PRESS CONFERENCE BY under-Secretary-general, undp associate administrator

A senior official from the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) today outlined a series of measures aimed at improving management at the agency.

“As we work in ever more dangerous and challenging environments, the need for stronger oversight and accountability at UNDP is becoming more important,” said Ad Melkert, Under-Secretary-General and UNDP Associate Administrator, briefing correspondents at Headquarters on the agency’s’ “strategic plan”, which sets out the overall direction of UNDP support to developing countries and the way it would cooperate and coordinate in the broader United Nations context.

Among the elements of the plan UNDP officials would discuss at the next meeting of the agency’s Executive Board were:  UNDP’s coordinating role with other United Nations agencies at the country level; its programmatic focus and national-level response capabilities in the priority areas of poverty reduction, democratic governance, crisis prevention and recovery and environment and sustainable development; and management and accountability prioritization to ensure that it was well-organized, well-equipped and accountable to support its programmes.

“I very much see our work to strengthen management and accountability as part of a larger and more general drive to modernize the United Nations,” he said, recalling that when political leaders at the 2005 United Nations World Summit had called for reform of the organization, a number of proposals had emerged pertaining to staff, management, service delivery and budgetary issues, among others.  The UNDP had a part to play in all that and it was accountable to its clients in the developing world and to its donors, who were in turn accountable to their taxpayers.

He said that, since UNDP was a very decentralized agency, he had repeatedly stressed the need to maintain its unique character -- delivering a response tailored to local demands –- while at the same time ensuring that it was more focused on how it used its resources and that it was able to monitor and report on its activities with “conviction and accuracy”, taking into account both internal and external risks.

With that in mind, he highlighted several initiatives under way aimed at enabling UNDP to respond to up to the minute requirements for transparency and accountability, including, the establishment last June of an independent audit advisory committee made up of five experts from both public and private sector organizations and companies such as the World Bank and Deloitte and Touche.  Those experts provided advice to UNDP’s senior management on issues like financial management and reporting, internal and external audit matters and risk management arrangements.  That exercise had been a first for the UNDP, and the team had met four times during the past year and their input had been “extremely useful”.

The UNDP had also acknowledged the need to enable its Executive Board members to obtain specific information on internal audits of UNDP operations, he noted.  It had, therefore, committed to discussing with the Board ways of making the findings of such audits available to Member States to study, at headquarters, following a written request.  “Again, we have to discuss that with the Board, but I feel that is the right thing to do and it is really new in UNDP that we do that.”

Another very important aspect of the plan was ensuring that all UNDP country office websites had a “uniform structure”, he added.  That way, the media and the wider public could more easily find out about the agency’s programmes, how they were funded, and what the objectives were.  While it would take a while to implement, he hoped that the website standardization process would be in place for most country offices “sometime in the coming year”.  While the UNDP already had an information disclosure policy, which involved putting all programme information on its websites, UNDP hoped to trim the current 30-day requirement for requests.

He also announced that UNDP was developing a legal framework for addressing non-compliance with ethical and professional standards.  “Basically, the document serves to remind staff members of their duties to abide by the highest standards of conduct and to inform the mechanisms available to report wrongdoing,” he explained.

He pledged that “a number of categories of staff” would be required to file financial disclosure statements, including senior-level personnel and those involved in procurement activities.  That was in addition to measures already in place at the Under-Secretary-General level. “I am happy to inform you that both the UNDP Administrator and I have completed our financial disclosure statements this year as part of the overall UN procedure,” he said.

A correspondent asked whether the officials would follow the example of Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and make their financial disclosure forms public. “I’m not in favour of having financial disclosure made public on the website,” Mr. Melkert replied.  “I think that is overstepping the privacy of people.”

Asked why UNDP did not seek an external investigation of reports that its staff and vehicles were involved in diamond-smuggling in Zimbabwe, Mr. Melkert said he took the allegation very seriously.  At the moment there were two investigations ongoing, “and then we will decide whether more is needed, and I don’t exclude also that that should be something more than internal”, he said.

On a personal note, he added that, in the little more than a year that he had been with the agency, he had been able to witness first hand some of the “quietly successful” work that UNDP carried out around the globe –- most of it not headline-grabbing, and far away from the eyes of news cameras.  He specifically mentioned his visit to Southern Sudan, where the agency’s staff was “working tirelessly” alongside other relief and development organizations on the ground to build an infrastructure “where there is hardly anything.”  He added that it was important to recognize that along with all the procedural matters going on at headquarters and the other serious management issues the UNDP was dealing with, the agency’s work in the field was really “what it’s all about”.

Responding to a question on cooperation with the authorities investigating the issue of the counterfeit United States bank notes that had allegedly been kept in a UNDP safe for several years, he said UNDP had encouraged everyone to fully cooperate in the matter, telling the authorities everything they knew both internally in the Organization and externally to those who were inquiring.

The immunity issue was part of the legal process, he said.  Granting immunity was separate from encouraging everyone to tell what they knew.

There was absolutely nothing to hide, he said.  The question started here, and he had not liked hearing about the counterfeit bills in this room. 

Also responding, David Morrison, UNDP Communications Director said it was his understanding that it was a friend of the UNDP staff member who had travelled to Pyongyang and hand carried the bills.  People travelled to Pyongyang quite regularly, he added in response to another question.

On Myanmar, he noted that there had been some cases of corruption, which had been resolved.  While he had not been happy with what had taken place in terms of corruption, he was satisfied with the action taken.  Those responsible for implementing the projects had assumed responsibility and shut down contracts with those who had behaved inappropriately.  The right measures had been taken.

As a large organization, UNDP produced numerous reports, a correspondent said.  The monies involved in producing those reports were immense.   Was there a procedure to ensure that there was no “hanky panky” in the rewarding of contracts?

Responding, he said normal procedures were in place for procuring work, including for reporting work.  It was the responsibility of country officers and regional bureaus to ensure that those procedures were followed in a proper way.  That was all he could say on that.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record