Viability of UN Contributions Agreement to State Building

Contribution agreements with the UN are often used for state building. However, when reviewed, government and EU stakeholders often complain that contribution agreements do not ensure ownership and alignment thus making them ineffective state building modalities. Upon close inspection, it seems that this problem is not about the particular UN managers involved but a systemic challenge. One UN official pointed out to me that UN staff are contractually prohibited from reporting to and taking directions from government officials.

And it is true, the UN Standards of Conduct for the International Civil Service states:

“8. If the impartiality of the international civil service is to be maintained, international

civil servants must remain independent of any authority outside their organization; their

conduct must reflect that independence. In keeping with their oath of office, they should

not seek nor should they accept instructions from any Government, person or entity

external to the organization. It cannot be  too strongly stressed that international civil

servants are not, in any sense, representatives of Governments or other entities, nor are

they proponents of their policies. This applies equally to those on secondment from

Governments and to those whose services have been made available from elsewhere.

International civil servants should be constantly aware that through their allegiance to the

Charter and the corresponding instruments of each organization, member States and their

representatives are committed to respect this independent status.”

Does anybody else have experience with this problem? Is this indeed a systemic failure? Should we avoid using UN agencies for state building contracts? Or is there another way to remediate this problem?

I would much appreciate your thoughts on this recurring problem. Any comparable experiences would be valuable.