RH+SG+PS=0

The title of this Limeblast is the mathematical formula for a CFC funded project and, in plain English, it means: Raw Hides & Skins Grading & Pricing Systems equals Zero or US$3,186,000 which is the impact versus the cost ratio. On November 27, 1998, CFC stated: 'The Executive Board of the Common Fund for Commodities, an international organisation established by the United Nations, approved a grant of US$1,400,000 as contribution towards the financing of a project worth US$3,186,800. The project will introduce guidelines for grading and quality assessment of raw hides and skins in Eastern and Southern Africa.' With due respect to the people who have collaborated with this project, certainly in good faith and to the best of their knowledge, I would like to bring several matters forward which look great on paper but which have proven to have no value in reality. I sent an email in December 2004 with pointed questions about this project to CFC but not surprisingly they have not answered. I did, however, receive a publication from CFC covering the project but this gives only very limited information so due to the lack of real facts, I am forced to work on that. This will be the first installment of a three-part Limeblast, which is meant to show how little transparency there is with some help agencies when it comes to our money or to the finer details of their projects. So my first question went on January 28, 2005, to CFC, Ms Adler and her managing director Ali Said Mchumo: 'I read in the CFC press release of November 27,1998, that CFC approved a grant of US$1.4 million towards a total project worth of US$3,186,800 and I can't find anywhere who came up with the US$1,786,800 to bridge the project requirement and the grant. Do you have any information on that?' This time CFC replied promptly: 'The difference of US$1,786,800 was made up of co-financing by other international agencies or associations and in kind counterpart contribution by the national governments, national industry associations of the participating countries and the Project Executing Agency.' So far so good! Of course, I went back to CFC with the following email: 'Further to my Friday's email I wonder if you are prepared to give me a breakdown of the amounts that were put at the disposal of the hides and skins grading project by what you mentioned being 'other international agencies or associations' and how much was considered the 'in kind' counterpart contribution by the national governments, national industry associations of the participating countries and the project executing agency? I hope this is not a secret as this is all public money that has been on the line.'The reply stated, regretfully: 'The requisite information is on our website and we are not in a position to provide further details.' I took up the invitation and looked at the CFC website but there is no useful information whatsoever or of any kind on how our money is spent. While surfing the CFC website I stumbled over another costly project named Commercialisation of Hides and Skins by Improving Collection and Quality in Smallholder Farming Systems in Botswana, Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe. This project costs U$$2,550,000, (CFC grant US$1,945,000 and counterpart contribution US$605,000) with Esalia mentioned as the project executing agency. This project is underway and CFC have called for bids from consultants to make a mid term evaluation.I hope you people out there realise we are talking about close to six million dollars, of which the UN granted the modest amount of US$3,731,800… and I am sure while digging I'll find more, because these are only two projects of many. So this time I wrote to Esalia: 'This is to advise you that I am writing a Limeblast in two or three episodes (the subject is huge) for June, July and probably August. The subject is the Raw Hides & Skins Grading & Pricing System. This is going to be a Limeblast which I want to research thoroughly and get as many facts as possible. Since I wish to keep the record straight and my comments as objective as possible I kindly ask for your collaboration where possible. I read in the CFC press release of November 27, 1998, that CFC approved a grant of US$1.4 million towards a total project worth US$3,186,800 and I can't find anywhere who came up with the remaining U$$1,786,800. I was told that the difference of US$1,786,800 was made up of co-financing by 'other international agencies or associations', and 'in-kind' counterpart contribution by the national governments, national industry associations of the participating countries and the project executing agency. I would like to know the details, rather than these generics. Neither can I find any mention how that huge amount of (public) money was spent. Your collaboration would be appreciated.' Regretfully there was no reply from Esalia. Back in March 2004 I had contacted Comesa three times with reference to one of the projects for which they are the executing agency. They, too, never answered! Isn't it funny that when they need money they know how to speak the right words, but when it comes to answering questions about the money they received, they lose their tongues. In short we have organisations receiving and spending a cool US$3,186,800 in public funds for a project and they are not prepared to disclose where the money came from, how much money was actually put at their disposal and, worse, it seems to be none of the public's business how the money was spent, at least that is how I interpret the reply from CFC and the lack of a reply from Esalia to my questions. Now that is, of course, very interesting. So I wrote to the UN Board of Auditors at UN Headquarters in New York and asked the same questions. Due to the organisation's size, I will not complain that I have received no immediate reply. I also wrote to Unido in Vienna, who were involved in this project, and this time, thanks to Ms Aurelia Calabrò, I got a lot of answers. Maybe not all I wanted but at least there was a person prepared to share information and entertain a comprehensible dialogue. This first Limeblast on the subject deals only with the money that's on the line and the following Limeblasts will deal with the quality and perceptible results of the project. So I am forced to take a part of Ms Calabrò's answers out of the complete text. I ventured that the 'in-kind' contributions are hot air just to blow up the total figure enabling thus the CFC grant, which covers 'a' percentage of the total project costs, to actually cover the whole necessary amount. Ms Calabrò informs me that my presumption concerning the CFC grant is not correct. It appears that countries participating in a project have to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the UN organisation and the (local government) department concerned, listing all the in-kind contributions, which are then evaluated during the course of the project life. This is a condition for the release of the first authorised allocation of funds (usually US$250,000) to kick off the project. These MOU's have to be sent to CFC and FAO (supervisory body) in order to get the release of these funds. There is also the issuance of the project budget where these in-kind funds have to be reflected. So it is not 'air' and I can assure you, Ms Calabrò says, it has to be well documented! Having established the procedure at UN agencies, I am still left with my main question: Who put what on the table and how was all that money spent. I am neither saying nor suggesting that things are not done in a proper way. All I am saying is that I want to know the details of how our money is spent, after which we'll be able to judge. Neither CFC nor Esalia seem prepared to answer. See you all next month! Sam Setter feedback@samsetter.org