WRAP-UP OF UNDP/UNFPA EXECUTIVE BOARD SESSION,

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 001908 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: UNDP UNFPA ECON SOCI SUBJECT: WRAP-UP OF UNDP/UNFPA EXECUTIVE BOARD SESSION, SEPTEMBER 11-13, 2006 ¶1. The Executive Board of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) met in New York September 11-13, 2006. This cable reports on the UNDP segment. UNFPA segment will follow septel. ¶2. Begin Summary. Twenty-seven program documents (www.undp.org/execbrd/adv2006-second.htm) were on the Board's agenda for comment. The U.S. spoke on the North Korea program in support of the Japanese statement that drew a DPRK response. The U.S. and other donors delivered a joint statement on the Zimbabwe program. U.S. rallied 16 countries to issue a joint call on UNDP to place independent audit reports on future Board agendas. The UNDP Executive Board adopted seven decisions covering management and programming issues. End Summary. Country Programs ¶3. UNDP presented 27 country program documents (CPDs) to the Board for comments. Posts may find them at www.undp.org/execbrd/adv2006-second.htm. Prior to the meeting, IO asked relevant State desks and posts to review them and provide comments. USUN and Department appreciate posts' input, particularly the detailed and constructive comments on the Senegal CPD, which we have conveyed to UNDP. Absent serious reservations or objections by five board members, the Board will approve these country programs at the next Board meeting. DPRK Program ¶4. Japan delivered a statement on UNDP's DPRK country program, condemning DPRK's nuclear and missile activities and kidnapping of Japanese citizens, demanding a "responsible explanation" from the DPRK and calling such an explanation "indispensable" for Japan to determine its position on the DPRK program at the next Board meeting. The DPRK responded by saying that it is the DPRK's sovereign right to develop missiles and nuclear weapons, and that by bringing these issues to the Board Japan was politicizing it. The DPRK also said that the abduction question has been settled in the Pyongyang Declaration. ¶5. The U.S. delivered a short statement in support of the Japanese. USDEL pointed out that while UNDP was meant to help the most vulnerable populations, the DPRK had unconscionably made its population more vulnerable by devoting national resources to building weapons of mass destruction rather than to meet people's basic needs. USDEL called for UNDP to continue to strengthen its monitoring mechanisms to ensure that aid is not diverted. USDEL also pointed out that the United States has been a major donor of food aid to the DPRK people. Zimbabwe Program ¶6. Based on prior discussions in Harare and New York, a group of 20 Western donors delivered a statement aimed at addressing growing concerns about the Zimbabwe country program. The statement, although not mentioning Zimbabwe by name, raised concerns over the lack of meaningful participation by civil society members and donors in the country program drafting process, and called for improvement in the future. U.S. Rallies Board Members ¶7. UN Board of Auditors (BOA) periodically issues independent audit reports of UNDP finances and management. Although the Board reviews and discusses UNDP's responses to BOA's findings and recommendations, it does not receive the BOA reports to which UNDP responds. To introduce greater transparency in UNDP's handling of BOA reports, USDEL initiated an effort, and rallied 16 delegations in support of a request that these BOA reports be formally placed on the Board's agenda for future meetings. Decisions ¶8. The Board adopted two notable decisions on cost recovery and on the country program review and approval process: -- Cost Recovery (recouping overhead costs associated with work that UNDP does for third parties): Most donors at the Board Meeting agreed that UNDP has not responded to the Board's previous requests for information and transparency in its cost-recovery practices. Developing countries, however, objected to a draft presented by the donors that prescribed the cost recovery rates UNDP should use in different situations. The Board adopted a compromise text that did not establish rates, but specified the timeframe and type of information that UNDP has to report to the Board. --Country Program Review and Approval process (the decision sought to shorten the time between the comment and approval stages, and to simplify the presentation, discussion and approval process): Under the new decision, UNDP and UNFPA country programs presented to the Board at the Annual Session in June will now be approved at the September Session rather than January of the following year. The U.S. was concerned that certain language in the decision could be misinterpreted as limiting Board members' ability to speak when the Board is considering country programs for approval. USDEL sought and received clarifications and assurances that the decision does not change the current practice with respect to placing country programs on the Board's agenda and Board members' ability to comment on them before final approval. ¶9. Upon the adoption of the programming process decision, the head of U.S. delegation, USUN ECOSOC Ambassador Terry Miller, made the following statement explaining our concern and position: -- While the United States supports efforts to streamline the country program approval process and make it as efficient as possible, we have some reservations about this decision, which adds a degree of automaticity to the process that may have the effect of reducing this Board's voice in the approval process. This is regrettable. Indeed, approval of country programs is the most important responsibility of the Board. The approval process may occasionally be contentious, involving tough programmatic or political questions. Indeed, it should occasionally be contentious if we are doing our job. To the extent that this Board mutes our consideration of such issues, we will be shirking our most fundamental responsibility. My delegation hopes that others will join us in ensuring that this does not happen. BOLTON