a coincidence that Fox News is the only US news outlet that is covering this story. The writer knows what makes his audience tick: a story critical of the UN which also shows a possible path for reducing the US commitment to the agency is popular with some isolationists who are fans of the controversial news channel.
In fact, on several message boards that cater to a more radical interpretation of conservative dogma, the funding cuts are being celebrated. On Conservativeforum.com, Freerepublic.com, the news has been greeted with elation by strong critics of the UN. The 900 comments on Fox News express joy and a desire that the US follow in the UK's footsteps. You can scan the comments and you can see that among these groups, the UN is far from popular.
The 8 agencies need to work together and make it clear (to ordinary people in the US and other developed countries) what they do. Many in the US can easily understand what UNICEF does.
However, grasping what UNISDR, ILO, UNESCO, UNIDO, and others on the chopping block do is hard (even for I who has interned at two UN agencies). Constructive cuts based on non-partisan analysis are fine. However, agencies need to guard against reactionary cuts rooted in isolationist and in-ward looking policies.
Specifically, I am looking forward to clear response from the UNISDR in the coming weeks. Currently, it has issued a measured response that I have quoted below:
The secretariat of the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) has taken note of the Multilateral Aid Review issued by the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development (DFID) and is preparing a formal response based on a thorough review of the report.
UNISDR is cognizant that the decisions contained in the report are based on DFID’s assessment of the effectiveness of its contributions to 43 multilateral organizations; the end objective – to ensure that the United Kingdom gets maximum value for money from its contributions to multilateral organizations.
The secretariat regrets the negative impression conveyed about its work in the DFID report and will carefully review these assessments to learn from the evidence presented.
Notwithstanding, since 2009, UNISDR, aware of the needs to further improve its performance, has taken a number of measures to this end, including independent evaluations from audit mechanisms, from within the United Nations and via an external body.
The secretariat also works closely with a number of countries who have made it possible for UNISDR to invest in improving its performance. UNISDR welcomes the commitment by the Government of the United Kingdom to provide disaster risk reduction support to selected countries where it will have a genuine impact on climate change and poverty reduction.
I understand the need to tread lightly in their response to a major decision. But the statement above is hard to understand.
Future responses should on this issue should be in plain language that the average joe like me can understand. The responses should (a) clearly articulate, to the average person, the valuable work UNISDR does, (b) outline improvements that are being made, (c) defend/counter-argue against unfair, ideology based criticisms.
I understand the need to tread lightly in their response to a major decision. But the statement above is hard to understand.
Future responses should on this issue should be in plain language that the average joe like me can understand. The responses should (a) clearly articulate, to the average person, the valuable work UNISDR does, (b) outline improvements that are being made, (c) defend/counter-argue against unfair, ideology based criticisms.
Chart: How the UK rates various agencies
