UN Mandate Madness? Why Joint Programmes Are the Only Sane Way Forward

Guest blog by Stephanie Hodge: UN Partnerships Specialist is a globally recognized leader in strategic evaluation, systems transformation, and cross-sectoral program design, with over 30 years of experience in 140+ countries. She is a go-to evaluator for the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and a trusted advisor to the UN system, World Bank, ADB, AfDB, and Rome-based institutions, known for evaluating what truly matters: systems, coherence, and catalytic impact.originally published here.

In the UN system, overlapping mandates aren’t a mistake—they’re baked in. When UNICEF, UNFPA, and UN Women all show up with a stake in adolescent girls’ futures, the overlap isn’t the issue. The real challenge is what we do with it. Too often, the result is duplication, confusion, or competition dressed up as coordination.

But as someone who’s evaluated more joint programmes than I can count—from gender equality to climate resilience to education and governance—I’ve come to one conclusion: joint programming is the only sane way forward. When it works, it works. And when it doesn’t, it’s usually because of how it’s managed—not because the idea is flawed.

Overlap Is Not the Problem—Working in Silos Is

We live in a world of wicked problems. Gender, health, education, climate, inequality—they don’t show up in neat categories. They bleed across ministries, sectors, and lives.

So of course the mandates overlap:

• UNICEF focuses on education, protection, and life skills for children and adolescents.
• UNFPA brings the SRHR expertise.
• UN Women pushes for structural change—laws, policies, leadership.

All of these matter for adolescent girls. But when each agency operates in its own lane, guided by its own logframe and reporting demands, we miss the point entirely. That’s not coordination. It’s fragmentation. And it’s worth remembering: UN mandates derive from Member State decisions—formal directives grounded in the Charter and resolutions, not informal turf claims. As the UN’s own research service puts it, "Mandates are derived from intergovernmental decisions and are owned by Member States—not the Secretariat or agencies" (UN Research, 2024). That makes collaboration under these mandates not just useful—but required.

When Joint Programmes Work, They Work

The best joint programmes I’ve seen are more than co-branded. They’re co-owned:

• One shared theory of change.
• Clear division of roles.
• Joint planning, pooled funding, one M&E system.
• Government in the lead, with the UN aligned behind—not competing for the spotlight.

You see it in the UNICEF–UNFPA Joint Programme to End Child Marriage. When implemented well, girls don’t just get schoolbooks or a clinic visit—they get a full ecosystem of support that meets them where they are.

🧯And When They Don’t...

Let’s be honest. I’ve also evaluated joint programmes where each agency kept its own budget, its own logframe, and barely coordinated beyond kickoff. Where “joint” meant everyone showed up for the photo, then disappeared into their own silos.

This usually happens when:

• Agencies fear losing visibility or influence.
• There’s no joint accountability mechanism.
• Coordination is left to someone with no time, budget, or authority.
• Learning systems are weak or missing entirely.

And the result? Lost efficiency. Missed outcomes. Frustrated governments. Tired partners. And wasted potential.

What Would Make Joint Programmes Actually Work?

Here’s what makes the difference:

1. Start with one joint theory of change. If you can’t agree on the problem or how change happens, don’t pretend it’s a joint effort.
2. Align budgets and planning. No parallel workplans. No “separate but equal” reporting. One plan, one pot—or at least one coherent structure.
3. Put someone in charge. A dedicated joint coordinator or management unit—not three focal points each guarding their turf.
4. Use a shared MEL system. Agree on indicators, tools, and timelines. Pool your evaluations. Share the results—even when they’re inconvenient.
5. Center government and local actors. The most successful joint programmes aren’t just aligned with agency mandates—they’re embedded in national priorities and local systems.
6. Plan for sustainability early. Build national capacity. Think beyond the project. And for once, write an exit strategy before year four.
7. Don’t skip the hard stuff. Dispute resolution. Decision-making authority. Accountability. If it’s not written down, it doesn’t exist.

Final Thought

The point of joint programming isn’t to make everyone happy. It’s to do the hard work of aligning efforts for better outcomes. It’s about showing up—not as three logos—but as one credible partner. We don’t need more workshops or toolkits on coordination. We need agencies willing to share power, pool risk, and stay at the table when things get messy.

And we need to remember that our legitimacy is not self-assigned. It comes from mandates—formal ones—backed by Member States and public expectations. The least we can do is deliver together.

Reference:

United Nations Research. “Introduction to UN Mandates.” UN Research Guides: Mandates. Accessed August 2, 2025. https://research.un.org/en/docs/mandates

Numbers from the Mandate Registry & OHCHR

Mandates Older Than Five Years

According to the UN mandate registry review (circa 2006 report), approximately 7,000 mandates older than five years have been submitted for formal review by the UN Secretariat. These include both renewed and non-renewed mandates. In the registry, they were categorized as:

59% renewed within the past five years,

10% older than five years and not renewed,

31% newer than five years. UN Press+15Security Council Report+15U.S. Government Accountability Office+15Security Council Report+1old.centerforunreform.org+1

OHCHR Special Procedures Mandates

As of 1 January 2025, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) oversees 60 Special Procedures mandates—comprising 46 thematic mandates and 14 country-specific mandates—implemented by a total of 87 mandate holders. Universal Rights Group+7OHCHR+7Wikipedia+7

How These Data Reinforce Argument for Joint Programming

The ~7,000 legacy mandates underline the scale of overlapping, long-standing directives—especially in thematic areas like gender or child protection—highlighting the need for integrated implementation approaches.

With 59% still renewed, many mandates remain live and active over the long term, requiring coordination among multiple agencies.

Even within one office—OHCHR alone manages 60 mandates and 87 holders—the overlap is substantial, reinforcing the argument that joint programming is essential to avoid redundancy and fragmentation.

 Citation

UN General Assembly, “Review of Mandates Older Than Five Years,” Mandate Registry, ca. 2006.

OHCHR, “Directory of Special Procedures Mandate Holders,” as of 1 January 2025.

2025 -UN_MIR_2025.pdf

Key Verified Statistics from the 2025 UN Mandate Review Report

StatisticInsight~3,600 unique mandates are now captured within the UN Secretariat’s programme budget alone reflects the scale and complexity of UN activity directly tied to Member State decisions across all thematic and operational areas. Over 40,000 resolutions and source documents have been adopted since 1946 illustrates the historical accumulation of mandates across UN pillars—peace and security, development, human rights, and international law. A dedicated public mandate registry is under development. Will allow for systematic access to mandate texts, metadata, and implementation status, increasing transparency and usability across the system.

Why This Matters for Joint Programming

With 3,600 CURRENT active mandates in just the Secretariat’s programme budget, mandate overlaps are a structural reality, not a design flaw.

 Agencies are routinely implementing multiple directives that intersect across sectors, regions, and population groups—often with little coordination.

The existence of over 40,000 resolutions since 1946 points to a legacy of mandate layering—many still technically in force—compounding operational complexity.

The development of a centralized public mandate registry offers an unprecedented opportunity to track, align, and streamline mandate implementation, reducing fragmentation and enabling more coherent joint efforts across agencies.