VZCZCXYZ0000
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHUNV #0361/01 2101454
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 291454Z JUL 09
FM USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 9889
INFO RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 1729

UNCLAS UNVIE VIENNA 000361 
 
SIPDIS 
SENSITIVE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS:SNAR, KCRM, UN, PGOV 
SUBJECT: UNODC's Major Donors Meet; Send Strong Messages 
to Costa 
 
REF: 
¶A.  June 24 Amadeo - Pala e-mail 
¶B.  UNVIE 072 
¶C.  UNVIE 296 
¶D.  STATE 57099 
¶E.  UNVIE 323 
¶F.  UNVIE 306 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
1.(SBU) In a meeting on July 1, Major Donors to the UN 
Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) reaffirmed the 
relevance of the Donors' group (MDG), explored ways to 
ensure the effectiveness of the newly emerged Finance and 
Governance Working Group (FinGov), and expressed diverse 
views on dealing with UNODC's current financial crisis. 
Most Donors voiced concern over the merger of UNODC's 
Independent Evaluation Unit (IEU) into a new Planning, 
Monitoring and Evaluation section (PME), and a large 
degree of skepticism on the proposed Trafficking in 
Persons (TIP) Global Plan of Action (Plan).  The EU 
stressed their support for UNODC programs in West Africa, 
and all expressed to the group support for the developing 
thematic approach for UNODC activities.   Under the 
chairmanship of UK Ambassador Simon Smith, Donors 
discussed these issues among themselves in a closed 
morning session.  At the end of the morning meeting, 
Netherlands expressed its opposition to a term extension 
for Costa.  Norway seconded the Dutch position. 
Netherlands and several other delegations also applauded 
Mission efforts to coordinate major donor issues prior to 
the July 1 meeting. 
 
2.(SBU) UK chair conveyed the summary of the morning 
session to UNODC Executive Director Antonio Costa (Costa) 
and UNODC senior management in the afternoon open 
session.   UK chair appeared to startle the UNODC 
officials with his pointed summary, particularly 
regarding the IEU decisions.  Costa welcomed UK chair's 
call to consult closely, particularly with regard to 
UNODC's continuing realignment and its development of 
thematic approaches.  Donors emphasized their recognition 
of the significance of Costa's work to improve UNODC 
financial standing, and acknowledged the shortfall in 
contributions to the General Purpose Fund (GPF).  On the 
margins of the MDG meeting, major donors were receptive 
to an informal U.S. proposal for frequent expert-level 
meetings to find ways to translate Major Donor 
recommendations into action.  In a follow-on briefing to 
UNODC member states on July 3, Costa touched upon some of 
the above issues but primarily focused on the situation 
in West Africa and the budget.   End Summary. 
 
----------------------- 
MAJOR DONORS GROUP (MD) 
AND FINANCE-GOVERNANCE 
WORKING GROUP (FINGOV) 
------------------------ 
 
3.(SBU) In a closed session in the morning of July 1, 
Donors discussed among themselves the relevance of the 
MDG, given the formation of the new Finance and 
Governance Working Group (FinGov) and the objection of 
recipient countries over the exclusiveness of the MDG. 
Nearly every delegation present stated their support for 
the FinGov process and their desire that FinGov develop 
into a significant communication tool with the UNODC 
Secretariat.  There was general agreement, however, that 
major donors should continue to take advantage of the MDG 
as a critically important avenue of communication with 
the UNODC Secretariat.  Donors agreed that the MDG should 
not burden the Secretariat, and should be used as a way 
to both help FinGov set its agenda and bring donor 
messages to the FinGov process.  The UK chair agreed, and 
cited as an example the regional focus on East Asia that 
donor countries Australia and Japan have successfully 
promoted.  In addition, the chair urged MDG to operate 
more like the Geneva Group.  Sweden highlighted the need 
for the MDG to show transparency to the G-77 countries, 
but the chair expressed his concern that suggestions to 
establish a regular mechanism to brief G-77 on the MDG 
meetings could be politicizing. 
 
