This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 04 AMMAN 005918 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR IO, NEA AND PRM 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/15/2014 
TAGS: PREF PREL KPAL JO UNRWA
SUBJECT: UNRWA BEGINS CONSULTATIONS ON GOVERNANCE REFORM 
 
REF: A. GENEVA 1643 
     ¶B. AMMAN 4200 
 
Classified By: CDA David Hale, per 1.5 (b) and (d). 
 
¶1.  (U) This is an action request; see para 13. 
 
¶2.  (SBU) Summary and Action Request:  As follow-up to its 
June 7-8 conference in Geneva, UNRWA held informal 
consultations July 8 in Amman to review governance issues 
with key stakeholders:  current and incoming Advisory 
Commission chairs Japan and Jordan and top donors the U.S. 
and European Commission.  Echoing positions expressed at the 
Geneva conference, all participants -- including UNRWA -- 
agreed that measures needed to be taken to invigorate UNRWA's 
existing governance structure.  Jordan said host governments 
could not accept new governance structures (e.g., a newly 
created Executive Committee) but would be willing to work 
within existing structures -- particularly the Advisory 
Commission -- to give them more relevance and possibly an 
oversight role. 
 
¶3.  (C) Summary and Action Request Continued:  Jordan offered 
to draft a paper outlining suggested changes to the Advisory 
Commission, including function and membership, and solicited 
input from UNRWA and major donors.  Jordan proposed that this 
informal group meet again in late August to review the draft 
paper prior to presentation to the Geneva conference "core 
group" in early September.  Ideally, a field-based working 
group on stakeholder relations would then meet over the next 
year to finalize plans and strategy for an invigorated 
Advisory Commission.  Any changes to the Advisory Commission 
would require approval from the UN General Assembly. 
Membership changes, including the question of Israeli 
participation, could be particularly tricky.  In order to 
protect U.S. interests, we believe the U.S. must play an 
active role in any discussions regarding UNRWA's governance 
structure.  We also believe that a revamped Advisory 
Commission, with a broader mandate to oversee UNRWA programs 
and a membership that more accurately reflects UNRWA's donor 
base, is in U.S. interests.  Post requests Department's 
guidance on the consultation process proposed by the 
Jordanians, as well as changes we would like to see in the 
AdComm or other UNRWA stakeholder meetings.  End Summary and 
Action Request. 
 
------------------------------------------- 
BACKGROUND ON EXISTING GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE 
------------------------------------------- 
 
¶4.  (SBU) As one of the few UN agencies to report directly to 
the General Assembly, UNRWA does not have an executive 
committee or governing board that meets regularly to review 
programs and budgets.  It relies instead on four separate and 
often completely disconnected meetings to solicit stakeholder 
comments on its programs.  In New York, the UNGA-mandated 
Working Group on Finances meets annually, in September or 
October, to review UNRWA's budget.  The Working Group's 
report is prepared in advance by UNRWA's External Relations 
Department and debate is generally limited to quibbles over 
wording in the report.  The Working Group reports to the 
Fourth Committee.  Also in New York, UNRWA holds an annual 
pledging conference in early December, a largely ceremonial 
event UNRWA External Relations Director Andrew Whitley 
acknowledged is of little use, particularly as the timing 
does not match the budget cycle of UNRWA's largest donors. 
 
¶5.  (SBU) In Amman, site of UNRWA Headquarters, the agency 
holds annual meetings of its UNGA-mandated Advisory 
Commission (AdComm) and semi-annual meetings of Major Donors 
and Host Governments (MDM).  Neither body produces a written 
report or agreed objectives for the agency and they have no 
formal role in reviewing UNRWA programs or budgets.  The 
AdComm's only written product is an annual letter to the 
Commissioner General that comments on his draft report to the 
General Assembly.  Like the Working Group on Finance report, 
the AdComm's letter is prepared in advance by UNRWA's 
External Relations Department and debate is generally limited 
to the letter's wording.  In recent years,  debate has 
centered over how strongly the letter should criticize 
Israeli actions in the West Bank and Gaza.  The AdComm was 
established in 1949 by UNGA Resolution 302; membership also 
was established by UNGA resolution and currently includes: 
Belgium, Egypt, France, Japan, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, 
Turkey, the U.K., the U.S. and the PLO, as an observer. 
Changes to the composition and mandate of the AdComm require 
an UNGA resolution. 
¶6. (U) UNRWA's semi-annual MDM has no legislated mandate or 
membership; it simply grew out of stakeholder desire for 
greater information on and discussion of UNRWA programs and 
budgets.  While UNRWA presents its budgets and provides 
updates on programs, there is very little debate and no 
platform for donors or host governments to make concrete 
proposals.  The MDM in recent years has met in September 
(just prior to the annual AdComm meeting) and in May. 
European donors have urged UNRWA to change the meeting to 
just one large MDM per year, with more regular, technical 
briefings on budgets and key issues, such as the agency's 
emergency programs in the West Bank and Gaza.  Participation 
in the MDM is limited to host governments (Jordan, Syria, 
Lebanon), Egypt, donors who contribute at least USD 1 million 
to UNRWA's General Fund programs and the PLO, as observer. 
The number of participants in recent years has hovered around 
¶20.  UNRWA also holds semi-annual informal donor briefings on 
an ad hoc basis, focused on urgent humanitarian needs or more 
routine technical topics, such as food aid or shelter 
rehabilitation. 
 
