A Missing Map | Time for Reset | Minilateralism
Welcome to Bits, Bobs & Big Ideas #13 curated by Tomorrow Is Possible — Your Bi-Monthly Dose of Insight, Ideas, and Impact!
Thank you for being a regular reader of Bits, Bobs & Big Ideas. If you haven’t done so yet, please hit subscribe to receive timely updates along with our other subscribers.
After my previous two posts on UN Reform, I continued reflecting on the why’s and the how’s of UN reform. While Bits, Bobs & Big Ideas isn’t meant to be a UN Reform letter, I thought it would be useful to keep sharing some additional reflections inspired by the many other discussions online. Reform is an absolute must, but I have my doubts that the current proposals are helping to push the UN in the direction we want…
1. The UN’s Missing Map: Why Reform Keeps Getting Lost in the Maze
UN Secretary-General António Guterres mentioned during his briefing on the UN80 Initiative that the UN Secretariat alone identified approximately 3,600 mandates from its member states — and counting. That staggering number is not just a bureaucratic oddity. It’s a flashing red light for a deeper issue plaguing the UN system: the absence of a coherent organizational chart.
It may sound incredible, but the United Nations — one of the most sprawling, complex multilateral systems in the world — does not have a universally agreed, consolidated org chart. Yes, there is the UN System Chart but that only gives a partial picture. There’s not one that maps all its mandates, offices, special envoys, funds, programs, departments, and their reporting lines in a way that’s clear to outsiders — or even to insiders, for that matter. Only last week, I discovered a couple of new UN entities…
This lack of structural clarity is not just a quirk; it is a barrier to meaningful reform.
A System Without a Blueprint
Imagine walking into a vast factory that produces global peace, development, humanitarian assistance, and human rights advocacy — but without a blueprint of how its machinery fits together. That’s the UN today. Entities overlap in mandate and function, often competing for resources or duplicating efforts. Lines of accountability are blurred, and the chain of command is, at times, more political than practical.
The result is a patchwork of activity that makes it extremely difficult to answer even basic reform questions: What’s working? What’s redundant? Where is reform most urgently needed? When everything is everywhere all at once, strategic planning becomes an exercise in firefighting — and internal resistance to change becomes easier to justify.
The Mandate Mountain
Those 3,600 mandates (if anyone has the list, please do share) — many originating from the General Assembly or Security Council — reflect the will of member states over decades. But they also reflect a system that rarely retires old tasks even as it takes on new ones. Mandates accrete like geological layers, creating a cumulative burden that weighs down the UN’s agility and coherence. Efforts to review and rationalize mandates — like “mandate reviews” — tend to fizzle out. Political sensitivities, vested interests, and diplomatic inertia often overpower good management.
The Envoy Explosion
Another layer of complexity comes in the form of special envoys and special representatives. Each time a new crisis arises, or a new theme needs high-level attention, member states or the Secretary-General often respond by appointing a new envoy. This can be politically expedient, but it begs the question: Why not empower existing structures to do the job? Instead of reinforcing standing capacities — like regional UN offices, peacekeeping missions, or development coordination teams — the system frequently opts for creating new, parallel structures. The result is fragmentation, confusion, and, ironically, a diminished capacity for coherent leadership.
Reform Must Be Structural - and Selective
In May 2025, the UN Secretariat issued guidance calling for a 15–20% reduction in the regular budget for 2026, including a 20% cut in staffing posts. Beyond across-the-board cuts, the guidance emphasizes the need to identify functions that can be abolished, merged, or relocated to lower-cost duty stations. While these might be necessary measures, the speed at which this needs to be done will undoubtly result in rushed job without the analytical backing of how a longer term structural rationalization should look like. Change takes time. And due to in-action (see my previous post why that is), we don’t have time.
