Will the Summit of the Future lead to a more results-based United Nations?

Next week’s Summit of the Future is billed as “a unique opportunity for leaders to make breakthrough choices for some of the biggest challenges facing the world today.” The Pact for the Future contains 56 actions that cover everything from poverty to outer space. It would more aptly be named the Laundry List for the Future.

Most people think of the UN as a political organization — and it is. But it’s also about results. In 2015 all UN countries agreed on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) — the most comprehensive development plan ever agreed — with indicators and targets to achieve by 2030.  Only 17% are on track.

On full display at the Summit is what’s wrong with the UN: a failure to execute on what’s already agreed.  In September, the only acronym the UN needs is GSD — Get Sh*t Done. (If you’re a diplomat, feel free to substitute “Stuff.”)

I am not critical of the Permanent Representatives of Germany and Namibia who deftly led the Summit process; rather, I am critical of taking a consensus approach to a problem of execution.

Some would tackle this problem by focusing on “glimmers of hope” — areas where it might be possible to achieve something tangible even in the face of UN bureaucracy and terrible geopolitics.  This year as chair of an important UN committee, Ambassador Bob Rae of Canada has said he will focus on displacement of people, artificial intelligence, and financing for development.  The Summit itself focuses on future generations and a global digital compact.  And some are counting on progress on their key issue, such as reforming the UN Security Council with respect to African membership or reform of the global financial architecture.

There is something to be said for this pragmatic and focused approach, but it will not get the SDGs back on track. The fundamental problem is not only focus, but also execution.

The UN suffers from planning disease. Any successful real-world entity does 10% planning and 90% execution (and the planning is built on the results of execution).  In the UN, it’s the reverse. Rather than critically examine why the SDGs are off track, and support countries to overcome these obstacles, the UN comes up with a new list of things it wants to accomplish.  But if you failed to accomplish the last thing you promised, and now do not critically examine the underlying reasons for that failure, why would anyone believe you could accomplish the next big thing?

To improve execution and results in the UN system, I have three recommendations to GSD on the SDGs.

First, data.  Only by an honest stock taking using data — and developing better ways to translate data into results — can one identify barriers and ways for the UN system to better support countries to deliver on the SDGs.

Second, innovation.  The UN system is not an excellent source of innovation, but it is uniquely positioned to support countries to scale innovations that are already reaching millions to reach tens or even hundreds of millions of people.

There are lessons and good practices in translating data to delivery and on scaling innovation in WHO (which I have seen first-hand) and across the UN system. The Pact for the Future contains an initiative called UN 2.0, which is about data and innovation, but its not linked to the most essential element of GSD: governance.

Third, governance by Member States is the source of incentives and accountability in the UN system.  Imagine if every governing body meeting of a UN agency were to start with an honest look at progress on the SDGs relevant to that agency.  It could look at countries that are performing well and those that are not and how the latter could be more like the former.  It could examine what the agency is doing to support countries to get on track, and how it could do it better, and how well it is working with other agencies to support countries.

This is precisely what does not happen in a typical governing body meeting at a UN agency.  There is not a culture of results — because talk is fun, results are hard, and people hate accountability.

We shall see what the Summit accomplishes, and I certainly hope it ‘succeeds’ (whatever that means).  But I have no doubt that until we right the balance between planning and execution, the UN will lag on results.  

Only results — tangible and measurable improvements in peoples’ lives — can rebuild trust in the UN system.