-------------------------------- 
GENEVA CONFERENCE PROMPTS REVIEW 
OF GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE 
-------------------------------- 
 
¶7.  (SBU) Noting that participants in UNRWA's June 7-8 Geneva 
conference had called for the "reinvigoration" of UNRWA's 
governance structure, External Relations Director Andrew 
Whitley invited key stakeholders -- current and incoming 
AdComm Chairs Japan and Jordan plus top donors the U.S. and 
EC -- to a July 8 meeting in Amman to review existing 
governance structures and identify next steps.  All 
participants -- including Whitley and UNRWA Deputy ComGen 
Karen AbuZayd -- agreed that measures needed to be taken to 
improve the way UNRWA interacts with its stakeholders.  GOJ 
Department of Palestinian Affairs Director General Abdulkarim 
AbulHaija responded that host governments would not accept 
new governance structures (e.g., a newly created Executive 
Committee or Governing Board) but would be willing to work 
within existing structures to give them more relevance and 
possibly an oversight role for UNRWA programs and budgets. 
AbulHaija added that the Advisory Commission, which recently 
has played virtually no role in the agency's management, 
would be an appropriate vehicle for reform. 
 
¶8. (SBU) As incoming AdComm chair, Jordan offered to draft a 
paper outlining suggested changes to the Commission, 
including function and membership, and solicited input from 
UNRWA and major donors.  Jordan's initial ideas for reform 
included more regular meetings of the AdComm in Amman, to 
review programs, budgets and special projects.  The AdComm 
could also prepare written recommendations to UNRWA.  Jordan 
proposed that this informal group -- Jordan, Japan, the U.S. 
and EC -- meet again in late August to review the draft paper 
prior to presentation to the broader "core group" of UNRWA 
stakeholders in early September.  (UNRWA had promised to hold 
this "core group" meeting as the first formal follow-up to 
the Geneva conference.  See ref a.) 
 
-------------------------------------- 
ADVISORY OR OVERSIGHT ROLE FOR ADCOMM? 
-------------------------------------- 
 
¶9.  (C) While welcoming Jordan's leadership offer, Whitley 
noted that stakeholders and UNRWA needed to reach consensus 
on the appropriate role for the Advisory Commission. 
Asserting that UN Resolution 302 empowered the AdComm only to 
"advise" the UNRWA Commissioner General, Whitley said that 
UNRWA ComGen Peter Hansen interpreted the AdComm's mandate 
very narrowly.  An advisory role is welcomed by Hansen, but 
an oversight role is not.  According to Whitley, Hansen has 
further argued that any change in the AdComm's function would 
require a new UNGA resolution.  AbulHaija and refcoord 
separately questioned Hansen's assertion.  Other UN 
resolutions refer to the AdComm's role in developing plans 
for the organization and administration of the agency, while 
recent public UNRWA documents state that the Advisory 
Commission's mandate is to "review" UNRWA programs and 
activities. A more activist AdComm -- with a membership that 
includes UNRWA's largest donors -- would better serve UNRWA 
and stakeholder interests by conducting a critical review of 
UNRWA programs and priorities and thereby establishing better 
donor buy-in and support for UNRWA programs.  AbulHaija, ECHO 
Representative Robert Watkins and refcoord noted that a more 
activist AdComm would require a membership that reflects 
UNRWA's current donor base.  AdComm members Belgium, Egypt, 
France and Turkey play very little role in UNRWA affairs, 
while major donors such as Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands 
and the European Commission have no seat at the AdComm table. 
 
