@DFID_UK "limited evidence UNDP mngmnt considered cost control. Country evidence points to mixed progress on demonstrating cost-efficiency"
@DFID_UK @undp What's in there for DFID to change its wording of UNDP review now? Is someone at DFID scared of his/her past dealings @UNDP?
@DFID_UK @undp DFID cannot ascertain any expenditure made by UNDP to UK taxpayers. Otherwise why you don't publish detailed expenditures?
@DFID_UK @undp How can u claim they GOOD, when u said "Evidence @country level was highly critical of UNDP’s ability to deliver results"?
HERE IS WHAT DFID REPORTS SAID ABOUT UNDP
1. UNDP’s partnership with the World Bank needs to be more effective, particularly in fragile and crisis-affected countries.
2. UNDP’s near universal mandate means its technical resources are spread very thinly. The Board does not provide strategic direction. HR management is weak. It has a weak results chain.
3. There is limited evidence of active senior management consideration of cost control. Country evidence points to mixed progress on demonstrating cost-efficiency.
4. The Executive Board is politicised and there is a lack of consensus on the key areas for reform. It is not clear that current plans for change will deliver the required depth and breadth of reform.
5. Evidence gathered at country level was highly critical of UNDP’s ability to deliver results. Its delivery can be undermined by staffing issues and bureaucratic processes.
6. Its performance in fragile states is mixed. It has reasonable training and a range of guidance and analytical tools but struggles to fill posts.
7. There is no evidence that the Climate Strategy was directly guiding resource allocation decisions
CAN UNDP RANK "GOOD" BASED ON THE ABOVE?
CALL ANDREW MITCHELL AND TELL HIM TO COME CLEAN !