US embassy cable - 05GENEVA1742

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 GENEVA 001742 
 
SIPDIS 
 
PRM/MCE AND REFCOORDS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREF, UNHCR 
SUBJECT: UNHCR: 2006 BUDGET CONSULTATIONS AND STANDING 
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION 
 
REF: A. GENEVA 1604 
     B. GENEVA 1605 
 
1.  (U) SUMMARY:  Donors and staff of the United Nations High 
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) have held multiple 
discussions as UNHCR shapes its 2006 budget and its plans for 
the second half of 2005.  In all of these discussions, UNHCR 
has highlighted its (new) commitment to results-based 
management -- which it defines in the budgetary context as 
starting with needs assessments, setting a hierarchy of 
objectives at the beginning of planning, involving partners 
in these processes, and defining both total needs and the 
smaller sub-set of activities which UNHCR will cover.  The 
planning-for-2006 process has not yielded consistent results 
and donors still are presented budget figures without a clear 
picture of the underlying needs.  However, the process was 
less arbitrary than in past years.  Donors will now be 
confronted with a larger annual budget more accurately 
reflecting needs.  Current under-funding of the 2005 budget, 
however, leaves room for worry about whether the more 
comprehensive 2006 budget will garner the necessary support. 
Some donors have objected to UNHCR's budget continuing to 
rise while the worldwide number of refugees declines. 
 
2. (U) Summary, continued:   UNHCR is proposing a 2006 budget 
of USD 1,144.3 million, including some USD 70 million for 
Chad.  Meanwhile, the organization expects a possible 
shortfall of USD 136.1 million under its current 2005 annual 
budget (AB) and is imposing a 10 per cent freeze on its 
administrative and headquarters budget and a 7.5 per cent 
freeze on field activities.  Refs A and B report on the May 
"informal" consultation with key donors; this meeting was 
followed June 14 by another "informal" meeting with all 
Executive Committee (EXCOM) members and Standing Committee 
observers.  A third session took place during the first day 
of the Standing Committee (SC) session, June 27.  END SUMMARY. 
 
--------------------- 
2006 BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS 
---------------------- 
 
3.  (U) Presenting the 2006 budget to donors during the 
Standing Committee session, UNHCR Controller Takizawa 
acknowledged that the USD 1,144.3 million figure was USD 162 
million more than the 2005 annual budget (AB).  Initial 
program submissions from field offices and headquarter units 
for 2006 amounted to USD 1,158.7 million.  Needs totaling 
another USD 70 million were identified to "mainstream" the 
Chad Supplementary Budget (SB).  After an extensive review 
process, these submissions were reduced to USD 1,144.3 
million (including Chad.)  The largest increase from 2005 was 
40 per cent in Africa (USD 110 million).  Further increases 
included USD 5 million for Asia and Pacific; USD 7 million 
for Europe; USD 5.5 million for the Americas; USD 8.2 million 
for Global Operations; and USD 17 million for Headquarters. 
There was no increase in the CASWANAME region.  Takizawa also 
attributed increases, especially in HQ costs, to exchange 
rate variations.  This provisional amount corresponds to an 
increase of some 16.6 per cent over the 2004 Annual Program 
Budget. 
 
4.  (U) Takizawa expressed concern about the "fundability of 
the budget."  He noted that the 2006 AB figure was roughly on 
par with the total 2005 budget (AB and supplementary budgets 
(SBs).)  UNHCR hoped it would be okay in 2006, if there were 
no new emergencies requiring SBs; if   impending emergencies 
in some regions could be balanced by phase-out in others; and 
if the impact of exchange rate fluctuations and inflation was 
minimal.  This was a worrying set of assumptions. 
 
