BETTER JUSTIFICATION REQUIRED FOR PROPOSED INCREASE IN RESOURCES FOR INTERNAL OVERSIGHT OFFICE, FIFTH COMMITTEE TOLD

Press Release
GA/AB/3341

BETTER JUSTIFICATION REQUIRED FOR PROPOSED INCREASE IN RESOURCES FOR INTERNAL OVERSIGHT OFFICE, FIFTH COMMITTEE TOLD

Committee Continues Consideration of Proposed 2000-2001 Programme Budget

A proposed increase in resources for the Office of Internal Oversight Services for 2000-2001 would have to be better justified, the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) was told this morning, as it took up the Secretary-General’s proposals for internal oversight, during its ongoing part- by-part consideration of the United Nations programme budget for the next biennium.

Internal oversight had not been established as a priority activity of the Organization by Member States in the medium-term plan, the representative of Guyana, speaking on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China, told the Committee. The Oversight Office’s funding had grown from some $13.8 million in 1996-1997 to about $20.78 million proposed for 2000-2001. That resource growth was not justified, he added, as no new activities for the Office had been mandated by the General Assembly since 1994.

[The medium-term plan is the primary policy document of the United Nations, provided by Member States to the Secretariat to give guidance on the implementation of mandates.]

The Oversight Office was a mechanism for optimizing programme delivery, the representative of Finland, speaking on behalf of the European Union and associated States, told the Committee. It promoted the most effective use of the Organization’s resources, and had been critical in making the United Nations more responsive, efficient, accountable and transparent. The Oversight Office should be given the resources it needed to fulfil its mandate.

The Committee concluded its discussion of budget part VIII, on common support services, prior to turning to consider part IX, on internal oversight.

The representatives of Uganda, Philippines, Russian Federation, Algeria, Australia, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia, United States, Cuba, Canada, Japan and Pakistan also spoke.

The Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) C.S.M. Mselle, introduced the relevant sections of that body’s report. The Chairman of the Committee for Programme and Coordination, Tommo Monthe, and the Chairman of the Joint Inspection Unit, Louis-Dominique Ouedraogo, made statements. Warren Sach, Director of the Budget Division, answered Member States questions.

The Committee will meet again today at 3 p.m., when it will continue its budget consideration.

Committee Work Programme

The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) met this morning to continue its part-by-part consideration of the proposed programme budget for the 2000-2001 biennium, commencing with the conclusion of its general discussion on the Secretary-General’s proposal for budget part VIII on common support services, followed by consideration, during this meeting and a second planned for later today, of the remaining parts of the budget.

[For a general introduction to the programme budget proposal and the general response of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ), see Press Release GA/AB/3322 of 27 October. Further parts of the Secretary-General's proposed budget and the relevant ACABQ responses are summarized in the press release covering the meeting at which the Committee commences considering them. For background on part VIII, see Press Release GA/AB/3340 of 10 November.]

The Committee had before it all the remaining parts (parts IX through XIII and the income sections) of the Secretary-General’s proposals for the programme budget (document A/54/6), and related comments by the ACABQ (document A/54/7).

Part IX

The total level of resources the Secretary-General requests for internal oversight (section 28) is almost $18.9 million or 5.3 per cent over the previous biennium. Extrabudgetary resources are projected at close to $11 million and would provide for oversight services, including investigation of the United Nations funds and programmes. The number of regular budget posts proposed for 2000-2001 is 87, as compared with 82 for 1998-1999. Extrabudgetary posts would increase from 34 to 40.

The increase in the estimates relates to the request for five additional posts (one P-5, one P-4, one P-3 and two General Service) and the reclassification of a P-5 post of Special Assistant to the Under-Secretary- General to the D-1 level.

On inquiry, the ACABQ was informed that the upgrade of the post was requested in part because, since the Office of Internal Oversight Services operates without a deputy, the Special Assistant carries significant responsibilities with respect to the four unit chiefs, one of whom is at the D-2 level. The ACABQ was unconvinced by this explanation and recommended against this reclassification.

With regard to the additional P-5 post for a Planning and Compliance Officer in the Office of the Under-Secretary-General, the ACABQ was informed that functions to be assumed by this post had been carried out by gratis personnel at the P-3/4 level. The Committee recommends that this post be provided at the P-4 level.

The ACABQ recommends the acceptance of the Secretary-General’s requests for the additional posts. The P-4 post would provide expertise related to electronic data processing and information technology audit requirements at Headquarters. The P-3 post would be situated in the Audit and Management Consulting Division of the African Section of the Nairobi Office, to enable that Section to increase its audit coverage of United Nations activities in Africa. The two General Service posts were requested for the Administrative Unit in the Office of the Under-Secretary-General.

