Showing posts with label norad. Show all posts
Showing posts with label norad. Show all posts

Monday, July 9, 2012

NORAD: Activity Based Financial Flows in UN System: a Study of Select UN Organisations (still missing important parts of report)

THIS IS PUBLISHED ON WWW.NORAD.NO 



Activity Based Financial Flows in UN System: a Study of Select UN Organisations

evaluering study 9 2011
Published:February 2012 by Norad
Commissioned by:
Carried out by:Stefano Migliorisi, Iradj Alikhani, Michel Cramer, Nils Borje Tallroth, Manouchehr
Series:Evaluation studies 9/2011
Pages:90
ISBN:978-82-7548-621-7
Tags:
Only available electronically

Summary

At the end of the year, UN agencies have a build-up of unspent funds, shows this new study on financial flows in the UN.
The French consultancy company Investment Development Consultancy (IDC SA) was awarded the contract for carrying out the study after having won an international tender in the summer of 2010.  This publication has been produced with funding from Norad. Its contents are the sole responsibility of the authors and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of Norad or MFA.
The study is based on publicly available UN documents that have been published during the period 2000-2010. Interviews have also been conducted with the staff at the head offices of the various UN agencies, as well as the country offices in Uganda and Vietnam. 
The study also documents the development in the revenues of the agencies during the period  2001-2009,  how the total funds are planned spent, how the agencies allocated the funds, how the use of the funds was carried out, as well as the developments in staffing, wages and salaries, accounting auditing, and control of the use of the funds. 

FOX NEWS: U.N. Development Agencies Accumulate Billions -- and Keep Spending a Secret

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/12/12/un-development-agencies-accumulate-billions-and-keep-spending-secret/#ixzz208PJipZr

Friday, March 2, 2012

UNDP ETHICS SCANDAL: Rebeca Grynspan's advisor mismanaged funds at IADB while still employed at UNDP' Spanish Fund (Spain Tribunal investigate $$)

U.N. ethics guru has mysterious ethics lapse in his past

By George Russell

EXCLUSIVE: Bernardo Kliksberg is one of the most famed anti-poverty intellectuals inLatin America and a tireless cheerleader for government-led anti-poverty efforts. He has been a consultant for a wide variety of United Nations agencies. His more than 40 books circulate widely; several have been published by UNESCO and the U.N. itself. They include such titles as "Toward an Economy with a Human Face"; "More Ethics, More Development"; "Latin America’s Pending Ethical Agenda"; and "Ethical Values and Daily Life."

It also appears that Kliksberg, 71, has had some ethical issues of his own with one of Latin America’s biggest anti-poverty institutions, the Washington-based Inter-American Development Bank, or IDB, according to documents obtained by Fox News.

In a letter dated October 24, 2007, and sent to government officials in Canada and Norway, the Washington-based IDB declared that it would reimburse $109,000 to a special Social Capital, Ethics and Development Fund that the two countries had financed, because “the former Technical Advisor for the Fund violated certain provisions of the Bank’s Code of Ethics.” The violation: he had “used employees hired with Fund resources to perform work in furtherance of his personal endeavors.”

The technical adviser was Kliksberg.

The $109,000 represented about 50 percent of the money the two countries gave to the fund in 2006 for use by its secretariat, the IDB letter said. It was the estimated amount of paid time that the adviser and his assistants devoted to his non-Bank activities. In addition, the letter said, “based on these conclusions, the Bank did not renew [the adviser’s contract] and his employment with the Bank has, therefore, ended.”

“We deeply regret the events that occurred,” the letter states, “and have taken the necessary steps to rectify the situation and to prevent something similar from happening again.”

A copy of the letter was provided to Fox News last month [February] by Norway’s foreign ministry. Kliksberg himself, in response to queries from Fox News, confirmed his role at the Social Capital, Ethics and Development Fund, even as he denied ever having heard of most of the charges in the IDB letter, or that any ethics decision had been taken against him at the bank.

