VZCZCXYZ0005
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHC #2716 3120907
ZNY EEEEE ZZH
O 051950Z NOV 07
FM SECSTATE WASHDC
TO USMISSION USUN NEW YORK IMMEDIATE 9434-9436

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