AN ANALYSIS OF THE RESOURCE MOBILIZATION FUNCTION

JIU/REP/2014/1AN ANALYSIS OF THE RESOURCE MOBILIZATIONFUNCTION WITHIN THE UNITED NATIONS SYSTEMPrepared byGopinathan AchamkulangareJoint Inspection UnitGeneva 2014United Nations

JIU/REP/2014/1Original: ENGLISHAN ANALYSIS OF THE RESOURCE MOBILIZATIONFUNCTION WITHIN THE UNITED NATIONS SYSTEMPrepared byGopinathan AchamkulangareJoint Inspection UnitUnited Nations, Geneva 2014

iiiEXECUTIVE SUMMARYAn analysis of the resource mobilization functionwithin the United Nations systemJIU/REP/2014/1The objective of the review was to examine the status of resource mobilization in theUnited Nations system organizations and identify good practices. The aim was to: (a) mapout the existing resource mobilization strategies/policies; (b) identify experience and goodpractices related to their implementation; (c) explore the coordination within and amongentities in their headquarters locations and in the field; (d) review the functioning andstaffing of resource mobilization units/offices; and (e) seek to understand the perspectiveof major member State contributors.Main findings and conclusionsThe report contains five recommendations, two of which are addressed to the legislativebodies of the United Nations system organizations and three to their executive heads.Lessons learned and good practices are offered in chapter VI.Of the 28 organizations reviewed, 5 do not have a formal, comprehensive organizationwide strategy for resource mobilization, although most have policies and procedures inplace; 5 are in the process of developing their strategies. Elaborating a strategy helps toavoid sending different messages to donors and to forestall “in-house” competition; helpsto avoid piecemeal efforts and to prioritize the need to strengthen capacities and efforts;creates a sense of ownership and accountability, thus leading to better-planned, up-frontpipeline resources; helps in allocating resources where they are most needed; andultimately leads to comprehensive programme delivery and impact. The activities of theexecutive head, the board and the legislative body constitute an enabling environment forsuccessful resource mobilization (recommendation 1).Organizations should put in place clearly identifiable structures and arrangements withprimary responsibility for resource mobilization for the systematic implementation of theresource mobilization strategy/policy, monitoring and regular updates. The existence andsize of the structure in place vary from one entity to another. Organizations which havelarge portions of their revenue coming from voluntary contributions have separatestructures for dealing with the private sector, as they have realized that the skills neededare different from those required for the member States (recommendation 3).Most donors agree that the United Nations development system needs long-termcommitments in order to effectively plan, programme and deliver its assistance. Multi-yearcommitments on the part of donors enhance predictability of resource flows, andunearmarked or lightly earmarked funding provides for a better allocation of resources tomandated programmes and activities. “Structured financing dialogues” withinorganizations could be useful in this regard in order to agree on a set of results to beachieved during the strategic planning period and on the level of financing required andways of financing the agreed results.Resource mobilization is no longer looked upon in purely transactional terms; it isperceived as attentive nurturing of a lasting relationship with donors as partners, requiringeffective communication strategies and continuous dialogue and back-end servicing.However, the review found that the ratio of non-assessed to assessed contributions has

