Newsroom

The following is intended to set the record straight on a host of rumors that continue to circulate concerning UNDP and its senior managers. Should you require more specific information please contact the UNDP Communications Office in New York at 212-906-5382. Previous updates can be found on UNDP's For the Record page.

On whether UNDP staff support the Administrator and the Associate Administrator
Record numbers of staff participated in UNDP’s annual Global Staff Survey, taken this year between mid-December 2007 and mid-January 2008. The results show that support for both the Administrator and Associate Administrator of UNDP stands at about 75%, equivalent to or slightly up from 12 months ago.

On a housing subsidy received by Eveline Herfkens from her national government
UNDP recently learned that Eveline Herfkens, who heads the Millennium Campaign, received a housing subsidy from the Dutch government from late 2002 until the end of 2005. Receiving a housing subsidy, if you are working on certain types of UN contracts, is against UN staff rules. Ms. Herfkens, a strong leader who has devoted the better part of her life to development work, violated these rules unwittingly. The case is currently under review.

On whether Ad Melkert and Akiko Yuge receive housing subsidies from their national governments
Ad Melkert has never received a housing subsidy or any other benefit from the Dutch government while working for UNDP (or, previously, for the World Bank). Akiko Yuge, who has worked for UNDP for some time, has never received a housing subsidy or any other benefit from the Japanese government.

On allegations about UNDP involvement in diamond smuggling in Zimbabwe
Accusations that UNDP vehicles were involved in diamond smuggling at a mine called River Ranch in Zimbabwe have been addressed by different investigations. Three investigations have come to the same conclusion: no evidence has been found that UNDP vehicles have been used in diamond smuggling.

On allegations about UNDP’s role in the recent elections in Kenya
UNDP does not monitor elections; it supports the electoral process in countries like Kenya by helping supply technical components for the production of electoral lists, census data, etc, as well as some of the hardware necessary to manage the elections themselves. UNDP does not pronounce on the results of elections and did not do so in Kenya.

On UNDP’s decision to use a vendor suspended by the UN Secretariat
In early 2006 UNDP purchased tents from a company called Corimec for the victims of Pakistan’s December 2005 earthquake. By the time a second batch of tents was needed in 2007, Corimec had been suspended from the UN Secretariat’s procurement list for bribing a UN Secretariat procurement officer in 1993. UNDP decided to procure the second batch of tents after conducting due diligence on Corimec, and learning in the process that the company had completely changed ownership and management since the illegal activity had occurred. Four months after announcing the suspension, the UN Secretariat decided to reinstate Corimec, subject to the latter implementing an ethics training program. This implementation process is still ongoing. While UNDP did not break any rules in purchasing the tents from Corimec, we are looking into the matter as the decision to use a vendor suspended by the Secretariat does not conform to the spirit of UN coherence in procurement policies. Contrary to some suggestions, UNDP has not engaged in any financial activities with firms banned for terrorism or on the Security Council terrorism list.

On allegations about procurement irregularities in Burundi
The Burundi Emergency Trust Fund was set up in 2006 to address the urgent needs of the people of post-conflict Burundi following the inauguration of a new, democratically elected government. In January 2007, UNDP’s office in Burundi submitted a request for procurement of $2.3 million worth of medical supplies from Hospital Services (Burundi). After looking into the matter, the request was rejected by UNDP’s corporate procurement review due to a perceived non-transparent procurement process. Contrary to recent allegations, UNDP’s own internal controls identified the shortcomings and halted the procurement action.

On financial disclosure at UNDP
All UNDP senior mangers appointed by the Secretary-General (USGs and ASGs) have filed their financial disclosure forms, and some of them have chosen to participate in the Secretary-General’s separate and voluntary public disclosure regime. Distinct from this, all UNDP managers D1 and above, as well as personnel involved in procurement and investment decisions, are now required to file UNDP financial disclosure forms.

On allegations about UNDP’s former operations in North Korea
Rumors that UNDP’s funding in North Korea may have been diverted by the government have circulated for over a year. An extensive investigation by a Subcommittee of the U.S. Senate recently found no evidence to substantiate these rumors. While critical that UNDP tolerated North Korean requirements on hard currency, local staffing and site visits, the Senate investigation concluded that “By all accounts, operating development projects in North Korea presented management and administrative challenges of the most extreme nature. By definition, UNDP operates in challenging environments and has crafted, for the most part, sound rules and procedures to ensure that UNDP development funds benefit the people of the host nation.” A separate External Independent Investigative Review, led by former Hungarian prime minister Miklos Nemeth and designed to review in depth all allegations against UNDP, will present its report at the end of March.

On allegations that UNDP retaliated against a “whistleblower” in North Korea
The validity of claims that UNDP retaliated against its former Operations Manager in North Korea for “blowing the whistle” on irregularities in its operations in its program there is being examined by the External Independent Investigative Review. The findings will available for further review by the Director of the U.N. Ethics Office, if the Director of the Office deems this justified.

On allegations that UNDP lacks effective whistleblower protections
Contrary to recent criticism, UNDP has had in place for some time policies and procedures to protect employees against retaliation for reporting wrongdoing, some of which predate those initiated by the Secretary-General in 2005. Moreover, all personnel (staff and non staff), regardless of level or legal status, have been encouraged to bring concerns and claims under these procedures, and all claims are treated with appropriate seriousness. More recently, in accordance with the new policies issued by the Secretary General on 30 November 2007, UNDP has added the position of Ethics Officer, and has appointed an experienced officer.

On whether “UNDP Watch” represents the views of UNDP staff
Some of the false rumors that have been circulating about UNDP can be traced to an anonymous blog that styles itself “UNDP Watch”. While UNDP’s policy is not to comment on anonymous postings or respond to anonymous emails, it does wish to highlight that there is no credible evidence that “UNDP Watch” represents the views of UNDP staff members. UNDP staff members have recently expressed their views in the annual Global Staff Survey.