4.(SBU) USDEL encouraged participants to propose agenda 
items for the FinGov, and suggested that the initial 
agenda include a plan for meetings through the end of the 
year.  UNODC could be asked to brief FinGov on its 
thematic programs, such as its East Asia programs. 
Participants agreed that giving FinGov topics of 
 
discussion could reduce the possibility of the FinGov 
developing into a forum for ideological debate.   The 
Spanish delegate (likely FinGov co-chair) later indicated 
he would include the U.S. suggestions on the draft FinGov 
agenda.  Austria noted the evolving role of major donors, 
observing that it earlier had served as a pledging venue 
and "beauty contest" for UNODC projects, but now was 
taking on more of a management/oversight focus.  USDEL 
stressed the benefits of regular, informal consultations 
on a range of UNODC-related issues among major donors. 
Delegations welcomed the proposal and acknowledged the 
importance of increasing our collective knowledge base. 
 
---------------------------- 
COORDINATE ANTI-DRUG EFFORTS 
IN WEST AFRICA 
---------------------------- 
 
5.(SBU) EU donors highlighted their focus on West 
Africa.  (Note: In a June coordination meeting with the 
Mission, Sweden stressed that West Africa would be a top 
geographic priority for Swedish EU presidency.  (Ref F.) 
Netherlands mentioned its contribution of USD 1.5 million 
to UNODC's programs in Sierra Leone and the European 
Commission (EC) referred to the Euro 20 million it gave 
to a Nigerian justice reform program.   The EC 
representative stressed a regional approach, urging 
capacity building for regional organizations such as 
Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).    He 
claimed that the international community had spent a lot 
of money fighting cocaine traffic in Latin America, but 
should do more for Africa.   Sweden noted that much could 
be done bilaterally with Africa in the areas of criminal 
justice, law enforcement, and improving information 
collection and analysis.  However, Sweden also noted the 
difficulties of coordination, pointing out there are two 
existing plans for Africa: the Praia Plan and the ECOWAS 
Plan.  New Zealand called for increased UNODC programs on 
criminal justice, law enforcement, and information 
collection and analysis.  USDEL stated that U.S. 
contribution to UNODC for its programs in the region were 
not huge (USD 2.6 million), and emphasized the need for 
UNODC to take an active role in coordinating assistance 
in Guinea Bissau.  Based on these discussions, UK chair 
concluded that donors should encourage UNODC to maximize 
coordination with countries in the region and with 
international organizations, and to assess the relative 
success of institutional building in the region and with 
other regions in the areas of law enforcement, data 
collection and analysis of in-country information. 
 
------------------------- 
GLOBAL PLAN OF ACTION ON 
TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS 
------------------------- 
 
6.(SBU) Most donors expressed opposition to the idea of 
a Global Plan of Action for Trafficking in Persons (GPA), 
which has been discussed at the UN General Assembly in 
New York.  Australia, while recognizing the value of a 
global approach in raising awareness, noted that such an 
exercise could distract from efforts to help countries 
implement the existing Trafficking in Persons (TIP) 
Protocol to the UN Convention against Transnational 
Organized Crime (UNTOC), and from existing regional 
initiatives such as the Bali Process related to UNTOC. 
Agreeing with Austalia, USDEL stressed the U.S. 
commitment to fighting human trafficking, but through the 
TIP Protocol.  Spain supported the Australian and U.S. 
position, and described a GPA as premature.  Canada, 
Sweden, Netherlands, UK, and Germany voiced opposition to 
such a GPA, noting the distraction from TIP Protocol, the 
costliness of mobilizing the General Assembly (GA) on the 
issue, and the inappropriateness of New York as the venue 
for TIP discussions.   Austria was the lone donor 
supporting a GPA, claiming it could raise awareness. 
France was ambivalent, saying that the New York and 
Vienna processes had to be merged.  Netherlands was 
particularly vocal against a GPA, noting that the EU had 
stated a common position at the GA in May against such a 
Plan.  The Dutch representative urged UNODC to be 
"neutral," and expressed discomfort that the discussions 
on a GPA are taking place in New York, while the experts 
are in Vienna.  There were heated exchanges between 
Netherlands and Austria, with Austria denying there was a 
common EU position in the GA opposing a GPA, and 
Netherlands citing the EU statement from the GA report. 
Finally, Sweden, which had just assumed the EU Presidency 
that day, intervened to say EU member states would sort 
out the EU position on a GPA in a separate meeting.  The 
UK chair concluded that there was a large degree of 
 
skepticism on a GPA because of concerns on its potential 
effects on the implementation of existing instruments. 
In the event that a GPA could not be avoided, donors 
generally agreed that Vienna experts would need to be 
closely involved in any GPA process. 
 
