VZCZCXYZ0008
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUCNDT #1001/01 3060048
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 010048Z NOV 08
FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 5240
INFO RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 3411

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 001001 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PHUM KDEM
SUBJECT: UN DEMOCRACY FUND (UNDEF): OCT. 23 ADVISORY BOARD 
MEETING 
 
REF: STATE 112910 
 
¶1.  Summary: The UNDEF Advisory Board met Oct. 23 and as 
expected decided to proceed with a third round of projects. 
Applications will be accepted Nov. 10-Dec. 30.  Regarding 
procedures, UN officials told the Board the Secretary-General 
wants the Permanent Missions of countries where UNDEF is 
funding projects to be so advised, and they said the SG will 
not go against the wishes of a sovereign nation opposed to an 
UNDEF project on its own territory.  In the third round, 
therefore, Permanent Missions of those countries on the 
Board's short list of projects will be advised of the Board's 
recommendation before rather than after the list is submitted 
to the SG for final approval.  If there is information 
Permanent Missions wish to draw to the Board's attention, 
said the officials, this can be done either in writing or at 
a meeting of the Board or its Expert Group.  Should 
objections be raised, the Board will again take up the issue 
and determine whether to go ahead and recommend the project 
to the SG.  As instructed, the United States objected to this 
procedure (reftel), while agreeing the SG should not be put 
in the position of being an appeals court for countries 
objecting to UNDEF decisions.  India and Germany supported 
the procedure, however, and as no other Board members spoke 
up it was adopted.  End summary. 
 
¶2.  The Advisory Board met Oct. 23 under the acting 
chairmanship of Amir Dossal, executive director of the UN 
Office for Partnerships, in the absence of Chairman Michael 
Doyle.  UNDEF Executive Head Roland Rich also attended. 
Dossal announced the resignation of Board members Aye Aye 
Thant (U Thant Institute), Adebayo Olukoshi (Council for the 
Development of Social Science in Africa), and Ziad Abdel 
Samad (Arab NGO Network for Development).  He said they would 
be replaced.  Ambassador T. Vance McMahan represented the 
United States.  Following is a summary of the Board's 
discussions. 
 
FIRST ROUND 
 
¶3.  Of the 122 projects, 114 have submitted mid-term reports 
and these will be posted on the UNDEF website, said Dossal, 
as well as project evaluations as they become available. 
Responding to a question from Indian DPR Malhotra, Rich said 
the UNDEF secretariat would try to summarize the first-round 
results when more reports and evaluations are available. 
 
SECOND ROUND 
 
¶4.  Of the 83 projects, 69 have completed project documents 
and of these all but 6 have begun to receive funds, the 6 
being those for whom UNDP is the executing agency, in which 
case disbursement is still pending the signing of an MOU 
between UNDEF and UNDP. Dossal said the MOU would be signed 
within a month.  Ambassador McMahan asked if the length of 
time between project selection and funds disbursement could 
be shortened in future rounds.  Rich said the delay is due in 
part to the second-round innovation of disbursing funds only 
upon completion of agreed project milestones, which would not 
be a problem in future rounds.  He also said speed of 
disbursement depends in part on the quality of the project 
documents, pointing out that in the second round only a 
quarter of them were ready to go upon receipt. 
 
THIRD ROUND 
 
¶5.  Rich said UNDEF has sufficient funds for a $25 million 
third round, but will need to mobilize funds vigorously for a 
fourth round.  German PR Matussek suggested reducing the 
number of projects to be funded in round three and limiting 
the round to $20 million, and Romania and India agreed; but 
Australian PR Hill said it is too early to talk about 
downsizing UNDEF and the solution is to raise more money. 
"In global terms we're only running a handful of projects," 
said Hill, who also spoke in favor of emphasizing project 
merit in the selection process: "If one country ends up with 
two or three projects, so be it," he said.  Rich responded 
that prior UNDEF experience would also be a factor in project 
selection, citing the loss of four projects in Latin America 
in the first and second rounds; and project need would be a 
factor too, as the Board's Expert Group had agreed. 
 