However, in the short term, I don’t believe that implementing uniform cuts across all departments - without considering mandate, functions, roles, etcetera - is the way forward. Reform should seize this moment to create some bigger cost savings. Remove redundancy and integrate smaller, extremely narrowly focused entities into consolidated structures. I am not the expert on all entities and mechanisms (e.g. IIIM and IIMM) but it seems that having these entities working separately is not cost-efficient when there’s opportunities for sharing resources that have the same objective (just a different target group). This approach would also not be solely about efficiency; it's about restoring strategic coherence and reducing the UN's bureaucratic sprawl to better fulfill its global mandates. And this will mean that also senior leadership structure does not remain untouched. Indeed, the memo makes no reference to cuts at the highest level - Under Secretary Generals.
Martin Griffiths, the former UN emergency relief coordinator, summarized it quite well: “It's all about cuts. That's not reform. I think that's wrong."
Draw the Map, Then Walk the Path
In conclusion, meaningful reform cannot proceed without clarity. The UN must first illuminate its internal architecture. A clear organizational map — and the political will to consolidate and retire what no longer serves — can it evolve into the fit-for-purpose institution that modern multilateralism demands. The UN should propose an ambitious plan, and especially Member States - because that’s where reform often strands - should avoid having any red lines.
All about cost-savings. Photo by UNsplach Pawel Czerwinski
2. Time for a Reset: Rethinking Development Cooperation
Norad just published a new report Time for a Reset. Norad critically examines the current state of Official Development Assistance (ODA), highlighting its diminishing effectiveness amid today's complex global challenges. The report argues that the traditional aid model, established in the post-World War II era, is increasingly misaligned with contemporary needs, particularly in addressing climate change, geopolitical instability, and economic disparities. Key issues identified include the fragmentation of aid efforts, insufficient alignment with recipient countries' priorities, and a lack of adaptability to emerging crises.
The report makes a couple of recommendations. Many of them we’ve heard before, i.e. shift towards local ownership, integration and adaptive systems (including breaking silos between humanitarian aid, development, and climate finance) and a call for political honesty and strategic focus. These are all good recommendations, but as with many reports, it offers limited insight into how entrenched institutional behaviors — within donor agencies and among recipient governments — will be overcome. The same with power redistribution: easier said than done. Diversification beyond ODA is another recommendation that is being put forward too often without tackling structural barriers such as capital flight, tax injustice, or investment risk. You’ve heard it here before: Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development is crucial.
This publication is helpful as a timely call to action, urging stakeholders to move beyond outdated paradigms and to reimagine development cooperation in a way that is fit for purpose in the 21st century. And for that it should be applauded.
3. Minilateral Mechanisms for Peacemaking
While this report is not focused on reform itself, maybe there’s some good lessons for UN reformers to work with Member States. Teresa Whitfield, a former Director Policy and Mediation at the UN, delves into the evolving landscape of minilateral peacemaking mechanisms - such as contact groups, troikas, and quads—highlighting their roles in contemporary conflict resolution efforts. These informal coalitions have become increasingly prominent as traditional multilateral institutions face challenges in addressing complex global conflicts.
While minilateral mechanisms offer valuable tools for peacemaking in a complex international environment, Whitfield emphasizes the necessity of aligning these efforts with broader, inclusive strategies. Ensuring that such groups complement rather than replace comprehensive multilateral frameworks is crucial. For a deeper exploration of this topic, you can access the full report here: Minilateral Mechanisms for Peacemaking
Quote I’ve been rereading
"I have often wondered why the farthest-out position always feels so right to me; why extremes, although difficult and sometimes painful to maintain, are always more comfortable than one plan running straight down a line in the unruffled middle."From Zami: A New Spelling of My Name. A Biomythography. By Audre Lorde
Several of you have reached out to ask how you can support Tomorrow is Possible. If you enjoy the content I provide you can support with a contribution through Substack; a big thanks to those who have gone this route! That said, not everyone can provide long term support, so an alternative is to buy me a coffee. If neither of these is your cup of tea please share my newsletter with friends and colleagues to grow the readership. I appreciate everyone who follows this page. It’s becoming a dynamic online community!
If you have suggestions for future posts, contact me.