Click here for the bank's letter.

“I was not dismissed, nor was my contract terminated, by the Inter-American Development Bank,” he declared -- a statement that did not contradict anything the bank said about his employment in the letter to Norway and Canada.

“I left the Bank to take a position at the United Nations in New York, where I could be closer to my children,” he told Fox News.

As for the bank’s $109,000 reimbursement, Kliksberg told Fox News, “This is the first time I am hearing this claim. Neither I, nor anyone I have contacted regarding this matter, has communicated that the IDB refunded any money to the fund.”

As it happens, the new job that Kliksberg took after leaving the IDB made him much more than an advocate for more “ethical” social and economic development. It also made him a major international figure in helping to ladle out U.N. development cash.

From 2007 to 2010, Kliksberg, a native of Argentina, was director for UNDP of an important trust fund financed by the government of Spain, which gave more than $700 million to the U.N. development agency during Kliksberg’s tenure. Kliksberg’s portion of the Spanish largesse was worth some $63.9 million, and was devoted to Latin American development projects.

At the same time that he served as the Latin American fund’s director, he also was a consultant to UNDP’s regional bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean. Kliksberg still works as a part-time consultant for UNDP’s bureau for development policy.

Figuring out what exactly transpired at the IDB before Kliksberg took up his bigger UNDP responsibilities is something of a mystery, entwined in denials, conflicting statements, and a stonewalling culture of institutional secrecy about disciplinary proceedings at one of the Western Hemisphere’s most important anti-poverty institutions.

Like the United Nations, the Washington-based IDB is protected by a curtain of diplomatic immunity and confidentiality that make its inner workings unknown to outsiders and off-limits to outside investigators, unless the IDB wants them to know. The bank has its own internal justice system, which is also immune to external systems of law.

In response to queries from Fox News, the IDB declared that “administrative proceedings concerning our employees are confidential and we do not comment on individual cases.”
At the same time, a bank spokesperson added, “We can assure you that the Bank has a well-developed systems for considering and addressing allegations of employee misconduct.”

The mystery of the alleged abuses of the Social Capital and Ethics trust fund surfaced in another way last summer, in an obscure whistleblower case brought by a former IDB employee, Ada Piazze, who had worked at the Social Capital and Ethics fund under Kliksberg.

According to a published decision by the IDB’s internal Administrative Tribunal, in 2006 Piazze brought evidence to the bank’s attention that her boss, the fund’s “General Coordinator,” --described in the Tribunal’s judgment only as “a person well known and respected in the field of developmental ethics”-- was “engaged in fraud and misconduct” by using not only trust funds, but money from the bank itself, “for his own personal benefit.”

Piazze’s claim was that she had been promised continued employment at the bank before she brought additional evidence against the “General Coordinator” to light under the bank’s whistleblower protection rules. When Piazze was subsequently let go by the bank, she eventually appealed to the Tribunal, and was awarded $300,000 in damages.

Piazze declined to comment to Fox News regarding the case.

Until queried about the Administrative Tribunal judgment by Fox News, Kliksberg said, he knew nothing about it, and had never seen the decision that granted his former subordinate $300,000 in damages.

Click here for the tribunal judgment.

Kliksberg said that only after being approached by Fox News did he investigate, and could confirm he was the person mentioned in the decision. He added that he considered the accusations mentioned in the decision to be overblown.

“The allegations in the Piazze case were grossly exaggerated by Ms. Piazze and her attorney in their pursuit of financial gain,” he told Fox News. From his own investigations, he said, he had learned that “I was accused of allowing members of our team to voluntarily participate, in their free time, in Ethics and Development initiatives (in which I was a consultant) that were not in the scope of their duties at the IDB. I was also accused of using my office computer and other equipment for Ethics and Development-related projects outside of my assignment at the IDB. As for the ‘misuse [of] funds,’ as a part-time consultant, I was not able to directly authorize the use of funds.”

