Hold UNDP accountable

Hold UNDP accountable | Daily Tribune

Sometime in April 2021, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) wrote DAILY TRIBUNE to respond to a series of articles about the bungled Internet for All program called Pipol Konek that was heavily tainted with graft allegations.

UNDP claimed that issues raised by the Commission on Audit (CoA) in its probe of the project that involved the UN body had all been previously addressed.

Even the Commission on Audit issued comments about the specifics of the project being disadvantageous to the government.

Among CoA’s findings was that the involvement of the multilateral agency in the project was not “cost-effective for the government.”

Now that the Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT) is under information technology wiz Henry Rhoel Aguda, the overhaul of the Free WiFi Program is expected to proceed.

The government infuses an annual budget of P6.5 billion to cover internet access in over 7,000 locations in the country.

A probe of the UNDP and the possibility of seeking compensation to augment the financing for the project should be considered.

UNDP raised about P29 million in financial assistance for the DICT project or 2.13 percent of its cost of P1.36 billion.

The amount was not in cash but the equivalent cost of advisory services and technology while the government was compelled to pay a contractor that the foreign agency chose.

UNDP also billed DICT nearly P65 million in service fees. The financial agreement (FA) which DICT officials said was drafted entirely by UNDP also contained difficult provisions that escalated the cost of the project.

Article II of the FA stated that “to cover General Management Support (GMS) services costs, the contribution shall be charged a fee equal to three percent, and that all direct costs of implementation, including the cost of the implementing partner will be identified in the project budget against a relevant budget line and borne by the project accordingly.”

The base amount already included the initial five-percent service fee of P64.86 million, an additional three-percent service fee resulted in P40,862,538.55 charges to the government.

UNDP’s total bill for its services, thus, was ₱P105,723,710.84 or P64,861,172.29 in initial fee plus the three-percent GMS charges of P40,862,538.55.

CoA said the fees were avoidable and should have applied to Pipol Konek components such as increasing its coverage.

Instead of going to UNDP, the DICT should have directly implemented the project which was the practice “in previous years.”

UNDP commissioned Australian firm Speedcast for the installation of WiFi towers for the project.

In turn, the foreign technology firm gave out subcontracts to local groups to work on the list of 3,000 locations supplied by UNDP.

About half of the 500 initial sites for the construction of the mini towers had wrong coordinates with distances off by several kilometers, according to a report by DICT technicians.

UNDP was also found to have lied about the progress of the project, saying that the first stage of Pipol Konek was nearly complete with 2,677 free WiFi sites ready as of June 2019, while an audit indicated that after the coronavirus pandemic became full-blown in 2020, only 225 cell sites had been set up.

The project targeted another 6,000 towers in the second phase to be built in the “remotest, unserved and disadvantaged communities.”

Another onerous provision in the deal with UNDP indicated that “if unforeseen increases in expenditures or commitments are expected or realized (whether due to inflationary factors, fluctuation in exchange rates or unforeseen contingencies), UNDP shall submit to the government on a timely basis a supplementary estimate showing the further financing that will be necessary. The government shall use its best endeavors to make available to UNDP the additional funds required.”

When CoA inquired about the huge fees, UNDP said only the five-percent service fee would be charged while the three percent was in the form of advisory services and technology.

Thus, the actual financing for Pipol Konek came from the yearly budget.

“The proviso added that if the additional financing required... is not forthcoming from the government or other sources, the assistance to be provided to the project under this agreement may be reduced, suspended or terminated by UNDP.”

In the guise of developmental aid, the UNDP may have pilfered huge amounts in collusion with past officials of the DICT and other high-level executives involved in Pipol Konek.