I don't know about the money being focused on particular projects.

However can I just query you on your line of thought, are your objections just that the landrovers are new and top of the range? and that they pay their staff well?
Firstly, the staff were SPENDING money in the local economy.
Also, I don't think getting new landrovers is inappropriate.

As to the fact that they are top of the range, I KNOW it surprises many people that you will find ALL aid agencies frequently buying models which are either derived from or sister to models which are top-of-the-range marketed consumer ones in developed markets.
This is largely due to the performance of those models being either necessary from the word go, or a very prudent investment.

Further, I think it could be argued quite well that you can't be a big organisation and successfully operate keeping things well managed and spending monitored on the lowest level of economy (i.e. the level of economising that is available to very local entities).

So, if you are concerned about wastage, I personally do not think that is a good example.
Equally, if you are talking about questionable spending, UNICEF are certainly comparatively very, very far away from the bad end of the list, and very near to the good end.

Paying staff well helps the country.
The vehicles thing I'm certain - from some (limited) first hand knowledge - will fully stand up to scrutiny.

However I'm not here to defend UNICEF against all comers. I'm just curious if THAT was the sole basis of your concerns.