PRESS BRIEFING BY EXECUTIVE COORDINATOR OF UNITED NATIONS REFORM
Press Briefing
PRESS BRIEFING BY EXECUTIVE COORDINATOR OF UNITED NATIONS REFORM
19970318
FOR INFORMATION OF UNITED NATIONS SECRETARIAT ONLY
The reform measures announced on Monday, 17 March, by Secretary-General Kofi Annan were designed "to create a viable, exciting Organization that is going to be performance-oriented, the kind of thing that people can hold up their heads and be proud of serving in the future", Maurice Strong, Executive Coordinator for United Nations Reform, told correspondents at a Headquarters briefing yesterday afternoon.
He said the proposals were the only kind of reform that made sense. There would be difficulties and resistance, but, by and large, the spirit of the Organization was going to move up as its performance improved, he stated.
Mr. Strong said, in reply to questions, that he had a small team consisting of staff made available by various departments, funds and programmes. Contributions to the reform process from outside would be limited and specialized.
He told a correspondent that a whole series of measures not mentioned by the Secretary-General yesterday afternoon were being considered and would be dealt with in the report the Secretary-General had promised to deliver to governments next July.
Could he tell correspondents the nature of the analyses that had gone into the reform of the economic and social sectors? a correspondent asked. He answered that basically the functions and outputs of the departments concerned had been looked at. The process was not just a question of moving a few people around at the top. It had been a matter of taking a look at each of the actual components of the functions of each of those departments in terms of the overall mandates that they were serving from governments and how their output could be improved. His team had the benefit of work that had been done in that area both internally and as a result of external studies. It did not start from zero and there was neither lack of information nor advice.
The correspondent asked him to be specific, in particular, about the outputs he had been referring to. What exactly had been done, how were the issues discussed, and how would the United Nations role in the economic and social areas be changed as a result of the reform proposals? Mr. Strong said he believed that, first and foremost, the United Nations role would be much more focused, because "inevitably with three separate departments, there's a certain degree of duplication and overlapping of services being provided". Those had been examined. His team had had the benefit of people who had spent a lot of their time both within and outside the Organization.
Pressed further, Mr. Strong said he did not think the briefing was the place to go into the details. "We simply looked at what products were expected, the outputs of each (of those departments), and how those outputs could be improved, and concluded that they could be improved significantly by putting some of them together within a common framework to have a common focus and direction."
Asked what was meant by channelling savings from administrative costs into economic and social programmes, Mr. Strong said it meant that resources that were committed to administration and support costs would be moved to actual, substantive programmes. That would also be a guiding factor in terms of distribution of those posts that would be abolished. They would be proportionately in the administrative field. The net purpose of the whole exercise, he said, was actually to improve and strengthen the development capacity of the United Nations system.
Incidentally, he continued, for those who believed that the reduction in budget and staff could not coincide with the strengthening of the Organization, his own experience in reorganizations was that the two could and must go together. One of the problems with United Nations reform to date was that there had been too much emphasis on simply slashing across the board. "Costs are reduced, staff are reduced, with improvement in effectiveness and performance. And cost-cutting is not an end in itself, but the result of a well-managed, well-structured organization."
On how much administrative savings would be made, Mr. Strong said the Secretary-General had stated that by the year 2001 he was committed to a target of reducing administrative costs by one third, which was a significant act. "Even in the corporate world, that would be considered a very significant development." He added that it was not an easy task. "Some toes would be stepped on. There would be resistance in many places, but I believe, overall, we will have the cooperation of our colleagues in the Secretariat, because they recognize that there could be no future or security in an organization that is not secure itself."
Recalling that the Department of Public Information (DPI) would be reoriented under the new plan, a correspondent asked where staff who had been helpful to correspondents, sometimes on a personal basis, could be found. Would those staff be scattered in different departments and would they be responsive to correspondents on an individual basis, as they had been? she asked. Mr. Strong replied that if the tests he had just indicated were to be applied more generally to DPI, "we would expect that the changes in DPI would improve their performance and improve accessibility". It might be that there were areas in which services were not considered to have the kind of market value now that they had had in the past. There would need to be "some constructive surgery here and there, as well".
Strong Press Briefing - 3 - 18 March 1997
In what departments would correspondents find the people? the correspondent asked further. Mr. Strong said he could not tell where they would be found at this point. "But we are going to go through a process, and I'm sure that every one of you is an expert on what to do at DPI. We would welcome your input."
A correspondent asked how many, if any, United Nations critics at the United States Congress had been consulted with on the specifics of the reforms announced. Had any prior approvals or positive response been received from them? he was asked. Mr. Strong recalled that the Secretary-General had visited Washington, D.C., earlier in his tenure, and had listened to what the United States President, the Administration and the Congress had to say on United Nations reform. "We're very mindful of their view and attitude, but the Secretary-General's attitude -- and he had said this to them explicitly -- is that we need reforms for our own sake. The United Nations needs reforms, quite apart from the financial problems with the United States; quite apart from the requirements it had attached to their own obligations."
He strongly believed that the Organization needed change and reform, Mr. Strong said. He stressed that, although the Secretariat listened to the Organization's largest contributor, the reform programme had not been cleared with them. "It is not their programme", Mr. Strong said. "It is the Secretary-General's programme, but one in which he very much hopes, although he doesn't even pretend to try and meet every one of the specific things that he heard from his visit to Washington. We think that, broadly speaking, it is the kind of reform programme that should inspire their confidence, and we hope will elicit their support."