------------------------------------------ 
CRITERIA FOR MEMBERSHIP IN REVAMPED ADCOMM 
------------------------------------------ 
 
¶10.  (C) Whitley and AbuZayd agreed that a "reinvigorated" 
AdComm would require new membership but questioned what 
criteria would be established to determine membership.  All 
meeting participants agreed that the refugee-hosting 
countries -- Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, as well as the PLO 
(representing the PA's role as refugee hosting authority in 
the West Bank and Gaza) should be included.  For the donors, 
financial criteria should be established, some sort of 
baseline contribution to the agency's programs.  Refcoord 
argued that only contributors to the agency's General Fund 
programs should be considered, as many of the new Arab donors 
contributed only to UNRWA's emergency appeals and refused to 
support the agency's regular budget.  AbuZayd and Whitley 
agreed, noting that Arab support for UNRWA was tied largely 
to recent crises in the West Bank and Gaza.  Whitley then 
asked what sort of financial basis should be used to 
determine AdComm membership for donors; a baseline dollar 
amount or membership in the "top five" donors?  Based on 2003 
cash contributions to the General Fund, top donors giving 
more than USD 10 million were: the U.S., European Commission, 
United Kingdom, Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands. Other 
major donors in the USD 5-10 million range were:  Germany, 
Denmark, Canada and Switzerland. 
 
¶11.  (C) Refcoord cautioned that membership could be the most 
difficult question of AdComm reform.  Current members may not 
be interested in giving up their seats, while opening the 
body to new members could also prove difficult.  Israel 
expressed interest in participating in the Geneva conference, 
arguing that it has significant interests in UNRWA's 
operations.  The U.S. is committed to promoting Israeli 
participation in international bodies, yet we also understand 
that to be effective, the AdComm must remain apolitical. 
Before proceeding with more public proposals for AdComm 
reform, this small group must first think carefully about its 
reform objectives and how to proceed.  A field-based group 
also must obtain guidance from capitals before moving ahead 
on more substantive discussions. 
 
---------------------------- 
THINKING ABOUT THE WAY AHEAD 
---------------------------- 
 
¶12.  (SBU) Whitley proposed that an interested group of 10-12 
countries form a working group on stakeholder relations that 
would meet over the next year to finalize reform proposals 
and develop a strategy for obtaining any necessary changes to 
the AdComm's mandate and structure in the General Assembly. 
Whitley added that the process could be completed as part of 
or, alternatively, in complement to the EC-chaired Working 
Group that prepared the Geneva Conference's workshop on 
management and resource mobilization.  While the EC had 
agreed to call a post-conference working group meeting before 
September, it was not clear that it would do so.  Whitley 
proposed that the working group include host governments 
Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, as well as the PLO; on the donor 
side, Whitley proposed that the top five donors -- the U.S., 
EC, U.K., Sweden and Norway -- be invited to participate, as 
well as Geneva conference chair (and management reform 
advocate) Switzerland. Participants agreed that this group 
was a logical choice and asked Whitley to seek those 
countries' views on governance reform. 
 
------- 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
¶13.  (C) UNRWA is in dire need of a more formalized method of 
interaction with its key stakeholders.  Under the existing, 
fractured system, UNRWA is able to set programs, priorities 
and budgets without any real consultations with donors.  The 
result has been years of underfunded budgets and, in more 
recent years, hugely expensive emergency programs in the West 
Bank and Gaza that also have gone severely underfunded.  At 
the same time that UNRWA faces these severe budget 
shortfalls, it also is embarking on an expensive program -- 
the Medium Term Plan -- in which it seeks over USD 1 billion 
over five years to make up for years of chronic underfunding 
and introduce new technologies in its core health and 
education programs (ref b).  Without a systematic way of 
setting priorities and budgets, UNRWA's programs and 
financial needs have ballooned over the years to an 
unrealistic USD 750 million per year.  UNRWA's poor approach 
to management -- promoting unfunded mandates -- contributes 
to the growing sense of frustration among the region's 4.1 
million Palestinian refugees.  A more formalized system of 
setting priorities with key stakeholders would be a first 
step toward rationalizing budgets and refugees' expectations. 
 A revamped Advisory Commission, with a broader mandate to 
oversee UNRWA programs and a membership that matches UNRWA's 
donor base, could play a key role in this process.  In order 
to protect U.S. interests, the U.S. must play an active role 
in any discussions regarding UNRWA's governance structure. 
-------------- 
ACTION REQUEST 
-------------- 
 
¶14.  (SBU) Post requests Department's guidance on the working 
group process outlined by Jordan and UNRWA, particularly the 
role the U.S. would be prepared to play in such a working 
group.  We also seek guidance on Department's views on the 
efficacy of the existing governance structure and U.S. 
willingness to consider changes to the AdComm and the MDM, 
including membership. L's views on the mandate of the AdComm, 
as spelled out in UN Resolution 302 of 1949, also would be 
appreciated. 
HALE