Kliksberg subsequently added that “I can confirm that the Bank conducted a thorough investigation and made a decision on this issue: to take no action, other than ask that the IDB Human Resource Department be consulted in the event that I applied or was considered for a future engagement at the IDB.”

Kliksberg’s reconstruction of events differs considerably from the way the issue was discussed in the Inter-American Development Bank’s letter to Canada and Norway. It also raises additional questions of its own. How “allowing” employees to use their free time in any voluntary fashion would be the basis of an ethics charge by an employer such as IDB is something of a puzzle. Why the IDB would conceivably pay $109,000, as the Bank’s 2007 letter indicates, for such a difficult-to-imagine infraction is even more of a brain-twister.

Moreover, the notion that the IDB could conduct a “thorough investigation,” as Kliksberg describes, and come to a “decision” without informing him, appears to be a huge contradiction of the 2006 procedures for the IDB Ethics Committee that were in effect when the alleged infraction occurred -- and also of a new set of procedures that went into effect in December 2007, two months after the Bank wrote its $109,000 apology to Norway and Canada.

According to the 2006 procedures, once the Ethics Committee decides that a violation of the bank’s Ethics Code has occurred, it must “promptly notify” the accused employee both of the substance of the charge, the fact that the Committee is taking jurisdiction, and the steps it intends to take to investigate. Even if those actions are delayed to safeguard an investigation, they must take place a minimum of 30 days before the Committee holds a hearing on the issue.

Moreover, if an investigation by the bank’s watchdog Office of Institutional Integrity (OII) takes place the accused employee must be given a copy of OII’s final report, as well as all supporting evidence, prior to any hearing and Ethics Committee decision, no more than five days after the Committee gets the report. The IDB’s letter to Norway and Canada states categorically that both an OII investigation and an Ethics Committee decision took place.

The bank’s safeguards also apply to the hearing itself, where accused employees can be represented by legal counsel, present opposing evidence and offer the testimony of witnesses.
The right to such a hearing, however, can be waived by the accused -- which would be tantamount to deciding not to contest the results of any investigation.

Significantly, however, according to the Bank’s procedures, any decision made by the Ethics Committee that concludes an ethics violation has taken place, is sent in the bank’s Human Resources Department files, and is also subject to appeal “to the Bank’s internal grievance system” -- which has at its apex the same Administrative Tribunal that heard the Social Capital and Ethics Fund whistleblower case.

In other words, Kliksberg was supposed to be informed of any action involving the Ethics Committee that was negative toward him, to protect his right of appeal.

In responses to questions from Fox News, the IDB declared that Kliksberg’s contract “expired prior to conclusions regarding any allegations concerning his conduct as an employee.”

But nothing in the bank’s ethics procedures suggests that the right to appeal -- and the right to be informed of any actions taken as a result of investigation -- lapses if the employee leaves the bank. Indeed, the terms of jurisdiction of the bank’s Administrative Tribunal are explicitly extended to former employees.

Whatever the circumstances, by the time the Bank made its admission to Canada and Norway about the misuse of their donated funds, Kliksberg was well-established as director of UNDP’s vastly more valuable Spanish-financed trust fund, effective January 2, 2007, a UNDP spokesman confirmed.

There is one small wrinkle: a copy of the IDB’s letter of agreement with Kliksberg regarding his last one-year contract extension, which was examined by Fox News, says that his IDB assignment would last until January 8, 2007.

According to a UNDP spokesman, Kliksberg “has informed UNDP he was an [IDB] consultant from April 2002 to December 31, 2006.” Kliksberg also told Fox News that his employment at the bank ended in December 2006.

George Russell is executive editor of Fox News and can be found on Twitter@GeorgeRussell

Click here for more stories by George Russell.

Monday, December 12, 2011

U.N. Development Agencies Accumulate Billions -- and Keep Spending a Secret

By George Russell

At least two major United Nationsdevelopment agencies, described as having accumulated some $3.2 billion in cash in 2009, refused to divulge exactly what they spent their program money on, according to a confidential draft report prepared in the summer for the government of Norway and examined by Fox News.