With regard to the proposed cuts of 1,000 staffing positions, a correspondent said that one of the experiences of the United Nations in the last few years had been that cuts in permanent staff had been matched by recruitment of staff on short-term, temporary contracts. Would there be a shift from the use of staff employed under the guidelines of the International Labour Organization (ILO), to the recruitment of short-term staff in violation of those guidelines? he was asked.
Mr. Strong responded that there would be no violation of ILO guidelines. "I would remind you that there are other constraints -- that is budgetary constraints. You're cutting posts, but you are also cutting administrative costs, so there are real constraints. There are no attempt to make a bunch of shadow changes." He said that in his last job, he had reduced staff from 36,000 to 20,000. He had also placed a ban on any re-employments. "I'm not suggesting the same thing here, but the principle is the same. You don't reduce your permanent staff and then make up for it, either by rehiring them, or using them as consultants. He was sure that the Secretary-General would not allow that to happen, and he would not, himself, do anything to support or encourage that practice."
Strong Press Briefing - 4 - 18 March 1997
Asked whether United Nations reform had any impact on peace-keeping, he recalled that before he became Secretary-General, Mr. Annan, as head of the Department of Peace-keeping Operations, had carried out "some very, very important and very constructive productive changes in that Department". Mr. Strong was sure that to whatever extent further changes were made, they would be designed to further strengthen the process he had set in motion when he was in charge of the department.
A correspondent said that, as far as he could figure from the last report of the previous Secretary-General, the proposed 1998-1999 biennium budget was going to be more than $123 million lower than the current biennium budget, and that cuts of more than 1,000 jobs had also been mentioned. "Are we talking about new proposals here, or are we talking about re-packaging things that had already been announced?", the correspondent asked. Mr. Strong said that the United Nations "did not re-start, each time it got a new chief executive", and that the budget process was a continuing one. Some of the measures the Secretary-General had announced had come out of a continuing process. There were several differences, however.
Quoting from the report, the correspondent said that a reduction of $247 million, including the reduction of some 1,000 posts might be anticipated in comparison with current staffing table. "Is that new or just a modification of the figures announced last August?", the correspondent further asked. Mr. Strong said that it was a little bit of both. The situation was new in the sense that the Secretary-General was committing himself to the new figure of $123 million. "This is not the first time that there had been a figure mentioned, but as I have said, this is a continuing process. What you're hearing today is the Secretary-General's commitment."
Was the Secretary-General committing himself to a lower reduction of the budget than the previous Secretary-General? the correspondent asked. Mr. Strong replied: "That's correct." He said that he did not have the previous Secretary-General's report at hand and would not attempt to try to interpret it.
On the same issue, a correspondent asked whether the $123 million was not an addition to the budget outline for 1998-1999 and that it was something that had already been taken into account in the budget outline. Mr. Strong replied: "That's correct. As I said, the budgeting process is a continuing process and the $123 million figure is in fact the Secretary-General's commitment and estimate of what the savings would be in the next budget." He pointed out that the important was to go beyond that. He said the Secretary- General was "living with a situation that he had inherited, good and bad". The Secretary-General was making what Mr. Strong thought was "a very radical commitment to reducing administrative costs from 38 per cent of total budget to 25 per cent". He added: "In any organization, governmental or corporate, that would be a major commitment."
Strong Press Briefing - 5 - 18 March 1997
A correspondent asked what the name would be for the new department that would deal with economic and social affairs? He also wanted to know where the $123 million savings would come from, and whether the 1,000 jobs being cut would be in the economic and social affairs divisions. Mr. Strong said that he could not give the exact details about where the savings would come from, but as he had had already stated, they would come disproportionately from the administrative side. He added that some might well be from the substantive Professional staff, where it was believed it could be done without offence to the capacities of those bodies. A lot of the issues had to be worked out with the staff concerned. "We'll meet those objectives; there's absolutely no question about that. But the actual manner in which we meet them needs to be worked out. This reform announcement had to be kept very tight, therefore, it wasn't really feasible to negotiate its particulars with every one of those concerned, nor would it be good to just do it by fiat in respect of each one of the units to be affected." He said the new name of the consolidated departments of economic and social affairs would be announced shortly. He disclosed that the Department of Administration and Management would be known simply as the Department of Management.
How much authority did the Secretary-General had in making similar changes in the specialized agencies? a correspondent asked. "The real answer to that question is that he has no real executive authority in respect to the specialized agencies. However, he's recognized as the leader of the system." He said that there were provisions in the United Nations Charter which envisaged a somewhat strong leadership role for the Secretary-General than in fact had been exercised in the past. His own belief was that the Secretary- General, demonstrating as he now was, a strong and vigorous commitment to reform in those areas that were under his authority, would have a high degree of credibility in the recommendations that he made to governments and to the agencies. "And he would be making those, for instance, in the common services area; we can't force them to accept common services. We hope we can sit down with our colleagues in the agencies and demonstrate where common services are going to save everybody, and, at the same time, improve performance, and effectiveness."
He said it could be hoped that in the leadership that the Secretary- General exercised, he would have governmental support in the governing bodies of those agencies. "This is the way he has to work, and he has decided, and I think rightly, that he would have to move, first and foremost, in those areas that he has authority. And by doing that, his moral authority and moral leverage on others would be improved", Mr. Strong added.
* *** *