GUIDANCE: NOVEMBER 5 UNDEF ADVISORY BOARD MEETING

UNCLAS STATE 152716

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE
NOFORN
SIPDIS

C O R R E C T E D C O P Y - SENSITIVE CAPTION ADDED

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PHUM PREL
SUBJECT: GUIDANCE: NOVEMBER 5 UNDEF ADVISORY BOARD MEETING


1. (U) This is an action request with guidance for USUN to
participate in the November 5 Advisory Board meeting for the
UN Democracy Fund. Please see para 4 for action requested.



2. (U) The agenda calls for discussion of: a) briefing on
the status of project implementation from the first round of
funding; b) discussion of the newly proposed "UNDEF Action
Plan"; c) second round of funding and newly proposed
assessment framework paper; d) issues concerning the advisory
board; and e) a Benin proposal to use UNDEF money to fund its
conference on "Democratic Alternation".



3. (SBU) The U.S. has high expectations for UNDEF and was
generally pleased in its accomplishments over the past year.
We remain concerned about several important outstanding
issues, however, including how UNDEF plans to improve fund
disbursement and to monitor and evaluate program
implementation. We also remain very concerned about the
efforts of some on the Advisory Board to connect project
approval with government consent, particularly those of Qatar
and, it appears now, also India. Such a decision would
undermine UNDEF's very purpose. Questions also remain as to
the relationship between UNDP and UNDEF. We oppose the
notion that UNDP should essentially manage UNDEF's grant
making at the country level, especially given reports from
our Embassies that such a relationship amounts to more work
for the grantee and the presumption, in some cases, that
programs need the consent of the host government.



4. (U) Action Request:

USUN is requested to raise the points included in paras 5 -
10, as appropriate, during the various portions of the
meeting. As feasible, Mission is requested to informally
consult with other Board Members to seek their agreement,
before the agenda items come up for discussion. Department
recognizes Board meetings often do not go into points in
depth. If there is an opportunity to make these points at
the Board meeting, Department strongly encourages it. Where
that is not the case, the Department requests USUN use this
guidance in subsequent meetings and consultations at the
experts level with Board Members, with appreciation for
USUN's continued follow-up.



5. (SBU/NF) Status of Project Implementation From the First
Round of Funding:

-- We are pleased to note that only one project is pending
final approval but question why it has taken this long to get
here, and what is holding up the disbursement of funds for
the final program.

-- We remain concerned by reports from our Embassies this
Spring on problems with funding disbursement. Some of our
Embassies reported problems such as the local UNDP office
making applicants go through a secondary application process,
resulting in further delaying of project implementation.

-- We would appreciate an aggregated assessment of project
success be shared with the Board on a regular basis. The
individual accounts by program are quite helpful but do not
allow us to easily understand the Fund's progress as a whole.



6. (SBU) Assessment Framework Proposal - Criteria for
Evaluation of UNDEF Proposals:

UNDEF has proposed 8 program evaluation criteria in the next
call for proposals. UNDEF suggests that neither the
assessment criteria nor the reviewers responses be available
in the public domain. The Department agrees that assessment
criteria should be developed and applied during the review of
UNDEF proposals, but we have several concerns about the UNDEF
draft:

-- Under Section 2, "Comparative Advantage", there is a
suggestion that a project should be in line with other UN
activities in a given country. While it is important to
ensure that the proposals funded by UNDEF do not duplicate
the work of other projects, and we agree that successful
projects should be complementary to other programs in a given
country, we do not believe that a project necessarily must be
linked to UN activities in a given country.

-- Under Section 2, "Comparative Advantage", there is a
suggestion that a proposal should be "particularly
appropriate for United Nations involvement" (under section 2,
"Comparative Advantage"). The "appropriateness" of a project
is already considered under the first assessment criteria,
which focuses on whether or not the project meets the
objectives of UNDEF, and whether or not it is in line with
the UN strategic priorities and values. There is no need for
the additional "appropriateness" criteria in the "Comparative
Advantage" section, further, the notion is far too vague.
"Appropriate-ness" could be interpreted by some to mean that
a project should be approved by the government of the country
concerned - an idea to which we strongly object.

-- Under section 4, "Inclusiveness", there is a suggestion to
include the degree to which the project will assist all
segments of society. We suggest that the interpretation of
this point be broad enough to allow for programs that may
focus specifically on improving the situation of a given
group (such as women or girls).

