UNDP WATCH: DFID scared of its past dealings with UNDP rush to deny its rating for agency - forgetting that its report speaks differently

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

DFID scared of its past dealings with UNDP rush to deny its rating for agency - forgetting that its report speaks differently

@DFID_UK "limited evidence UNDP mngmnt considered cost control. Country evidence points to mixed progress on demonstrating cost-efficiency"

@undpwatchundpwatch

@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?

@undpwatchundpwatch

@DFID_UK @undp DFID cannot ascertain any expenditure made by UNDP to UK taxpayers. Otherwise why you don't publish detailed expenditures?

@undpwatchundpwatch

@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 !

No comments:

Post a Comment

Andrew Mitchell - says Helen Clark is up to no good!

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

H.E. Dirk Niebel - German Development Minister

"I take the accusations made in the media concerning corruption and breach of fiduciary duty at the Global Fund very seriously and I am sure that the Fund will clarify the matter without delay. Germany is one of the biggest donors to the Global Fund. I have therefore seen to it that a special review will be held. I have frozen all further disbursements to the Fund until matters have been fully clarified, and I will ask a representative of the Fund to come to the BMZ to discuss the matter."

Share now information about illegal dealings at United Nations

Ban Ki Moon supports Ethics Decision on UNDP North Korea