------------------------ 
SUPPORT FOR RE-ALIGNMENT 
------------------------ 
 
7.(SBU) In the face of a short fall in its General 
Purpose Funds (GPF), UNODC is re-aligning its Operations 
and Treaty Affairs divisions (Ref B).  MDG indicated its 
support for the realignment.  USDEL praised the 
realignment process as a move in the right direction, and 
stressed our support for the thematic program approach - 
particularly as a vehicle to help determine donor funding 
priorities.   USDEL noted that the U.S. provided USD 1.2 
million for GPF last year and this year would seek to 
maintain that funding level.  Germany reported it would 
not be increasing its GPF.  Sweden, a major contributor 
to the GPF like other Nordic countries, indicated that 
next year it would not be able to fund the UNODC World 
Drug Report, which has been financed solely by Swedish 
contributions to date. 
 
--------------------------------- 
LOSING THE INDEPENDENT EVALUATION 
UNIT (IEU) IN THE PROCESS 
--------------------------------- 
 
8.(SBU) UNODC plans to consolidate the IEU and the 
Strategic Planning Unit (SPU) into a new Planning, 
Monitoring and Evaluation Section (PME).   In the 
informal expert-level consultations Mission conducted 
running up to the July 1 meeting (Ref A), the majority of 
MDG countries expressed serious concern about such 
consolidation.  At the July 1 meeting, nearly all 
indicated support for a PME (and internal stocktaking) 
but stressed the need to safeguard an independent 
evaluation process in order to promote accountability and 
transparency within the UNODC.  The UK noted that it had 
been "surprised" by Costa's decision to merge the IEU, 
especially after donors at the previous meeting (December 
2008) exhorted UNODC to empower the IEU, and the 2007 UN 
Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) report 
stressed the need for IEU's operational independence. 
Noting its recent decision to fund the IEU, Norway 
indicated that it would now need proof that such 
independence would be maintained after the merger. 
USDEL, voicing support for the creation of the new PME, 
sought clarification on how the independence of 
evaluations would be maintained.  USDEL suggested that, 
in order prevent a backlog of reports, PME give 
management a set period of time (30 days) to respond to 
evaluation reports and that PME should release the 
evaluation report first, and management response later, 
if management response takes longer than 30 days. Sweden 
added that it might cut its funding if the IEU ceases to 
be independent.  (UNODC told us subsequently that the IEU 
would be retained and funded as an independent project 
that the Europeans and others could pay for). 
 
--------------------------- 
COSTA EXTENSION TERM LIMITS 
--------------------------- 
 
9.(SBU) At the conclusion of the closed morning 
session, Netherlands unexpectedly asked for donors' 
position on Costa's quest to seek an extension when his 
second term expires in May 2010 (Refs C, D and E). 
Netherlands advocated a "strict application" of the two- 
term limit principle.  Norway agreed, indicating that it 
planned to uphold the earlier UNGA resolution on term 
limits.  After the morning session concluded, and promted 
by the delegations' questions about U.S. view, USDEL, 
using Ref D talking points, informed Norway and The 
Netherlands that the U.S. position was to not support an 
extension beyond two terms. 
 