------------------- 
2005 BUDGET STATUS 
------------------- 
 
5.  (U) UNHCR's Executive Committee approved budgetary 
requirements for 2005 amounting to USD 981.6 million, 
comprising USD 945.8 million for the AB (including USD 62.5 
million and USD 50 million respectively for Operational 
Reserve Categories I and II), USD 28.8 million for the United 
Nations Regular Budget and USD 7 million for Junior 
Professional Officers (JPOs).  However, the AB was increased 
by USD 7.3 million to USD 988.9 million in order to absorb an 
additional Regular Budget allocation related to unbudgeted 
security enhancements at UNHCR,s Headquarters (USD 5.8 
million) and USD 1.5 million to the JPO budget.  The 2005 SBs 
currently amount to USD 375.6 million. 
 
6.  (U) As of June 22, the total voluntary contributions 
received in 2005 against these requirements amounted to USD 
873.1 million, including USD 689.3 million for the AB, some 
USD 171.7 million toward the SB, USD 3.7 million toward JPOs, 
and USD 8.4 million in reserved pledges.  UNHCR believes the 
AB is under-funded compared to 2004 because the SBs are 
"competing" with the AB and drawing away funds. 
 
7.  (U) At the June 14 meeting, Takizawa reported that funds 
were lower than expected, primarily due to less carryover 
from 2004 and exchange rate losses.  As a precaution against 
such potential funding shortfalls, the High Commissioner in 
early 2005 imposed caps on the program and support budgets. 
Thus, program and non-staff administrative budgets were 
capped at 95 per cent.  The caps were implemented at the 
bureau level rather than the country level. 
 
8.  (U) At the Standing Committee meeting on June 28, UNHCR 
announced that it expects further funding shortfalls, with an 
estimated USD 225 million deficit (including a USD 136.1 
million shortfall under its 2005 AB.)  As a result, UNHCR 
will do a second round of capping -- going up to 10 per cent 
for support and headquarters, and up to 7.5 per cent for 
operations.  The High Commissioner decided to cap operations 
at a lower level than services, UNHCR said, in order to 
minimize the impact on the field. 
 
9.  (U) Deputy High Commissioner Wendy Chamberlin noted that 
caps are a signal to partners and managers that UNHCR will 
not meet "project or program" targets.  However, at the end 
of the third or fourth quarter, UNHCR will evaluate the 
situation and possibly lift the caps.  Factors that will 
impact this decision include additional contributions, 
reduction in ambitions and activities, and perhaps most 
optimal, management efficiencies. 
 
----------------- 
BUDGETARY CONCERNS 
----------------- 
 
10.  (U) At both the June informals and the Standing 
Committee meeting (SC), delegations asked about the 
relationship between the number of beneficiaries UNHCR serves 
and the budget, arguing that with the number of refugees 
decreasing, the budget should as well.  External Relations 
Director Anne Willem Bijleveld asserted that UNHCR is not 
meeting minimum standards in many cases.  The budget should 
not decrease until UNHCR is able to meet this core objective. 
 At the SC, Takizawa warned delegates not to link only 
population trends with the budget, as other factors such as 
exchange rate losses and inflation have an influence. 
Takizawa noted UNHCR is anticipating a fall in the dollar in 
2006 and has budgeted approximately $30 million against that 
expectation.  UNHCR also has increased its population of 
concern from to 17 million to almost 19 million with IDPs and 
stateless persons among the increase.  Some delegations 
complained UNHCR's budget growth seemed "almost systematic" 
over the last years. 
 
11.  (U) Takizawa explained that UNHCR has changed how it 
budgets staff costs.  UNHCR previously budgeted on the basis 
of a certain percent of posts being vacant, but closer 
examination had revealed a near 100 percent employment rate, 
even though some (paid) employees were on leave or in transit 
between posts.  Delegations requested more information on the 
status of staff-in-between-assignments (SIBAs) and expressed 
concern that some employees stay in that status for prolonged 
periods, not working but being paid.  While asserting most 
SIBAs are only in that status short term and perform other 
functions in the interim, Takizawa acknowledged some were not 
contributing.  Takizawa promised to provide papers on how 
UNHCR will now budget staff costs as well as on UNHCR's 
planning for currency fluctuation 
 
12.  (U) At the SC, several delegations expressed concern 
over the impact of both potential deficits and potential 
surpluses on UNHCR's activities.  Chamberlin explained that 
UNHCR did not want a budget deficit or a carryover, as either 
one implies failure to budget and plan correctly.  However, 
according to Takizawa, it would be a problem if UNHCR reduced 
the carryover to zero.  Instead, Takizawa suggested that a 
carryover of USD 20 to 40 million was reasonable. 
 
