Function before form : optimising the UN's counter-terrorism architecture : independent expert assessement prepared for the Civil Society coalition on human rights and counter-terrorism

As the UN-Secretary-General spelled out in the 2021 Report »Our Common Agenda«, the UN has enormous potential to tackle the persistent threat of terrorism and its causes, as an integral part of its response to the pressing challenges of economic turmoil, environmental disaster, inequality, repression and conflict. To date, however, the UN’s rudderless approach to counter-terrorism risks dragging it off course. Corroded by the undue influence of undemocratic states with deep pockets, UN-counter-terrorism efforts are marred by their deep neglect for prevention and human rights, and their indifference to the results achieved. Despite this, the UN’s Office of Counter-Terrorism (UNOCT) is quietly moving to consolidate its position and approach, and proposes a seven-fold increase to its regular budget over 2023–2024. The rise of UNOCT is emblematic of the wider struggle to maintain multilateral institutions that work for peace, democracy and rights in the face of aggressive, authoritarian agendas. This study documents high reputational risks, conflicts of interest and the failure to monitor and manage performance effectively from programme to strategic levels across the UN’s counter-terrorism work. The study moreover lays out a set of recommendations, beginning with a strategic review and reset, followed by a significant process of change management, across the UN’s counterterror architecture. The author suggests that UN Member States reject the proposed budget increase for UNOCT, as it would likely be paid for by cuts to other - potentially better-performing UN entities and programmes. As an essential pre-condition before any additional resource investment, Member States should require a step change in results-orientation, oversight and risk-management across the UN’s counter-terror work. For this, an independent reviewer or panel of experts needs to be appointed by the Secretary-General to head up a new oversight mechanism. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 1 INTRODUCTION 6 1.1 Background and purpose........................................................................ 6 1.2 Methodology.......................................................................................... 6 1.3 Concerns over the direction and performance of the UN’s counter-terrorism architecture......................................................... 7 1.4 A change management agenda.............................................................. 8 2 OVERSIGHT AND EFFECTIVENESS 9 2.1 Current practice ..................................................................................... 9 2.2 Needs and requirements......................................................................... 9 2.3 Visioning a step change in UN counter-terrorism oversight and effectiveness.................................................................................... 11 2.3.1 Strategic review and reset....................................................................... 11 2.3.2 Navigating risks ..................................................................................... 11 2.3.3 Dual function: preventing harm and improving effectiveness................... 11 2.3.4 Addressing problems of orientation and unbalanced implementation: prioritising and monitoring conflict prevention and human rights............ 11 2.3.5 Protecting civil society and reversing deficits in meaningful engagement with civil society ................................................................ 12 2.3.6 Integrating gender.................................................................................. 13 2.3.7 Tackling conflict of interest and undue influence: the need to standardise independent oversight and performance management......... 13 2.3.8 Strengthening line management by the Secretary-General ..................... 14 2.3.9 Reorienting strategic oversight: towards a focus on results ..................... 14 2.3.10 Making GCTS reviews strategic............................................................... 15 2.3.11 Establishing a robust, independent and influential oversight focal point – while reinforcing other well-functioning programming and oversight capacities .............................................................................................. 17 2.3.12 Tackling capacity constraints in the right(s) places.................................... 18 2.3.13 Generating evidence on well-defined outcomes: M&E methods, capacities and resources......................................................................... 18 2.3.14 A greater role for Resident Coordinators and country teams ................... 19 2.3.15 Addressing questions around scope ....................................................... 20 FRIEDRICH-EBERT-STIFTUNG – FUNCTION BEFORE FORM 2 3 APPROPRIATE FUNDING FOR GCTS IMPLEMENTATION AND UNOCT MANDATE FULFILMENT 21 3.1 Current budget level .............................................................................. 21 3.2 Budget trajectory ................................................................................... 21 3.3 Budget composition ............................................................................... 21 3.4 What is being proposed? ....................................................................... 22 3.5 The case in favour .................................................................................. 22 3.6 Concerns and considerations.................................................................. 24 3.6.1 Impacts of budget composition on theories of change, impact and sustainability........................................................................................... 24 3.6.2 Navigating »pay-to-play« dilemmas........................................................ 24 3.6.3 Investing in counter-terrorism requires cutting worse-funded priorities.... 24 3.6.4 Investing in the right(s) places................................................................. 24 3.6.5 How to address neglect for human rights under GCTS Pillar IV?.............. 25 3.6.6 Resourcing better contextualised, more impactful responses................... 27 4 GRANT-MAKING POWERS 28 4.1 What has been proposed? ..................................................................... 28 4.2 Rationale ............................................................................................... 28 4.3 Considerations ...................................................................................... 28 5 OPTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 31 5.1 Tackling significant concerns: change management ................................ 31 5.2 Oversight and effectiveness.................................................................... 31 5.3 Appropriate resourcing........................................................................... 34 5.4 Grant-making authority ......................................................................... 36 Annex 1: Concerns with current UN counter-terrorism architecture........................ 37 Annex 2: Summary of current UN CT oversight, performance and risk management capacities, standards, procedures and initiatives ................ 42 Annex 3: Sources consulted................................................................................... 44 Abbreviations......................................................................................... 46 Acknowledgments.................................................................................. 46