URU, Alm.del - 2010-11 (1. samling) - Bilag 121: Resumé af evaluering af FN-rejse til Nepal for nordiske parlamentarikere den 15.

United Nations Development Group (UNDG) in Denmark – UNDP, UNEP Risø, UNICEF Denmark,UNFPA, and WFP – has previously organized five successful study visits for Nordic Members ofParliaments (MPs) of the Foreign Affairs Committees to Zambia (2004), Malawi (2006),Mozambique (2007), Nicaragua (2008), and Liberia (2009). The aim has been to expandknowledge of the UN system and its work in practice. On this background, the UNDG inDenmark initiated a study visit in Nepal on 16-21 January 2011. Nepal was selected due to theinteresting coordination of UN operational activities as well as political and developmentchallenges. The initiative was implemented by the UN Country Team (UNCT) in Nepal in closecollaboration with the UNDG in Denmark. A total of 3 MPs from Denmark, 2 MPs from Norway,the Editor ofUdvikling(Danida’s magazine), the Director of UNFPA Nordic Office and theDirector of UNDP Nordic Office participated in the visit.List of participants from Nordic countriesMs. Ellen Trane Nørby (MP, Denmark)Mr. Hüseyin Arac (MP, Denmark)Ms. Hanne Agersnap (MP, Denmark)Mr. Stefan Katic (editor, Denmark)Overall impression:Overall good impression and very well planned study trip.Good mix of meetings with relevant people and projects in the areas Kapilvastu as well asMorang and Sunsari. However, it was recommended to ensure some time for cultural andsocial sightseeing.Learned a lot about the UN activities and it was observed that the agencies are wellcoordinated.Good timing to learn more about the UN in the field, particularly since visit coincided withthe phasing out of the UN Mission in Nepal (UNMIN), a special political mission in support ofthe peace process in Nepal. (UNMIN ceased operations on 15 January 2011 one day beforethe Nordic visit).Mr. Peter N. Myhre (MP, Norway)Ms. Eva Kristin Hansen (MP, Norway)Mr. Jakob Simonsen (Director of UNDP Nordic Office)Ms. Pernille Fenger (Director of UNFPA Nordic Office)

A really good and important piece of work is carried out in Nepal. However, there is still along way to go. The level of education, health and food security as well as the housingsituation must be improved. Stability must be preserved and improved.The democratic process is far too slow and unstable. The country and the people of Nepalneed further attention and economic, social and political support.

Preparation:Good and relevant handouts, but the binder could be built-up more logically.Could have introduced some general cultural information.Very useful practical information, but arrived a bit late (Norway).The background information was extensive, adequate and very good. It was received well inadvance of the trip (Denmark). The information on Nepal, the population/the compositionof the population, the history and the culture was rewarding. The description of Danish andother countries’ initiatives was mentioned as a good value of the trip.

Program:Very good program and visited projects, particularly the field trip and “surprise” visits toBhutanese refugees and The Blue Diamond Society.Too many power point presentations; and suggest to focusing on oral presentations. Thelast day was a too packed program and unnecessary long bureaucratic repeating meetingwith secretaries.Quite an impression to “feel and smell” the Maternity Hospital. However, not enough timefor cultural/social sightseeing and some more time for “smelling” Nepal.The contents of the program and the themes in focus were very good. However, it wasmentioned to have insufficient time to talk to the local people, which would benefit ofseeing the projects with own eyes. It is not enough just to listen to project leaders andpoliticians. Moreover, it makes the local people happy when you come and talk to them andlisten to their problems and proposed solutions.

Security:Personal security and safety were very well taken care of.Briefing was “sufficient” and to some extent somewhat overkill.The level of security was high. However, more security is needed when the delegation is inthe villages and the peripheral areas. The participants must not lose touch of each other.Did not feel unsafe at all during the trip, but thought that more precautions should be takenin the peripheral areas.