According to the consultants who prepared the two-volume draft study on behalf of the Norwegian development agency known asNORAD, the refusal meant that the agencies, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and UNICEF, failed “grossly” to live up to the “credo of adherence to transparency” that both agencies claim to follow in their work.

A third agency, the United Nations High Commission on Refugees, was not cited for “gross” failure, but also refused to provide spending details, “particularly recent staff costs.”

The two-volume draft study, was prepared for Norway, one of the U.N.’s biggest donors, in June by the private consulting firm IDC, and aimed to “contribute to the understanding of financing flows and current financial planning and budgeting processes,” at five selected U.N. agencies, including “how are resources allocated” and “where does the money go.”

Fox News examined the first volume last summer and reported that four of the five U.N. agencies examined by IDC had a much bigger total of at least $12.2 billion in unspent cash by the end of 2009. The first volume of the study warned that the multi-billion-dollar bulge might “result in a situation where donors may not fund the U.N. system as much as before, until these reserves are utilized and brought down to an appropriate level.”

Aside from UNFPA and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the U.N. agencies cited in the first volume of the draft report for their cash stockpiles included the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and the World Food Program (WFP). The fifth agency, UNHCR, apparently did not have such a cash stockpile.

All of the agencies refused to comment to Fox News on the specifics of the document at that time, citing the fact that it was in draft form. Nonetheless, they vigorously denied having unspent free cash in their treasuries, saying that the funds were specifically earmarked for the future years of programs that had already been approved.

CLICK HERE FOR THE ORIGINAL FOX NEWS STORY

This time, UNICEF and UNFPA declined comment on questions from Fox News regarding the assertions made in the second volume of the study, as did UNDP.

In the case of UNFPA, a spokesman said that the agency would be “in a position to give an informed response as soon as we have seen and studied the report.” UNICEF said that a response to a draft report would be “inappropriate,” because, “in the process of drafting, inaccuracies and misunderstandings are identified and the report is sharpened. When the report is finalized and issued, UNICEF may comment if appropriate.” UNDP responded using identical language to that of UNICEF.

The other two agencies mentioned in both the first and second volumes of the study had not responded to questions based on Volume II before this story was published.

Just when the final version of the draft report will be released is not yet clear. The Norwegian government website in the spring said the study would appear in May. Then it changed to August, then October. It is now slated to appear “at the end of the year,” according to a Norwegian government adviser.

The same adviser contradicted UNFPA’s spokesperson by declaring that “a draft of the report was sent out for formal comments from the stakeholders including the U.N. entities. We have received comments that relate to possible factual errors, interpretations, judgments/differences of opinion and our consultants are currently processing the same.”

That the report has sparked a lively internal discussion over its conclusions and observations is not too surprising, as the Volume I report revealed by Fox News last summer declared that in addition to risking a donor backlash, the buildup of cash in the big U.N. aid agencies “implies that substantial donor funding is not being used for development purposes,” a notion that all the U.N. agencies vigorously dispute.

Volume II of the study, entitled “Activity-based Financial Flows in U.N. System: A Study of Select U.N. Organizations, focuses on what it calls “case studies” to buttress the first volume of general observations. And it discloses another major problem: according to the report, several of the agencies are apparently unwilling, or in some cases, unable, to account for what happened to some of the money that they know they spent. Examples:

--at UNFPA, the consultants said, about $200 million a year was handed over to various governments and non-government organizations in ways that did not let UNFPA auditors examine the accounts. The result: governments that gave money to UNFPA “have little knowledge regarding the ultimate destiny” of that money, which amounted, the report says, to about 30 percent of the total annual UNFPA programming money disbursed in this fashion.

--UNFPA headquarters “has not shared with the consultants,” the report says, the details of its spending by “economic classification,” meaning broken into wages and salaries, travel, the hiring of consultants, etc.