ivexpanded significantly in recent years, consequently restricting the use of funds andresulting in more intensive scrutiny and demands from donors for extra reporting. MemberStates make exhortations to themselves routinely about the need for enhancing coreresources. Most donors maintained that while strengthening core resources was indeed adesirable goal, many factors worked to shift them towards non-core contributions: theneed for visibility and attribution; pressures from parliaments, media and taxpayers ingeneral for greater accountability; the inability of some of the United Nationsorganizations to oversee and report on core funding in a satisfactory manner; increasedscrutiny of budgetary, audit and parliamentary authorities; and growing concern regardingvalue for money and results-based management of organizations and their expenditures. Itbecomes easier with specified/earmarked contributions to ensure that funds are alignedwith the donors’ own priorities.Specified contributions pose a major challenge to the imperatives of long-term strategicplanning, sustainability and prioritization for the organizations; they often lead tofragmentation of mandates as donors’ priorities may trump organizational or legislatedpriorities. It is recognized by many donors that long-term predictable funding facilitateslong-term planning and more efficient delivery of programmes. Integrating resourcemobilization targets into strategic plans and programme budgets leads to more successfulresource mobilization.Furthermore, most donors base their funding decisions on their own assessments of theeffectiveness of the organization, its ability to serve the donor’s policy priorities andinterests, its results-based management system, prospects for policy dialogue with itsexecutive management, the organization’s strategic plans, accountability and transparency,and related factors. There is a direct link between the results that organizations achieveand the types of funding that they receive. External studies by some major donors haveserved as wake-up calls for many organizations, encouraging them to undertake seriousintrospection, improve procedures and practices and make efforts to achieve greaterefficiency and effectiveness.The review also found that the dependence of most organizations on a small number ofdonors for the overwhelming part of their funding continues to persist. The emergence ofnon-traditional donors, both State and non-State, seems to have done little to alter thesituation. Widening the donor base to include non-State entities such as private sectorcorporates, philanthropic foundations and high-net-worth individuals has implications forthe working of the organizations: the need to put in place mechanisms for exercising duediligence, transparency and accountability.Risk management has emerged as a critical area for resource mobilization as organizationshave to deal with enhanced risks associated with raising resources from non-State entities.Due diligence processes and procedures for dealing with potential fraud, misconduct,misappropriations and financial wrongdoing are high on the agenda of both organizationsand their donors. While donors would like the organizations to absorb all the costs ofmitigating the extra risks, the latter would like to pass on to the donors at least part ofthose costs. In many organizations, the due diligence process is performed by the sameindividuals who are mobilizing resources from the entities subject to the due diligence,which represents a conflict of interest. Designating separate units which perform duediligence with the involvement of other departments will prevent such conflicts.Streamlining the performance of common due diligence steps so that they are not repeatedseparately by each organization would increase efficiency (recommendation 4).

vRestrictions by the donors on the use of resources and their demands for additionalreporting have built-in resource implications, including, inter alia, higher transaction costs.Many donors and some organizations acknowledge that the existing formats and systemsof reporting are not adequate for the donors’ requirements and/or expectations, which arederived largely from the concerns expressed by their own parliaments and parliamentarycommittees with regard to accountability. A common system of reporting with a formatthat would meet the expectations of donors and encompass the critical requirements ofcontent, periodicity and the end use of funds needs to be pursued in order to minimize theadministrative burden and reduce transaction costs (recommendation 5).While understanding that all organizations compete for a finite amount of resources, thereis room for coordination of practices within organizations and among them. TheMozambique case study, conducted as part of the present review, provides a successfulexample of coordination among agencies in a “Delivering as one” environment. Theirobstacles come from issues which need to be resolved at the level of the United NationsSystem Chief Executives Board for Coordination (CEB), such as lack of synergiesbetween the tools and the programmatic and budget cycles of agencies.The need for training for resource mobilization specialists and, to a lighter degree, for allother staff is gaining recognition. Organizing communities of practice or similar informalnetworks in which resource mobilization specialists can share their lessons learned andgood practices is desirable.There is a clear need for sustained and purpose-oriented dialogue between the UnitedNations system organizations and their donors to consider, discuss and agree on practicalsolutions for a host of issues, such as the aforementioned flexible use of earmarkedresources; the cost of additional reporting; the single audit principle versus verificationmissions; external assessments versus the oversight functions of the entities; developing astandardized template for reporting to donors which seeks to accommodate most donorrequirements, but at the same time, can be flexible enough to be adapted by differententities; and arrangements for the sharing of risks arising from operations in fragile contexts.Organizations recognize the importance of strengthening partnerships with donors. It iscrucial that organizations reach out to identify and cultivate donors, manage relationshipswith them, and respond to their needs, priorities and demands. In the current globalclimate of declining contributions, strengthening partnerships with donors will remain achallenge for most organizations.Recommendations for consideration by legislative bodiesThe legislative bodies of the United Nations system organizations shouldperiodically review the resource mobilization strategy/policy, including byproviding political guidance and oversight of the implementation of theresource mobilization strategy/policy and by ensuring monitoring and thereview of regular updates. (Recommendation 1)The General Assembly of the United Nations and the legislative bodies of theUnited Nations system organizations should request member States, whenproviding specified contributions, to make them predicable, long term and in linewith the core mandate and priorities of the organizations. (Recommendation 2)

vi