UN Reform Is Not a Floorplan. It’s a Reckoning

By Stephanie Hodge*

UNITED NATIONS | 20 May 2025 (IDN) — Last week’s leaked UN80 reform blueprint offers a sweeping architectural plan for a more “streamlined” UN. It proposes merging development-related entities, relocating operations to Nairobi, cutting senior posts, and centralizing administration through a new Executive Secretariat. It reads like a rebrand of the UN system as a more efficient delivery machine.

But after three decades evaluating multilateral programs across fragile, middle-income, and transitioning countries, I can say this: reform will fail—again—if it focuses on structure without confronting function, power, and political reality.

UN80 tackles fragmentation by rearranging agency boxes. But fragmentation is not a layout issue. It’s a product of mandate creep, donor-driven competition, disempowered coordination, and the erosion of the UN’s normative authority.

It does not go deep on real issues of staffing (see that analysis below). Agencies like UNICEF, UNDP, and WHO have expanded far beyond their original roles—not because it improves outcomes, but because it secures visibility and funding. UNICEF operates in adolescent health, GBV, and even conflict rights—displacing UNFPA, UN Women, and OHCHR. UNDP coordinates post-crisis governance.

WHO sets global norms while simultaneously running field operations. These overlaps are not harmless—they create blurred lines, diluted accountability, and policy incoherence.

UN80 does not fix this. It risks further collapsing normative mandates into operational silos, reducing advocacy and standard-setting to secondary functions. Where is the firewall between setting global rules and implementing donor projects? Reform must protect—not just acknowledge—the UN’s voice as distinct from its hands.

Without that distinction, the system loses credibility where it matters most.

The same goes for hybrid agencies like FAO and UNEP. These aren’t typical implementers. They steward international legal frameworks, lead global standard-setting, and convene multilateral science-policy processes.

If reform folds them into a generic Sustainable Development Department, we lose the very institutions that anchor the UN’s relevance in food systems, biodiversity, and pollution governance. Reform should strengthen their unique dual role—not flatten it under operational logic.

Coordination is another false promise in the UN80 proposal. Resident Coordinators are tasked with leading the country team, but without authority over budgets, program approval, or performance enforcement, they coordinate by persuasion alone. Agencies report up to global HQs, not across to each other. Donors often bypass national SDG plans entirely. Reform without rebalancing authority makes the RC a ceremonial figurehead.

And yet, perhaps the most glaring omission in UN80 is the absence of vertical funds—the true giants of today’s development finance. GCF, the Global Fund, and GAVI move billions through systems parallel to the UN, often faster and with more donor trust. The UN cannot afford to ignore them.

Reform must create functional and financial bridges to these mechanisms—through joint investment frameworks, pipeline alignment, and integration into national SDG platforms. Otherwise, the UN will simply be streamlined into irrelevance.

The proposal to relocate UN operations to Nairobi is symbolic—an attempt to re-center the Global South. But relocation without equity is just displacement in a different time zone. The GCF’s location in Songdo has made recruitment, diversity, and accessibility harder, not easier. Nairobi’s expansion must not repeat that mistake.

It will require significant investment in infrastructure, international schooling, South–South hiring policies, and visa pathways—otherwise, it will become a new epicenter of exclusion.

Then there’s the matter of time. UN80 proposes endorsement in 2025, General Assembly debate in 2026, and rollout by 2028. That’s three more years of inertia while momentum from the Summit of the Future evaporates. Reform delayed is reform denied. We need action now: country pilots with empowered RCs, pooled funding with RC sign-off, mandate maps, and shared accountability frameworks.

And we need independent oversight. Reform without evaluation is theater. OIOS and MOPAN should track the transition in real time, reporting publicly every 6–12 months, drawing on government and civil society feedback. The credibility of this reform will rest not on its architecture, but on the accountability scaffolding that surrounds it.

In the end, the UN80 blueprint gets the scaffolding right—but misses the electrical wiring. It assumes that form can substitute for function. But without fixing the underlying logic of how power, funding, and legitimacy flow, we risk creating a leaner system that’s just as dysfunctional—and far less meaningful.

We don’t need another floorplan. We need a reckoning.