According to the document, “this means that information that is absolutely essential, not only for this study, but also for a future evaluation of UNFPA activities, is not documented in this report. In this respect, UNFPA fails grossly in living up to its credo of adherence to transparency to which it officially committed.”

--at UNICEF, the U.N.’s global child welfare agency, the report notes, “officially available information about expenditures remains very limited and fragmented, making it difficult to track use of funds from headquarters down to the ultimate beneficiaries on the ground.” The level of detail in UNICEF’s biennial support budget—the money it spends on its own overhead—is “significantly less today than it was five years ago,” the report notes.

--as a result of the unspent funds piling up in its accounts, UNICEF has gained “significant interest income” –the report notes $109 million was earned this way in 2008. UNICEF rules, the report says, allow the agency to allocate the money where it wants, regardless of the project fund that generated the cash.

--UNICEF strategic plans “only serve as guidelines” for its 126 country offices around the world, where the “de facto decisions” are made about how budgets are spent. The headquarters plans are long on targets, and short on priorities and on details about costs, meaning, the report says, that UNICEF’s strategic plan for its operations “is not a plan in the conventional meaning of a document that states the resources necessary to achieve stated targets.”

“From this perspective,” the report asserts, “UNICEF planning at headquarters level does not seem to be a very meaningful exercise.”

--as with UNFPA, the consultants were unable to obtain from UNICEF a breakdown of actual expenditures by category for its program spending at the country level, which, the report notes “account for the overwhelming share of UNICEF expenditures.” The consultants added the same accusation of “gross failure” that they leveled at UNFPA.

At UNDP, the U.N.’s flagship development agency, the vagueness of its strategic planning documents, which often do not include either baselines or program targets, mean it is “quite hard to measure whether satisfactory progress is being achieved.” The same applies to its action plans.

As it happens, UNDP also had the biggest pile of unspent cash among the agencies surveyed: about $5 billion at the end of 2009. Moreover, the consultants noted, “UNDP also had trust funds that had minimal or no expenditure for one or two bienniums [2 to 4 years], indicating slow disbursement of funds.” The agency’s treasury, the study said, invested large amounts of the unspent money in bonds..

Meantime, the study noted, UNDP staffing grew by 29 percent during the second half of the 21st Century’s first decade—but personnel costs went up by 80 percent.

At the U.N.’s refugee agency, UNHCR, officials were closemouthed about “details regarding the objective of expenditures,” especially staff costs, the consultants said. One reason, perhaps, is that UNHCR delegates “most of its program activities” to so-called “implementing partners,” such as non-governmental organizations that do the actual field work. The trend, the study notes, is accelerating.

The U.N. agency that earned the most praise in the draft report is the World Food Program. Its performance was deemed “impressive,” as were its cost controls. WFP was also lauded for having the most transparent accounting system, and for meeting an increased share of the needs it assessed among its hungry clientele.

What happens when U.N. agencies consciously try to work more closely together? The Norwegian consultants examined only one country, Viet Nam, where that is happening, as part of a pilot program called One U.N. What they say they found was not exactly encouraging. The study quotes an anonymous U.N. official as saying “the way we operate is problematic,” and adding “we cannot say we have cut costs.”

The study notes that the U.N. is “repositioning itself” both in Viet Nam and around the world “to focus on policy advice and advocacy” rather than delivering goods and services. On the one hand, donors like the idea, because it cuts back on the solicitation of money.

On the other hand, the draft report notes, once the U.N. gets more deeply into an advisory role, “how can we attribute future development outcomes”—the relief the U.N. says it is providing—“to the U.N.’s advisory inputs?”

The study has no answer, except to note that “despite years of efforts, methodologies to assess development outcomes are still in their infancy.”

George Russell is executive editor of Fox News and can be found on Twitter@GeorgeRussell.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE STORIES BY GEORGE RUSSELL