------------------------------ 
RUNNING THEMES: RBM, NBA, COP 
------------------------------ 
 
13.  (U) Reviewing again the status of UNHCR's efforts to 
move towards Results-Based Management (RBM) (see reftel), 
Chamberlin updated donors at the Standing Committee on 
developments since the May informal donor consultations.  As 
was mentioned in May, Chamberlin noted that UNHCR would focus 
on RBM by having a resource-based budget, creating a 
participatory planning process, determining refugee needs at 
the start of the planning process, seeking increased 
contributions (including from partners), and recognizing the 
gap between needs and resources.  In keeping with earlier 
statements, Chamberlin stressed "greater empowerment to the 
field in the resource allocation process." 
 
14.  (U) In all three budget discussions, UNHCR officials 
reviewed how UNHCR's budget process for 2006 specifically 
called for a comprehensive needs-based assessment (NBA) to 
inform the Country Operation Plan. Most field offices 
submitted their requests with some sort of NBA, although the 
quality of the assessments varied. These submissions were 
reviewed for content and consistency at Headquarters, which 
-- "for the last time in 2006" -- also considered allocations 
across programs against a ceiling of USD 1.1 billion, 
established based on their calculation of what donors would 
consider fundable. The "raw" assessments from the field 
defined needs of approximately twice that figure. 
 
---------------------- 
MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCIES 
---------------------- 
 
15.  (U) As she did in May, Chamberlin again repeated at the 
June informals and Standing Committee that UNHCR's goal was 
"no net growth" for 2006, particularly for headquarters.  In 
response to a U.S. question about which activities had been 
reduced to reflect a lower Global Operations budget, 
Chamberlin stated that they have limited activities in 
headquarters to standard setting in order for resources in 
the field to focus on implementation of activities. 
 
16.  (U) Additionally, Chamberlin stated that UNHCR made an 
effort not to increase staff at headquarters.  To this end, 
UNHCR undertook a "90-10 prioritization exercise" -- 
directors had to identify the least necessary 10 percent of 
their budgets with the understanding that they would be asked 
to give up these activities to fund anything new.  However, 
Chamberlin opined that 90-10 did not work very well. 
Instead, managers self-managed and came back to the table 
with close-to-zero net growth.  Five positions for Burundi 
and Chad were incorporated as those programs shifted from SB 
to AB, several other positions were added but offset by other 
reductions: these include 4 positions added to the Inspector 
General's Office and 2 positions focused on organizational 
development. 
 
17. (U)  UNHCR also provided RMA with a document (faxed to 
PRM/MCE and PRP) showing where 196 new permanent posts were 
created in the field.  Some of these posts were previously 
filled by consultants or technical advisors.  Increases were 
partly offset by a reduction of 49 posts in CASWANAME.  Some 
86 requests for positions were denied.  Responding to U.S. 
questions, UNHCR said that in the Americas, 14 positions 
would be posted to Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela and 2 
positions will focus on private sector fundraising in the 
U.S. and Canada.  Two additional field posts for Europe, 
funded by transferring money from the Division of External 
Relations, will focus on private sector funding, particularly 
in Italy and Greece.  Additionally, one post was regularized 
from Operational Reserve II for Chechnya 
 
-------------- --------- 
Internally Displaced Persons - IDPs 
--------- ---------- ---- 
 
18.  (U) New activities for IDPs were not included in the 
2006 budget.  However, with new High Commissioner Guterres on 
board, UNHCR is in the process of "realigning" its IDP 
policy.  UNHCR officials have suggested that when the 
population is a mixture of IDPs and refugees, funding for 
activities should come out of the AB; however, if either the 
UN Country Team or the UN Humanitarian Coordinator requests 
UNHCR to undertake activities solely for IDPs, funding should 
be financed by a SB.  Takizawa noted that if the IDP policy 
were to change, financial rules might also need to change, 
particularly to allow a multi-year SB. 
 
