GUIDANCE: UN DEMOCRACY FUND ADVISORY BOARD

UNCLAS STATE 031971

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PHUM PREL
SUBJECT: GUIDANCE: UN DEMOCRACY FUND ADVISORY BOARD
MEETING

REF: A. NORIN-OSTERMEIER EMAIL WEDNESDAY MARCH 19 2008

5:04 PM

B. STATE 030490

C. OSTERMEIER-NORIN EMAIL WEDNESDAY MARCH 26 2008

D. JOVIN-NORIN EMAIL THURSDAY MARCH 6 2008 4:15 PM


1. (U) This is an action request with guidance for USUN to
participate in the March 28 UN Democracy Fund (UNDEF)
Advisory Board meeting. Please see para 4 for action
requested.


2. (SBU) Per reftel A, the March 28 Advisory Board meeting
will include a discussion of: a) the second funding round
process generally, b) the suggested 86 programs UNDEF
proposes to fund ("the short list"),c) the appointment of a
new UNDEF Advisory Board Chair, and d) the inclusion (or not)
of the Community of Democracies (CD) and the International
Conference on New and Restored Democracies (ICNRD) in the
"Friends of UNDEF" group.


3. (SBU) The Department continues to have high expectations
for the UN Democracy Fund under Roland Rich's leadership.
While the Department is very pleased with UNDEF's efforts to
increase the percentage of grants allocated to civil society,
it is disappointed that at least one conference (in Benin)
has made UNDEF's short list, and that the Advisory Board was
given a narrow window to give advice on and comment on the
short list. The Department urges that UNDEF reconsider its
strategy of funding no more than one program per country as
this will make it more difficult for the Fund to assist those
countries that are most in need. Per reftel B, the Department
wishes for UNDEF to defer the decision on a new Advisory
Board Chair until Advisory Board members have had adequate
time to consult with one another.


4. (SBU) Action Request: Given previous reporting (ref A),
Department expects the meeting to be a debate and discussion
about the appropriate role of the Advisory Board in UNDEF's
work and to focus on this year's funding round and the
decision of the Advisory Board Chair. USUN is requested to
convey U.S. perspective, as appropriate, during the various
portions of the meeting as noted in paragraphs 5 through 8.
Should the discussion focus on particular programs, previous
guidance on U.S. key priorities for funding stands
(particularly with respect to the BBC program in Burma about
which India appears to have concerns and the desirability of
the funding the ActionAid program in Burma). As feasible,
Mission is requested to consult informally with other Board
Members to seek their agreement before these issues come up
for discussion.


5. (SBU) The Second Funding Round Process

-- UNDEF's Advisory Board should help set the Fund's
strategic direction and generally approve the methods by
which programs are selected for funding. The Board should
also monitor the Fund's work and ensure that it is meeting
its stated goals. The Advisory Board should not be involved
in the day-to-day management of the Fund, nor should it
expect to review every application that comes to UNDEF for
funding (Note: there were approximately 1800 grant
applications in this second round. End Note). However, the
Board should have the opportunity to comment on the projects
proposed, and should not be expected simply to rubber-stamp
decisions taken by UNDEF staff or by the Secretary General.

-- The Department generally believes that UNDEF's hiring of
democracy "experts" to make an initial review of all 1800
projects is a sound tactic but it is generally concerned that
Advisory Board members were not informed of the identities of
those experts, and that the full criteria used during this
process were not made available in final to the Advisory
Board until March 19. The Department would appreciate
clarification on whether or not UNDEF plans to make the full
criteria for evaluation public. (Note: The criteria provided
on March 19 had a date stamp of October 20th, 2007, well
before the ending of the call for proposals, yet the
Department has not been able to find this information online.
End Note.)


6. (SBU) UNDEF's "Short List"

-- The Department is generally very pleased at the clear
emphasis UNDEF is giving to the work of civil society
organizations. The Department is pleased at UNDEF's
reassurance that fully 100% of its suggested programs are to
be implemented by civil society and that in the 23 instances
where UN agencies are involved in the programs, it is only to
move funds to local non-governmental organizations. The
Department would appreciate clarification on whether or not
UN agencies will also provide a measure of oversight to local
NGOs. (Note: We recognize the need to use existing
infrastructure to assist in getting funding to NGOs as
quickly as possible, but want to be cautious that the
additional relationship with a UN agency does not create
additional obligations for the implementing NGO and/or the
appearance or substance of a supervisory role for the UN
agency over the NGO or the project. End Note.) UNDEF should
be commended on this substantial increase in the percentage
of grantees that are civil society organizations.

-- The Department is very pleased that strong programs in key
priority countries were approved (Russia, Venezuela, Burma,
Nicaragua and Pakistan). However, the Department is
disappointed to see that the sole purpose of one project - in
Benin - is to hold a conference. The U.S. continues to
maintain that UNDEF's purpose is not to hold yet more
conferences. The Department would prefer that this program
be removed from the short list and regrets that the vigorous
and sustained U.S. efforts toward this end have thus far been
unsuccessful. We do note the reduction in the amount of
support for this from $1,000,000 to $350,000. Mission should
use its best judgment about whether continued efforts to
block or further reduce funding for the Benin conference
would have any likelihood of success and whether such efforts
would be counterproductive to the other objectives set forth
in this message.

-- The Department is disappointed that the Fund's short list
does not include programs that support the initiatives of the
Community of Democracies (CD) or initiatives in support of
the Inter-American Democratic Charter (IADC); both are USG
priorities and align with UNDEF's goals. We are aware that
several NGOs submitted programs related to the CD and the
IADC for consideration but apparently were eliminated during
the experts' review of the programs. Th Department would
appreciate a broader consultation on the criteria used during
the experts' review so that we can better understand how
strong proposals on important topics such as the Community of
Democracies can succeed in the future.

-- As noted in reftel C, Department can support India's
proposal to delay a final decision on UNDEF's "short list"
providing India agrees to support at least one (and
preferably both) of the two Burma projects currently under
consideration (the proposals are from the BBC World Trust and
Action Aid); to be helpful to our position on the Advisory
Board Chair; and not to use the delay to advocate for any
patently unacceptable programs (such as further conferences
or reinstatement of proposals that the U.S. strongly
opposed).


7. (SBU) Advisory Board Chair

-- Per reftel B, Department requests that the decision on
Advisory Board chair be postponed until after the Advisory
Board has had an adequate chance to review all candidates.


8. (SBU) CD and ICNRD in "Friends of UNDEF"

-- Department believes that the "Friends of UNDEF" group
should be limited to past Advisory Board members and to
donors whose contributions do not meet the threshold required
for Advisory Board membership. It is important for UNDEF to
cultivate a relationship with all donors, not only those on
the Advisory Board. By establishing a consultative group for
this group alone - with the purpose of providing information
about UNDEF's work - contributions to UNDEF at any level will
be seen to have privileges not accorded to all member states.

-- Department encourages UNDEF to consult with the Community
of Democracies on an ad hoc basis. (Note: Department
strongly opposes the idea of ICNRD joining any advisory group
for UNDEF. It is an organization with no membership
criteria, and the Chair of ICNRD in the future could easily
be Cuba or Iran or any other country. It does not represent
any sort of commitment by its members to the mandate or
ideals that underpin the UNDEF and would not have anything
positive to add to the functioning of UNDEF or its Advisory
Board. End Note.)
RICE