--------------------- 
THE AFTERNOON SESSION 
--------------------- 
 
10.(SBU) MDG held an afternoon session with Costa and 
senior UNODC management, including the directors of all 
the divisions.  UK Chair summarized conclusions regarding 
donors' views on FinGov, West Africa, their concerns about 
and opposition by many countries to a possible GPA on 
human trafficking, their support for UNODC realignment 
and thematic approach, and their serious concern about 
 
the proposed consolidation of the IEU.  Costa responded 
that notwithstanding previous donor exhortation for an 
independent IEU, UNODC's current financial crisis is 
forcing it to merge the IEU into the PME, since UNODC is 
unable to fill the position of the IEU chief.   Costa 
stressed that he did not contest the need for independent 
evaluation and would ensure the integrity of evaluations, 
including by presenting evaluation reports simultaneously 
to both member states and the UNODC management.  (Note: 
In a July 22 meeting, UNODC Operations Division Director 
Francis Maertens (Maertens) told Charge that Costa had 
heard donors' message loud and clear, and is considering 
retaining the IEU as an independent unit.  End Note.) 
 
------------------------------ 
Costa on UNODC Resource Issues 
------------------------------ 
 
11.(SBU) Costa noted that UNODC resources have grown 
fourfold in the past few years.  Therefore, UNODC has to 
break down the walls between divisions by formulating a 
thematic and programmatic approach, to make "one" UNODC. 
Adding that FinGov had "room for improvement," he also 
said that the two Commissions (one on drugs, and the 
other on crime) were "one too many."  Reporting the well 
known fact that UNODC is suffering a shortfall of "USD 2- 
3 million" in the GPF (Ref B), and with no real 
likelihood of an increase to the regular budget, he has 
ordered cost cutting across the board, including the 
freezing of vacancies and abolishment of posts.  UNODC 
financial officer Chris Kirkcaldy expanded on the dire 
financial situation, highlighting the 25 percent drop in 
GPF that necessitated elimination of 29 positions (only 6 
of them vacant) and the merger of SPU and IEU. 
 
12.(SBU) (Note:  in his July 3, Mid-Year briefing to 
all member states, Costa reiterated these comments, 
adding that although it was costing money in the short 
term to reduce staff, this cost would be offset next year 
and realized as a net gain for UNODC in later years. 
Maertens explained that UNODC's realignment of the 
Operations and the Treaty Affairs divisions was the 
result of competition for funds among different UNODC 
divisions, and that a joint directorate would ensure 
effective funding within UNODC, as well as increase 
efficiency in administrative functions such as travel and 
recruitment.  End Note.) 
 
13.(SBU) Costa offered alternative funding suggestions, 
such as a surcharge for special funds, a biannual 
pledging conference, which he described as "hard to 
organize," and having national governments share the cost 
of UNODC programs in their countries.   Sweden spoke 
against pledging conferences as a "waste of money." 
Canada, one of the largest donors, indicated it was 
considering a slight increase in GPF contributions, and 
would be willing to consider supporting an increase in 
Regular Budget if UNODC could make a convincing case for 
it.  USDEL explained the need to earmark our 
contributions, and pointed out that our earmarked 
contributions are assessed the full 13 percent 
administrative recovery cost (without naming those donors 
that do not pay the full amount, such as the EC).  USDEL 
also stated our hope to sustain or increase our GPF 
contributions.  Japan stressed the need to "honor" UNODC 
mandates based on the (drug and crime) conventions. 
There were many comments from donors, e.g., Sweden, 
Germany, Netherlands, and Norway questioning the IEU 
merger. 
 
--------------------------- 
UNODC Urged to Increase 
Coordination in West Africa 
--------------------------- 
 
14.(SBU) UK Chair Ambassador Smith summarized donor 
discussions, urging "coherence" at national, regional and 
inter-regional levels, an "integrated" response for UN to 
"deliver as one."  There were calls for a long-term 
strategy, and increased coordination and consultation 
with member states as well as the need to focus on 
building capacity in criminal institutions, law 
enforcement and information collection and analysis. 
Maertens explained that UNODC understands the importance 
of ECOWAS ownership and is there to assist it.  He 
stressed the importance of capacity building, mentioned 
the West Africa Initiative in New York that plans to work 
with Interpol, the EC, and countries such as Sierra Leone 
and Guinea Bissau.  Maertens added that the ECOWAS plan 
also involved integration with other UN offices such as 
the Department of Political Affairs (DPA) and the 
 
Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO). 
 