¶6.  Ambassador McMahan supported Australia and called for 
aggressive fundraising.  On project selection, he said, "The 
U.S. believes strongly that UNDEF should fund programs where 
the need is greatest," adding UNDEF should be very clear that 
it is seeking projects in transitioning or fragile 
democracies only and will not consider projects in 
well-established democracies.  On notifying host governments 
of projects recommended for approval, he expressed strong 
concern, saying it is vital that any process not be 
misinterpreted as a request for permission to operate, which 
 
 
would undermine UNDEF's added value as an entity not beholden 
to the permission or the priorities of the host government 
and could scare away qualified NGOs fearing harassment from 
authoritarian governments.  If the majority of the Board 
insists on some form of notification, he said, we agree with 
the position of Australia that this notification should be 
sent after the Secretary-General has approved the list rather 
than before.  To do otherwise would only send a message that 
governments have a veto.  If countries object to a project 
approved by the Board, he said, they should do so in writing 
and the Board will need strict criteria to deal with such 
objections. 
 
¶7.  Dossal said the SG will not go against the wishes of a 
sovereign nation opposed to an UNDEF project on its own 
territory.  By providing a way for the Board to take national 
information into account, he said, it will relieve some of 
the burden on the SG.  Indian DPR Malhotra agreed, saying the 
Board is an advisory body, not an executive one, and should 
have the benefit of local information it might not receive 
from any other source.  This procedure will strengthen the 
Board's decisions, he said.  Rich said the SG wants Permanent 
Missions of countries where UNDEF is funding projects to be 
so advised.  UNDEF's project selection process retains its 
integrity under the new procedures, he insisted, and 
governments are not involved in it.  German PR Matussek 
supported India, saying so far only one government has 
objected to an UNDEF project, indicating a problem if it 
exists is very small.  Ambassador McMahan said the SG should 
not be put in the position of being an appeals court for 
countries objecting to UNDEF decisions, and any objections by 
host countries should be sent back to the Board and should be 
substantive in nature. 
 
¶8.  As no other Board member took the floor, Dossal concluded 
the Board had agreed that its final recommendation on 
projects to be funded would be made after "full 
consultation," i.e., notification to the relevant Permanent 
Missions.  The SG relies on the Board's recommendations, he 
said, and does not intend to pick and choose among them. 
Dossal said he hoped the new procedure would serve in more 
than 99 percent of cases. 
 
¶9.  Rich said the Board could wait until its next meeting, in 
April 2009, to decide how much money to spend in the third 
round.  He said UNDEF will again refrain from advertising the 
round commercially, but will rely on Board members (through 
the websites of their aid agencies and foreign ministries) 
and NGOs to get out the word.  (On Oct. 30 we emailed the 
UNDEF announcement of the third round to IO/RHS.) 
 
MONITORING AND EVALUATION 
 
¶10.  Rich said UNDEF has put in place a much more rigorous 
means of project monitoring in round two, using four methods: 
monitoring by UNDEF itself, by the executing agency, by 
Deloite and Touche through its pro bono agreement with UNDEF, 
and by UNDP (however the MOU with UNDP covering monitoring is 
still with the UN's lawyers).  Ambassador McMahan asked who 
determines project milestones and Rich said they are 
negotiated with the NGOs in the project document.  The 
milestones should be "significant observable events," said 
Rich.  He also said monitoring reports, but not project 
evaluations, would be posted on the UNDEF website. 
Evaluation is a high-cost element, said Rich.  UNDEF will 
need to resort to commercial evaluators, as do other UN 
agencies such as UNIFEM and UNDP.  The expenditure on 
evaluation, however, usually comes at the end of a project, 
although in a small number of cases, said Rich, projects will 
be selected for continuous evaluation.  He said UNDEF has 
just under $2 million in an evaluation fund.  India suggested 
the subject of project evaluation be on the agenda of the 
next Board meeting (scheduled tentatively for April 2009). 
 
ADVISORY BOARD COMPOSITION IN 2009 
 
¶11.  As instructed in reftel, the United States 
representative stressed the need for continuity and said the 
manner of selecting donor members of the Board should not 
change for now.  Australia, India and Japan agreed.  Germany, 
however, said the Board needs to discuss reform of its terms 
of reference in order to attract new contributions, and 
France said pledges as well as contributions should be taken 
into account in selecting donor members.  Dossal concluded 
there would be no changes for now, but said UNDEF will 
consult informally with Board members. 
 
UNDEF BUDGET FOR 2009 
 
¶12.  Rich said UNDEF expects to keep its administrative 
expenses to below $2 million, despite the creation of an 
additional position of program officer at the P-3 level. 
 
 
Germany questioned a projected increase of $61,900 for 
reimbursement to management/support units and Rich said this 
is due to an item the secretariat did not budget for in 2008. 
 Dossal pointed out that $2 million is only four percent of 
program costs. 
Khalilzad