That means:

• • Clarifying mandates and enforcing functional discipline.
  • Protecting normative voices, not absorbing them into operations.
  • Recognizing and empowering hybrid agencies like FAO and UNEP.
  • Integrating vertical funds rather than pretending they don’t exist.
  • Shifting from logo-driven delivery to outcome-based financing.
  • Empowering Resident Coordinators to lead with teeth, not titles.
  • Ensuring relocation enhances equity, not exclusion.
  • Moving now, not after the world has already moved on.

If we miss this moment, we won’t just streamline the UN—we’ll sideline it.

What the New UN Looks Like in Practice

In the new UN, country teams operate with clear mandate maps. Each agency leads only in its core area—no duplication, no confusion. Resident Coordinators approve programs, manage pooled funding, and enforce coordination based on national SDG pathways.

Hybrid agencies like FAO and UNEP maintain their normative and technical leadership, particularly in treaty compliance and standards. Normative agencies (e.g., OHCHR, UNESCO, UN Women) are protected from delivery absorption, retaining independence and voice.

Vertical funds such as the Green Climate Fund, Global Fund, and GAVI are fully integrated into joint SDG financing platforms, aligned with national strategies. Pooled funding makes up at least 30% of UNCT financing. Joint delivery models pilot a ‘no-logo’ approach. OIOS and MOPAN independently evaluate reform implementation, publishing public scorecards every 6–12 months.

Geographically, Nairobi becomes a true Global South hub—resourced with infrastructure, equity safeguards, and inclusive access. Dakar, Bangkok, and Panama City anchor regional leadership. Geneva remains a rights and humanitarian law base, while New York is a political and policy HQ—smaller, but more focused.

 My Critical Points Covered — And What’s Missing in UN80

1. Mandate Clarity

✔Problem: Agency overlaps ✔Included: Functional reviews, mandate maps, clarity by sector and function ❌ Missing from UN80: No operational mechanism to enforce functional discipline

2. Normative vs Operational Firewall

✔ Problem: Normative mandates are being absorbed by deliverables ✔ Included: Normative integrity safeguard, distinct governance for OHCHR, UNEP, etc. ❌ Missing from UN80: Reform risks subsuming policy under delivery; no normative safeguard

3. Hybrid Agencies (FAO, UNEP)

✔ Problem: Their dual normative + technical roles are misunderstood ✔ Included: Recognition of dual roles, multilateral responsibilities, and treaty compliance leadership ❌ Missing from UN80: Hybrid mandates are not acknowledged or protected

4. Resident Coordinator Authority

✔ Problem: RCs have no teeth ✔ Included: Legal authority, program sign-off, pooled fund control, performance enforcement ❌ Missing from UN80: Coordination is still diplomacy, not governance

5. Vertical Funds Integration

✔ Problem: UN80 ignores dominant global funds like GCF, Global Fund, GAVI ✔ Included: National SDG platforms co-chaired by governments, RCs, vertical funds ✔ Country pipeline alignment, Direct Access Entity support ❌ Missing from UN80: Vertical funds are invisible—undermining relevance

6. Financing System Incentive Shift

✔ Problem: Earmarked funding fosters competition ✔ Included: 30% pooled funds, no-logo delivery, performance-based financing ❌ Missing from UN80: Keeps donor-driven architecture intact

7. Decentralization and Nairobi Relocation

✔ Problem: Risks replicating exclusion ✔ Included: Lessons from GCF/Songdo, Nairobi reforms with infrastructure, equity safeguards ❌ Missing from UN80: Equity impact, access infrastructure, global South inclusion

8. Timeline and Momentum

✔ Problem: 2028 is too slow ✔ Included: 2025 pilot launches, 6–12 month scorecards, MOPAN/OIOS tracking ❌ Missing from UN80: Timelines misaligned with political windows, no real-time learning

9. Independent Evaluation

✔ Problem: No reform without accountability ✔ Included: UN Reform Observatory, public reviews, feedback loops from governments and CSOs ❌ Missing from UN80: No evaluation or learning component at all

10. A New Governance Model

✔ Problem: UN80 lacks enforcement mechanisms ✔ Included: Reform Transition Governance Board with DCO, MOPAN, vertical funds, civil society ❌ Missing from UN80: No integrated oversight body, no civil society voice

Staffing: The Other Elephant in the Room

It’s Not the Headcount—It’s the Hollowing Out

As calls grow louder for UN reform—most recently through the UN80 leaked blueprint—discussions often default to staff numbers: how many people, in what location, and at what cost. But the real crisis in UN staffing isn’t numerical. It’s functional. We are witnessing a hollowing out of the very expertise that gives the UN system its value.

