Originally Posted by
David-A
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.
What an interesting reply, thanks.
Yes, my concern is the obvious waste. I have no problem with good people being paid well but I do doubt that very much of that trickles down to the local economies. In the case of the restaurant I mentioned, it is foreign-owned and almost all of its supplies are flown in, even the vegetables. OK, granted there are a couple of cooks and waiters employed but that's about it. As for the vehicles, are leather seats needed for a trip into the bush?! And the snorkel arrangement is expensive bling which serves no useful function. Anybody properly trained for serious offroading will say the same. How many of these vehicles are status symbols for the UN grade and how many are used for what they are designed for? You seem to know something about the aid industry so can you tell me if Unicef is better at spending its money than the UN in general? I don't understand the point about their not being able to buy economically - that conflicts with their obvious purchasing power if they wish to use it.