VZCZCXYZ0026
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUCNDT #0045/01 0172027
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 172027Z JAN 08
FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
TO SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 3556

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 000045 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: KDEM PHUM PREL
SUBJECT: UNDEF ADVISORY BOARD MEETING 
 
 
¶1. (U) On December 14, 2007, the Advisory Board of the United 
Nations Democracy Fund held its sixth meeting.  The Advisory 
Board heard a briefing on the response to and modalities for 
the second round, discussed the proposed evaluation strategy, 
the preliminary calendar for 2007-2008, the administrative 
expenditures of UNDEF and the proposed conference in Benin. 
 
¶2. (U) The Alternate Chair, Professor Michael Doyle, led the 
meeting.  He announced that UNDEF has received 64 million USD 
from 32 member states since its inception and noted new 
contributions by Italy, Latvia, Romania and Turkey.  He also 
acknowledged new contributions by the Czech Republic and 
Sweden. 
 
¶3. (U) Roland Rich, Executive Director, gave a brief update 
on the first round projects.  He stated that grantees are 
submitting reports as required.  Rich explained that a 
project of a Bangladeshi NGO was suspended due to the results 
of an audit of a bilateral aid project and UNDEF is currently 
awaiting the results of a second audit carried out by the 
Netherlands.  Also, a Moscow Bureau for Human Rights project 
is being redesigned due to timing issues, but will go 
forward.  In both cases, no funds were expended. 
 
The Second Round 
---------------- 
 
¶4. (U) Rich noted that the application window was opened for 
second round projects on November 15, but that slightly less 
than 200 proposals were received.  He explained that last 
year the majority of project applications were received in 
the last 24 hours and that UNDEF staff is in contact with 
approximately 100 NGOs who intend to apply.  Rich also noted 
that there has been a change in the types of applications 
received- so far only 3% have come from UN agencies, which 
reflects UNDEF,s intention to work with non-UN groups.  Due 
to the low number of applications, UNDEF decided to extend 
the application deadline until December 31 and is hoping for 
over 500 applications.  While France welcomed the extension, 
Germany felt that UNDEF should stick to its deadline next 
year. 
 
¶5. (U) A representative from the PCG spoke of the new 
streamlined role of the PCG in the second round, based on 
lessons learned from the first round.  He also expressed his 
belief that the reduced number of UN agencies applying for 
UNDEF funding is likely a result of the PCG,s strict 
adherence to giving low priority to projects that looked like 
&additional UN projects.8  France welcomed the PCG,s 
presence in the meeting and expressed their desire for a more 
active role of the PCG in project selection.  Hungary also 
expressed support for the PCG,s role. 
 
¶6. (U) Several delegates addressed the issue of project 
distribution.  India noted that in the new project 
guidelines, the ratio of country to regional projects changed 
from 80:20 to 70:30.  India expressed a preference that the 
ratio remain at 80:20, since UNDEF,s goal is to work with 
civil society NGOs at the national level. Ambassador Ron 
Godard, Senior Area Advisor, speaking for the United States, 
also recalled the goal of 75% of the grants going to civil 
society.   Japan called for an increase in projects funded in 
Asia, although Rich noted that fewer applications were 
received from the Asian region. 
 
Evaluation Strategy 
------------------- 
 
¶7.  (U) Rich gave an explanation of UNDEF,s evaluation 
strategy.  India expressed concern regarding the evaluation 
strategy, particularly the retention of 10% of funds for 
monitoring and evaluation.  The delegate said that if UNDEF 
expends 25 million USD, they would have 2.5 million for 
monitoring and evaluation, which he viewed as excessive. 
Rich clarified that there was a ceiling of 25,000 USD per 
project held back for evaluation.  He also noted that in the 
first round, 10 percent of the money was set aside by 
grantees for evaluation, so UNDEF is only retaining money 
already earmarked for evaluation.  Rich explained that the 
evaluation system is evolving and in some cases, a 
micro-evaluation will be done, in other cases, it will be 
useful to carry out evaluations of clusters of projects in a 
comparative way.  Responding to Ambassador Godard's question 
about how evaluators would be chosen, Rich stated that 
evaluators would be chosen through a tender process that will 
require significant experience in democracy promotion.  He 
noted that he is hoping to include some first round project 
evaluations in the evaluations done with second round funds. 
 
