By Cheikh Fall, Founder of The Third Path Africa
The UNDP Executive Board’s approval of the Strategic Plan 2026-2029 on August 28, 2025, marks a pivotal moment for the organization as it navigates global disruptions like economic stagnation, conflicts, and climate change. Acting Administrator Xu’s August 27 speech and Deputy Administrator Marcos Neto’s celebratory tweet highlight trust in UNDP’s vision to accelerate human development. Yet, I see the plan as largely repackaged strategies rather than the transformative blueprint needed to address persistent inefficiencies. The plan’s four objectives (prosperity for all, effective governance, crisis resilience, healthy planet) and three accelerators (digital/AI transformation, sustainable finance, gender equality) are logical but recycle concepts from the 2022-2025 plan, such as systems change and integration. It promises agility and inclusivity but lacks innovative ideas to solve core challenges like a $4 trillion SDG funding gap, stalled HDI growth, and resource misallocation—issues exacerbated by U.S. withdrawals like UNESCO and the State Department’s August 27 call to prioritize “true developing countries” over China.
This approval raises questions about the UNDP Executive Board itself, the 36-member body overseeing UNDP, UNFPA, and UNOPS. Who are they? The Board is elected by the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) for three-year terms, with seats allocated by regional groups: 8 for Africa, 7 for Asia-Pacific, 4 for Eastern Europe, 5 for Latin America/Caribbean, and 12 for Western Europe and others (including major donors like the U.S., Japan, and Germany). Members are typically diplomats or government representatives, nominated by their countries and elected based on regional equity rather than expertise in development. For 2025, the Board includes representatives from Ethiopia (Africa), India (Asia-Pacific), Russia (Eastern Europe), Brazil (Latin America), and the U.S. (Western Europe/others), reflecting geopolitical balance but often prioritizing national interests over global needs.
How are they appointed? The process is political: ECOSOC elects members annually, with one-third rotating based on regional nominations. This ensures diversity but can lead to donor dominance, as wealthier nations (e.g., top 10 core contributors providing 81% of funds) wield influence. The Board’s mission—providing policy guidance, approving strategies like the 2026-2029 plan, and approving accountability—is crucial, but fulfillment is mixed. While it endorsed the plan amid funding crises, critics argue it consistently fails to enforce rigorous oversight, allowing inefficiencies like 30% administrative overhead to persist unchecked. The Board, too, must evolve—perhaps with term limits or expert quotas—to better serve its mission, but its current structure perpetuates a lack of accountability, enabling donor-driven decisions over bold reforms.
The plan’s silence on these flaws—e.g., no merit-based leadership reforms or independent audits for resource misallocation—signals business as usual. To fulfill its promise, UNDP must innovate: adopt AI for transparent fund tracking, decentralize decision-making for local voices, and cut waste by 20%. The Board, too, should evolve—perhaps with term limits or expert quotas—to better serve its mission.
As pressures mount, including U.S. critiques, UNDP has a chance for real change.