At its best, the UN is not a service contractor—it is a standard-setter, treaty custodian, and policy platform. That requires deep, sustained technical expertise in public health (WHO), child rights (UNICEF), food systems (FAO), biodiversity (UNEP), education (UNESCO), and governance (UNDP). But increasingly, these agencies are retreating from those functions in favor of donor-driven implementation, surge staffing, and externalized consultancy.

🔍 The Real Issues

The Rise of the Generalist Bureaucrat Mid-level roles across agencies are now dominated by program managers trained in donor compliance and reporting—not by legal, scientific, or sectoral experts. The UN is becoming a factory of coordinators, not a home for stewards of global public goods.

The Normative-Operational Swap Agencies mandated to uphold rights and norms are being retrofitted as delivery vehicles. OHCHR’s expertise is diluted into projectized legal support. UNESCO’s normative leadership is lost in the fog of scattered training workshops.

Overreliance on Consultants To plug technical gaps, agencies lean heavily on consultants—useful, yes, but incapable of building institutional memory, defending normative coherence, or sustaining multilateral credibility.

Evaluation Without Expertise Many evaluations are now outsourced, bypassing internal learning loops. The result: evaluations that are compliance artifacts, not tools of institutional growth.

Misaligned Incentives Incentives reward donor management, not intellectual leadership. Expertise becomes a cost center, not a core asset. The system begins to reward project volume over policy integrity.

🚨 Key Structural Problems

Too Many People in the Wrong Roles The UN remains top-heavy—especially in New York and Geneva—while critical technical posts in the field go underfunded or vacant. Promotion tracks reward bureaucratic longevity, not functional excellence.

Staffing Follows Donor Dollars, Not Strategy Jobs follow funding, not mandate. This creates duplicative roles, overlapping portfolios, and distorted country-level engagement. Agencies plant flags to defend budgets, not to fill gaps.

Coordination Staff With No Real Power The Resident Coordinator system is under-resourced and lacks enforcement leverage. Coordinators convene—they don’t direct. The result? A bloated coordination structure that costs money without reducing fragmentation.

Fragmented HR Systems Each agency operates with its own job classification, recruitment process, and grading scale. There is no cross-agency mobility and no shared understanding of what constitutes “expertise.”

🔧 What Needs to Change

1. Functional Workforce ReviewA systemwide staffing audit must map all international posts by grade, location, and function, highlight duplication, and flag under-resourced capacities. This data should be public and used for realignment—not just attrition.
2. Pooled Technical TalentEstablish joint UNCT sector teams—e.g., on food systems, data, or climate—with staff seconded from various agencies under shared contracts. This breaks siloed delivery and aligns roles with comparative advantage.
3. Freeze HQ Bloat, Invest in National TalentImpose a moratorium on new HQ positions in New York, Geneva, or Rome unless directly supporting country delivery or treaty functions. Redirect investment toward:

• • National staff pipelines
  • South–South secondments
  • Visa and mobility support for global equity

4. HR System HarmonizationMove toward interoperable systems across the UN, with:

• • A unified job classification framework
  • Cross-agency mobility pathways
  • Shared technical rosters

5. RC-Led Workforce AlignmentEmpower RCs to approve all new in-country international positions at P4 and above. New hires must be justified in terms of mandate alignment, functional need, and system-wide coherence.

🔁 Why UN80 Doesn’t Go Far Enough

UN80 nods to relocation, efficiency, and coordination—but sidesteps the staffing elephant. Without confronting bloat and misalignment, the system risks reshuffling inefficiencies rather than resolving them. No real reform is possible if agencies retain overbuilt headquarters, disjointed hiring systems, and unchecked mandate creep.

🎯 Final Thought

The UN’s relevance hinges not on how many people it employs—but on what they’re empowered to do. If staff are detached from technical substance, strategic coherence, or normative function, the system becomes performative, not transformative.

A leaner UN isn’t enough. We need a smarter UN—one that puts expertise at the center, not on the chopping block.

*Stephanie Hodge is an international evaluator and former UN advisor who has worked across 140 countries. She writes on governance, multilateral reform, and climate equity. [IDN-InDepthNews]

Image source: Better World Campaign