Merging for What? UN Reform Needs More Than Just Consolidation

Welcome to Bits, Bobs & Big Ideas #11 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.

Today I had planned a different post but given the leak of a document to restructure the UN, I couldn’t wait till next time to give my thoughts… Read them below and let me know your thoughts…

---

A Welcome Leak: The UN80 Proposal and Its Discontents

Those following the UN system may have seen the leaked paper, UN80 structural changes and programmatic realignment. The document is a compilation of non-attributable suggestions by the UN80 Task Force and a compilation is exactly what it feels like: Ambitious, inconsistent and, at times, contradictory. The document suggests wide-ranging mergers among agencies and functions. On paper, it’s the kind of initiative we should welcome. In fact, a lot of these structural changes are long overdue. After reading the proposals, I’m left both hopeful and uneasy because while there’s ambition in the air, there’s also confusion - and one can expect this from an initial compilation of ideas. Thing is, it’s a dangerous mix when institutional reform is on the table.

Mergers Are Not a Magic Wand

Let’s start with a positive: Recognizing that mergers are necessary is not only welcome, they’re long overdue. The idea that the UN can continue operating in fragmented silos — each with overlapping mandates, inconsistent business practices, and separate bureaucratic ecosystems — is no longer defensible. The world has changed, so the UN must too. I applaud the proposals to bring more coherence and, yes, even boldness to the conversation.

But a word of caution. Mergers for the sake of mergers alone are not a solution. Structural consolidation needs to be grounded in measurable efficiencies - not just in terms of cost savings (though let’s not pretend that doesn’t matter) and in real, tangible improvements that have impact. The less money wasted on overlapping administration, the more results on the ground. If a merger doesn’t accomplish both, then why do it?

In this light, purpose must drive change. Moving an entity under the umbrella of another doesn’t magically catalyze synergies. Without fundamentally rethinking roles, mandates, and operating models, we risk simply layering new bureaucracy on top of existing bureaucracy. The merger of two inefficient systems does not produce efficiency — it leads to a larger inefficient system.

Take the example of integrating UNAIDS into WHO. This makes sense. UNAIDS was always meant to be a joint programme — not a full-fledged agency — and has long been straddling institutional lines. Folding its normative and technical work into WHO could bring coherence, clarity, and savings if done with a sharp eye on preserving its multi-stakeholder DNA and unique mission. The drawback, in my view, is that kind of logic is not consistently applied in the proposals.

Business Models Matter More Than Checked Boxes

Likewise, take the proposal to unify UNEP and UNFCCC. On the surface, it makes sense: They both operate in closely related normative spaces - developing global guidance on climate and environmental governance. But once you merge them, then what? Who delivers on the ground? Who supports countries in operationalizing and implementing? These questions are often skipped in favor of organizational diagrams and activity flow charts.

As a result, we should be asking more fundamental questions. What is the business model of each UN entity? What is their comparative advantage — not just in mission, but in scope and methods? Perhaps global normative work should be consolidated into a few high-performing policy hubs while operational delivery is handled by agencies like UNDP, which already has the infrastructure, staffing, and country presence to implement effectively at scale.

Reform needs to be more than a tidy map of mergers. It must grapple with how work actually gets done by way of who sets standards, who provides support, and who is truly best positioned to deliver impact. Without answering these questions, we risk reorganizing structures without rethinking substance and planning for substantive outcomes.

UN Headquarters during my last visit to New York in 2024.

Resident Coordinators: Still the Driver or Just Another Passenger?

There’s also ambiguity around the Resident Coordinator (RC) system. The revamped RC system is still relatively new, reformed in recent years to provide more coherent leadership at the country level. But current proposals are unclear about its future. Is the RC system being strengthened, streamlined, or sidelined? It’s hard to tell. If the goal is to truly offer more unified UN country support, the RC system should be central to that — not floating ambiguously outside or inside institutional reshuffles. Reforming delivery without clarity on coordination is like building a new engine without a driver.

One of my personal experiences during the UN development system repositioning was that coordination often became an extra layer, not a replacement. A new Cooperation Framework was introduced, while Agency Country Programme Documents remained the real instruments of negotiation with member states. RCs were tasked with unifying efforts, yet the first line of accountability remained with each entity’s leadership. This sort of structural tension still hasn’t been resolved.

