VZCZCXYZ0000
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUCNDT #1908/01 2771514
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 041514Z OCT 06
FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 0351
INFO RUEHAS/AMEMBASSY ALGIERS 1004
RUEHAE/AMEMBASSY ASMARA 0815
RUEHAC/AMEMBASSY ASUNCION 0053
RUEHJL/AMEMBASSY BANJUL 0064
RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING 0862
RUEHBE/AMEMBASSY BELIZE 0056
RUEHBR/AMEMBASSY BRASILIA 0801
RUEHDK/AMEMBASSY DAKAR 0163
RUEHDR/AMEMBASSY DAR ES SALAAM 0210
RUEHSB/AMEMBASSY HARARE 0118
RUEHKG/AMEMBASSY KINGSTON 0160
RUEHLS/AMEMBASSY LUSAKA 0075
RUEHMN/AMEMBASSY MONTEVIDEO 0121
RUEHZP/AMEMBASSY PANAMA 0078
RUEHPL/AMEMBASSY PORT LOUIS 0094
RUEHSA/AMEMBASSY PRETORIA 0698
RUEHGO/AMEMBASSY RANGOON 0139
RUEHRH/AMEMBASSY RIYADH 0105
RUEHSN/AMEMBASSY SAN SALVADOR 0105
RUEHSG/AMEMBASSY SANTIAGO 0188
RUEHDG/AMEMBASSY SANTO DOMINGO 0066
RUEHUL/AMEMBASSY SEOUL 0698
RUEHTG/AMEMBASSY TEGUCIGALPA 0100
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO 8212
RUEHUM/AMEMBASSY ULAANBAATAR 0452
RUEHVN/AMEMBASSY VIENTIANE 0024
RUEHVB/AMEMBASSY ZAGREB 2403
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 2278

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