-- Under section 7, "Track Record": While we agree that it is
important to look at the background and history of a given
organization, it is important to interpret such criteria to
allow for proposals from new and nascent organizations with
promise. Further, we emphasize that the Fund must use
objective sources to provide this material, and must not rely
on the government of a given country for information.



7. (SBU/NF) Second Round of Funding:

-- We request UNDEF develop a communications strategy to
assure that potential applicants understand that government
approval is not required and that they can compete even if
they are not favorites of the regime in power. We note that
NGOs from Russia, Egypt, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe and Venezuela
have all stated that it was their perception that only
proposals from government-supported NGOs or those proposals
specifically approved by the host government were to be
funded. Apparently UN representatives in country had told
them that projects that did not have the blessing of the host
government would not be given consideration; this is
unacceptable and must be addressed before the next round of
grants is announced.

-- Results based funding - The UNDEF Project Proposal
guidelines state that funding would be disbursed
incrementally based on evidence of results. However, in some
cases over the past year the entire grant was released to the
grantee, or the decision was left to the local UNDP office to
distribute funds as they saw fit. We would prefer the next
round of grants to have this results-based component.

-- We request further clarification on the relationship
between UNDP and UNDEF. While we understand the advantage to
using systems already in place to manage funds, we do not
believe that UNDP should be the defacto UNDEF representative,
particularly given concerns expressed by our Embassies that
UNDP officials in some cases work too closely with the host
government to be able to administer a truly independent fund.
When developing a strategy to better implement funding, we
need to be very clear that the Fund remains independent of
governments and that no additional obligations or reporting
requirements are placed on the recipients.

-- Reduce Number of Thematic Areas - (Note - there is some
question as to whether or not this issue will be addressed.
The Plan of Action indicates that the Advisory Board is to
discuss this issue, while the meeting minutes from the
experts meeting indicates that the Advisory Board has already
decided not to change the themes. Department requests USUN
clarify. End Note.)

-- We can support the UNDEF recommendation to reduce the
number of themes, and refine the eligible activities so as to
complement not duplicate existing UN activities. For
instance, UNDEF has indicated in the past that there is
sufficient funding within the UN system and from other
sources to fund integrity/transparency initiatives. We would
support the elimination of this theme in favor of a focus on
the building blocks of democracy (voter education, media
freedom, etc...)


8. (SBU/NF) Advisory Board Options:

France (and Germany) would like to expand the Advisory Board.
France recently proposed that the Advisory Board be expanded
to include the top 12 donors, rather than the top six. (Note:
there are 17 members of the Advisory Board in total, 2 NGO
representatives, 5 Member States who represent their regional
group, 3 experts, 1 ex-oficio, and 6 top donors. End Note)
France suggests that among the reasons to do so is that more
countries will be likely to donate if there is a better
chance they can be guaranteed a seat on the Advisory Board.
Per USUN reporting, Australia, Japan and India are not
inclined to expand the Board at this time.

-- We do not see sufficient reason to expand the Advisory
Board, or to change the terms of reference. We are not
convinced by the argument that a larger Advisory Board is
necessary to ensure continued donor support. The UN Central
Emergency Response Fund (CERF) has amassed donations of
approximately $300 million dollars of voluntary contributions
in 2006 with only a twelve person board.

-- We are also not convinced by the argument that the current
practice of determining the major contributors on a
cumulative basis was appropriate in the first years of the
Fund, and (by implication) may no longer be appropriate now.
The Fund is still in its first years - we have not yet even
seen the full disbursement of all first year projects.


9. (SBU) Benin's Proposal for UNDEF to fund an international
conference:

-- UNDEF should fund projects that are working to strengthen
democracy in a given country and should not support
international conferences. The UN is awash with support for
conferences already. Further, however laudable an idea might
be, it would set a troubling precedent (and could result in
charges of favoritism) for the advisory board to fund an
initiative of one of its own members. This is not to say
that there should not be UNDEF projects in Advisory Board
Member states (indeed some U.S.-based NGOs received first
round grants for overseas projects).


10. (U) Other Items:

-- We renew our request for quarterly updates on the
financial status of projects. Regular updates to New York
missions on the progress of the Fund and the disbursement of
grant monies is important - and allows us to easily point to
UNDEF's successes when asked. Updates can be electronic.


11. Department requests Mission's assistance with this
matter.
RICE