19.  (U) At the SC, USdel expressed concern about UNHCR's 
taking on increased responsibilities, such as camp 
coordination activities for IDPs in Darfur and developing 
programs for stateless people, at the cost of refugee 
programs.  However, other delegations such as the Sudanese 
delegation expressed a desire for more funds to be given to 
IDPs. 
 
-------- --------------- 
Inspector General's Office - IGO 
-------- --------------- 
 
25.  (U) At the request of the Swedish delegation during the 
SC, Chamberlin explained why the candidate preferred by the 
Inspector General and assignments board for the 
Investigations post was passed over in favor of the No. 2 
candidate.  According to Chamberlin, managers do not receive 
their first choice in almost 20 per cent of P5 and D1 
assignments due to organizational needs.  In this particular 
situation, Chamberlin reassured member states that Candidate 
No. 2 was selected because of his higher qualifications in 
relevant experience and legal knowledge.  Chamberlin outlined 
the selection process and dealings with the Inspector General 
to alleviate concerns that the IGO would not be independent. 
 
--------------- ------------------ 
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS POSED DURING DISCUSSIONS 
--------------- ------------------- 
 
26. (U) In response to questions posed by the U.S., UNHCR 
representatives provided the following answers: 
 
- Funds in West Africa are not/not adequate to meet needs, 
but UNHCR has to prioritize in the region and therefore has 
reduced care and maintenance activities in Guinea and also 
scaled down activities in Sierra Leone. 
 
-  Activities for Togolese refugees were not included in the 
AB; USD 1.5 million was allocated from the Operational 
Reserve I (ORI). 
 
- The SB for the Democratic Republic of Congo was not 
included in the 2006 AB because of uncertainties on how the 
situation will develop.  UNHCR is taking a "multiyear" 
approach (although their 3-year repatriation plan was not 
approved) because significant returnee areas have opened up 
and they are unsure of the level of funding needed from the 
SB. 
 
-Responding to concerns about UNHCR's engagements outside its 
mandate, Chamberlin said that certain earmarked funding for 
the tsunami could not be moved around or returned.  UNHCR had 
been asked by the UN system to reactivate its projects in 
Aceh, but Chamberlin acknowledged that such activities fell 
outside UNHCR's core activities. (USdel encouraged UNHCR to 
increase consultations with member states prior to embarking 
on activities that go beyond UNHCR's refugee mandate.) 
 
27.  (U) Representatives from the Netherlands, Canada, Japan 
and Switzerland inquired at the June informal whether the 
proposed position for an Assistant High Commissioner was 
budgeted for in the 2006 AB.  UNHCR representatives responded 
that because of attempts to mainstream Convention Plus, the 
position was indeed included as a placeholder, pending the 
High Commissioner's and ExCom's approval.  If this position 
is approved and created, a D2 position will be abolished and 
an A/SYG position created in its place at an increased cost 
of USD 30,000.  (Note: The four countries listed are 
skeptical about the position and were not happy that UNHCR 
budgeted for a position that is not yet approved.) 
 
28.  (U) In response to a question about broadening UNHCR's 
donor base, UNHCR acknowledged that the gap between funding 
and the budget is widening (the donor base has increased by 
30 per cent, yet expenditures increased by 50 per cent). 
UNHCR continues to seek ways to close this funding gap, 
including by targeting the private sector. 
Moley