http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/ourwork/partners/international_financialinstitutions/

The IFIs are an important source of development funding. They account for a large portion of the other resources (non-core) received by UNDP, as partners, particularly programme country governments, increasingly realize the added value brought by UNDP. Other resources received directly from IFIs (grants to UNDP) and through government cost-sharing reached an approximate $1.39 billion in 2004.

The majority of these resources is mobilized by UNDP Country Offices from the Regional Bureau for the Latin America and the Caribbean region providing support to the implementation of projects/programmes funded by governments with resources drawn from loans from the World Bank and the Inter American Development Bank. The implementation of projects/programmes funded from direct grants to UNDP plays a more important role in the other regions.

A "tripartite" relation

Be it loans or grants, the tripartite relation: Government-IFI-UNDP is key to making this form of cooperation work. In this partnership, government leads on the technical side in the preparation of the project/programme (mostly with the support of the IFI and at times UNDP), the IFI provides financial resources (loan or grant) and UNDP supports the implementation of the projects.

Apart from partnering around the provision of development services, the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers and Millennium Development Goal processes provide unique opportunities for strengthening this partnership at the policy and upstream level- especially at the country level - and the capacity of country offices to deliver is fundamental to sustaining them. This is even more important as IFIs, particularly the World Bank, begin to participate in new modalities for delivering technical cooperation, placing new demands upon the capacities of programme countries.

UNDP has entered into formal agreements with some of the IFIs (the World Bank, the African Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank), and is working on additional agreements.

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