¶8. Japan asked whether a threshold of expenditure could be 
created and projects over that threshold would require third 
party evaluators.  India also stated that very small projects 
would not require third party evaluators.  Rich agreed that 
small projects on their own should not need third party 
 
evaluations but it may be useful to evaluate clusters of 
small projects, so he did not support the monetary cutoff. 
He clarified that every project will need to submit a report 
and that every project must have an audit.  The evaluations 
would help answer the question of what UNDEF does best and 
would help define UNDEF,s niche.  CIVICUS, representing 
civil society, expressed support for the evaluation strategy, 
but highlighted the importance of informing grantees of the 
results of the process so they could also benefit from 
lessons learned. 
 
Timetable 
--------- 
 
¶9. Ambassador Godard expressed the US desire for a more 
accelerated calendar, noting the extended period between the 
advisory board,s review of the &short list8 and the first 
disbursement.  Germany agreed.  Rich explained that this year 
when the Secretary General decides which projects will be 
funded, the winners would not be announced, as this gave 
recipients a sense of entitlement and made negotiations on 
the project document more difficult.  He also stated that 
project documents will be done in batches and as they are 
completed, projects will go to the comptroller to make the 
payment.  He stated that his best guess is that the first 
group of payments will be made in June, but would be pleased 
if they could be made sooner. 
 
¶10. Regarding the donor meeting, Rich outlined UNDEF,s plans 
for a large meeting with perspective donors, skeptical 
states, interested parties and others, in which people from 
the field would come to talk about their projects and 
information would be provided to participants in paper and 
electronic form.  Ambassador Godard suggested that, in 
addition to an open door meeting, a separate meeting for 
donors should be held, particularly for those donors not on 
the advisory board.  Rich suggested providing donors with 
specific documentation rather than a separate meeting. 
However, France and India agreed with the US view that donors 
should be given special recognition. 
 
Administrative Budget 
--------------------- 
 
¶9.  (U) Rich provided the Board with the administrative 
budget for the previous 22 months.  He noted that when the 
2007 books were closed, he would provide the board with the 
yearly budget. 
 
Benin Conference 
---------------- 
 
¶10.  (U) Benin once again outlined its conference proposal. 
The delegate noted that it would be &too bad if the fund had 
a skewed view of its mandate8 and stated that, while the 
Fund should abide by financial rules, the rules should not 
tie its hands in achieving the mission of democracy 
promotion. 
 
¶11.  (U) Ambassador Godard stated that, while Benin made an 
eloquent case for the value of the conference, the conference 
would be more appropriately funded by other venues.  The 
representative of CIVICUS stated that financing the proposal 
with UNDEF funds would create a worrisome precedent and noted 
that the funds are for projects submitted through specific 
procedures. 
 
¶12. (U) Unlike at the meeting at the expert level, many 
Advisory Board members were supportive of the conference 
proposal.  Australia commented that UNDEF received widespread 
recognition at the Community of Democracies meeting in Bamako 
and the Benin conference could be a "useful tool to build 
momentum.8  He suggested that NGOs from Benin bid for the 
funds and that other bodies could also contribute.  Germany, 
France, Hungary and Japan suggested that the Institute for 
Human Rights in Benin submit a project proposal to be 
reviewed under the normal procedures.  France also noted that 
UNDEF could also provide expertise and members of the 
advisory board could commit to participate. Japan also 
suggested that Benin submit a proposal through UNDEF 
procedures and complimented Benin,s plan to share 10 percent 
of the conference cost.   The Japanese delegate expressed 
concern that the conference exceeds the maximum possible 
financing of 500,000 USD. The Indian delegate argued that it 
was for this type of project that India donated 10 million 
USD and has pledged 10 million more.   He agreed with Benin 
that conference participation would increase if UNDEF hosted, 
rather than an NGO and pushed the committee to find a way to 
help Benin. 
 
¶13. (U) Michael Doyle noted that UNDEF normally supports 
projects on the ground, but it was ¬ a hard and fast 
rule.8  He cautioned that there was a danger of the 
appearance of giving funds to members of the board.  He also 
 
suggested that if the Benin proposal made it through the 
first round, UNDEF could lend the conference its logo and 
assistance, including advice on how to search for other 
funding.  Doyle also stated that this should be regarded as a 
special occasion and that UNDEF sponsorship should not be 
lent to other projects without a decision by the advisory 
board.  It was agreed by the Board that, through the NGO from 
Benin, a proposal could be submitted and would then go 
through the normal application procedures to apply for 
funding. 
 
¶14.  (U)  Comment:  USUN recommends that the Department 
reinforce with UNDEF Executive Director Roland Rich the U.S. 
position on the Benin conference.  UNDEF sponsorship should 
be limited to technical assistance and not funding. If Benin 
NGO does apply for funding, the project should be evaluated 
following UNDEF's normal application procedures and should 
fall under the UNDEF threshold of 500,000 USD. End Comment 
KHALILZAD