15.(SBU) In Costa's July 3 mid-year briefing to member 
states, he and Maertens detailed at length the ECOWAS 
plan and the West Africa Coast Initiative, which would be 
launched in New York later this month.  Costa's briefing 
focused on the connection between organized crime and 
drug trafficking in West Africa.  He said UNODC had 
produced a threat assessment for West Africa which would 
be unveiled in New York, which would include information 
on a range of trafficked items in West Africa, including 
drugs, women, arms, and "e-waste" (outdated computer 
hardware).   He added that funding for the "World Drug 
Report" was in question and urged other countries to 
"chip in" to fund its publication in the future. (Note: 
Sweden has been the sole funder of this Report.  Many 
countries indicated their frequent use of the statistics 
contained in the report.  The African countries, in 
particular, expressed their support and appreciation for 
UNODC's efforts on the continent.  Maertens also briefed 
on the recent Carribean/Central American Ministerial for 
which a number of countries from those regions also 
voiced appreciation and support.  End Note.) 
 
--------------------- 
COSTA ON THE TIP 
GLOBAL PLAN OF ACTION 
--------------------- 
 
16.(SBU) UK Chair Ambassador Smith highlighted major 
donors' skepticism of the utility of such a plan and their 
priority to promote the implementation of existing TIP 
instruments.  UNODC TIP chief Doris Buddenberg asserted 
that the UN General Assembly (UNGA) discussion on the 
merits of such a plan were inconclusive and it was 
unclear about the form of such GPA , whether it would be 
like the UNGA Special Session (UNGASS) Action Plan or a 
political declaration.  She noted that it would be up to 
the Member States to drive the process.  UK urged the 
inclusion of Vienna expertise in any future exercise. 
Netherlands charged that UNODC had not been neutral in 
the debate of the merits of such a Plan.  Canada seconded 
the Dutch position in calling for UNODC neutrality, and 
also warned UNODC not to expend "significant" resources to 
this exercise.  Costa responded that the UNODC was not 
taking sides and had spent "zero resources" on such a 
Plan. 
 
 
--------------------------------- 
Informal U.S. Proposal: How to 
Implement Major Donor Conclusions 
--------------------------------- 
 
17.(SBU) In the morning session, Netherlands and 
several others complimented the U.S. for the expert-level 
coordination meeting it held (Ref A) prior to July 1.  In 
fact, they welcomed the U.S. suggestion made on the 
margins of the July 1 meeting, to have major donors meet 
regularly or frequently at an informal, expert level, in 
order to follow up on the implementation of priorities 
agreed at the semi-annual ambassadorial-level MDG 
meetings.   There was general agreement that an expert- 
level meeting to coordinate ideas for the first FinGov 
would be a good start to inaugurating such a mechanism. 
Along with FinGov strategizing, topics for future 
informal expert-level meetings could include gathering 
information from UNODC on the independence of evaluation 
in the new PME unit,  further exchange of information on 
funding priorities, and further discussion of regional 
programs such as East Asia and West Africa. 
 
------- 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
18.(SBU) Participants were clearly very pleased with 
the frankness of discussion in the closed morning 
session, one of the factors for their strong support to 
retain the MDG mechanism.   This trend, renewed in June 
2008, to move away from prepared long UNODC briefings, to 
freer discussions among the donors, and clearer messages 
from the donors to UNODC has only strengthened 
participant's positive assessment of the MDG's utility. 
Costa and the UNODC leadership were clearly perturbed by 
the coordinated, and somewhat strong, message from the 
Major Donors on various issues; One result of this is our 
understanding that Costa is reconsidering his earlier 
plan to abolish the IEU.  Regular stocktaking via 
informal meetings at the working group level would likely 
have a positive impact on UNODC and can easily become a 
vehicle to encourage further improvement in UNODC 
 
management of priorities and programs.  Given the renewed 
sense of initiative coming out of the MDG meeting, USG 
should work hard to ensure that we retain this energy and 
direction--especially with regard to setting the agenda 
of the FinGov and channeling its activities to 
constructive areas of discussion. END COMMENT. 
 
PYATT