The Business Practice Bottleneck: Fix the Plumbing First

And that seems to be one of the glaring omissions in the reform paper: The harmonization of business practices. Why do we still tolerate each UN entity having its own HR manuals, procurement systems, SOPs, financial protocols, audit rules, and IT infrastructures? Forget mergers — just harmonizing these bureaucratic backbones could save millions and dramatically improve coordination. This should be low-hanging fruit.

While there’s been a lot of progress with Business Operation Strategies and Common Back Office until today, the challenge remains as above. Often an extra layer is added or, at best, one entity is able to use the systems of another entity. This rarely, however, extends to a merger of business practices.

To friends outside the UN, I often say, “Imagine you’re the CEO (RC) trying to build a car (programme). You have a factory, but need 20 departments (UN entities) to help — each with its own HR, procurement, and monitoring systems. Worse, each is led by its own CEO who doesn’t report to you. Now compete with private-sector companies that have unified leadership and one set of business practices. Good luck!”

Déjà Vu? What We Didn’t Learn from UN Reform in 2006

We should also not forget this isn’t a new debate. Let’s learn about previous experience. As far back as 2006, the High Level Panel on Delivering as One UN (and certainly others before) recommended the establishment of an independent task force to “clearly delineate the roles of the United Nations and its funds, programmes and specialized agencies to ensure complementarity of mandates and to eliminate duplicated functions, making concrete recommendations for consolidating or merging United Nations entities where necessary.” That same report also led to the creation of UN Women, merging several existing entities working on gender equality and women’s empowerment - setting an important precedent. But no other proposals for smart mergers were made. Why?

A Glimmer of Pragmatism? Reflections on a different proposal

Last week, before the proposals were leaked, Damian Lily, an independent consultant, published a compelling article, The World Is Changing Rapidly: Can the United Nations Restructure to Stay Relevant?, that offers concrete merger proposals. It was the first time I’ve seen such clear and actionable ideas put forward.

I was particulary interested to see the merger of the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) and the Development Coordination Office (DCO) in New York to break down silos between humanitarian and development assistance. It absolutely makes sense to think this through and could even be a good start to design and align the rest of the UN system. A decade ago, an informal paper circulated at the highest level in New York proposing exactly this. It never went far - I assume for political reasons, not necessarily because it was seriously looked into and deemed impossible…for whatever reason.

Time for Sharp Elbows and Smarter Structures

The system today doesn’t just need modest tweaks, it needs an overhaul — with sharper elbows, tougher questions, and a willingness to challenge sacred cows. Everything should be on the table so we can find the best solutions and that’s why I welcome the compilation. I don’t agree with all of it. I don’t think all is feasible. I think in other parts the proposals could go further. But important is that the discussion is being held.

And while I normally don’t think that everything should be immediately discussed in public, in this case, I think it’s beneficial there was a leak. It’s been a while since a group of motivated people are thinking about the UN system; and not to abolish it, but to make it better. Although I have reservations about a lot of the late Madeleine Albright’s diplomatic thoughts I strongly agree with this take: "If the UN did not exist, we would have to invent it."

Final Word: The UN We Need Isn’t About Being Bigger — It’s About Functioning Better

In short, mergers can be good and are necessary — but only if they’re tied to real, measurable efficiencies and a clear sense of purpose. Not every UN entity needs to survive in its current form, but the process of consolidation must be driven by why an organization exists, how it adds value, and what synergies can be achieved — not simply by where it fits on an org chart.

The UN doesn’t just need fewer entities. It needs smarter ones. Leaner, clearer, and more impactful. We’ll only get there if we stop confusing structural reshuffling with true systemic reform.

---

Quote I’ve read several times…and why it motivates me to have a better UN.

"Some may be retreating from the global challenges we face. But the UN will not. Where states cannot lead, I refuse to believe that the public has lost its basic human solidarity with those in direst need. Sudan is a test for all of us who want to defend those values. Not just because it is in our interest to do so. But — unfashionable as it may be to say it — because it is the right thing to do." 

Tom Fletcher, UN under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs and emergency relief co-ordinator. Head of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in the Financial Times.

---

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.