In certain investigation cases -- such as those concerning the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) -- there is a memorandum of understanding covering cost arrangements for services provided by the Office of Internal Oversight Services, according to the report. With other programmes, such as the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), no clear guidelines exist, although the ACABQ learned that those bodies pay for travel and subsistence when the Oversight Office provides investigation services. The Advisory Committee says the next proposed programme budget should include more information on cost reimbursement for services where there is no memorandum of understanding between the Office and the respective fund or programme.

Noting the decrease in resources for evaluation of the last two bienniums, the ACABQ recommends that the Secretary-General review the adequacy of resources for evaluation with reference to workload indicators. In other comments, it cautions against the Oversight Office structure becoming too elaborate, and recommends a review of the utility of merging the Central Evaluation Unit and the Central Monitoring and Inspection Unit.

Part X

Under jointly financed administrative activities (section 29), the Secretary-General asks for some $8.45 million, an increase of about $2.35 million from 1998-1999 as a result of the reincorporation of the UNHCR and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) shares, excluded in the past two bienniums.

That amount is for five bodies of the United Nations which are financed on an inter-agency basis: the International Civil Service Commission (ICSC) and secretariat; the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) and secretariat; and the United Nations share in the budgets of the secretariats of the three subsidiary bodies of the Administrative Committee on Coordination (ACC): the Information Systems Coordination Committee, the Consultative Committee on Administrative Questions, and the Consultative Committee on Programme and Operational Questions.

The ACABQ report explains that the shares of participating organizations in the costs of the jointly financed bodies are reviewed by the ACC. Under the formula used, the costs of the ICSC and the secretariats of the Consultative Committee on Administrative Questions and the Information Systems Coordination Committee are apportioned each biennium on the basis of the number of staff of each organization with fixed-term or longer contracts at the close of the preceding biennium.

The costs of the JIU and the secretariat of the Consultative Committee on Programme and Operational Questions are apportioned on the basis of expenditure, excluding that related to peacekeeping, expenditure in kind and 50 per cent of the expenditure of the International Trade Centre corresponding to the World Trade Organization (WTO) share.

The ACABQ recommends that, in the next budget estimates, the full cost be given for each of the entities included in the section.

It points out that the requirements for the UNHCR and UNRWA were not included for the past two bienniums by the Secretariat on the assumption that the agencies would assume responsibility for the costs, without specific authority from the General Assembly or the agencies involved. Neither agency has ever agreed with the changes in the arrangements or agreed to bear the financial responsibility for those costs. It cautions against any unilateral actions on matters involving the United Nations or any other organization of the system without full consultation of the parties concerned and without informing the General Assembly.

As the exclusions were never approved by the Assembly, the ACABQ recommends that the amount accumulated for 1996-1997 be absorbed in the context of the liquidation of prior commitments for that period, and that arrangements be reviewed, for the amount for 1998-1999, in the second performance report.

Regarding the ICSC, expenditures for 2000-2001 are estimated at some $11.63 million, up $291,100 from 1998-1999, as a result of a proposed increase of $600,000 under consultants and experts, and reductions of $300,000 under general operating expenses, and of $8,900 under travel. There is no change in the number of posts anticipated.

The increase under consultants and experts, from $256,100 to $856,100, is related to the development of a computerized Integrated Management Information System (IMIS), as recommended by the Board of Auditors.

The United Nations share in the total budget would be some $4.28 million, with the increase of some $1.02 million largely the result of the reincorporation of UNRWA and UNHCR components.

The ACABQ reports that overall development costs for this project are estimated by a consulting firm at approximately $2 million, requiring five additional Professional posts and three to four years for implementation. It notes, however, that a phased approach has been chosen, leading to an initial request for $600,000 for 2000-2001. It notes that the Auditors said the system should be compatible with other common system computer systems and its introduction should be preceded by identification and quantification of savings that would result. It expresses its opinion that this should be done and reported in the next proposed programme budget.

Estimates for the JIU for 2000-2001 amount to some $7.86 million, unchanged from the current biennium. No change in posts is envisaged.

The United Nations share in the total budget of the JIU would be approximately 33.8 per cent, or some $2.66 million. The increase of some $1.01 million is a consequence of reincorporation of the UNHCR and UNRWA shares.

Proposals of the Information Systems Coordination Committee were reviewed by the Consultative Committee on Administrative Questions in February. The total budget of the Information Systems Coordination Committee for 2000-2001 is some $1.30 million and, based on the 1998-1999 cost-sharing formula, the United Nations share amounts to 35.13 per cent, or $458,300.

The ACABQ states that it does not consider this Committee effective, as it has seen little coordination in systems development -- an area that requires special attention -- at the United Nations.

The ACABQ states that the role and future of the Information Systems Coordination Committee should be reviewed, and options such as assigning some of its functions to other bodies should be examined. Pending the outcome of such a review, it recommends against the appropriation of the United Nations share.

If the review concludes that this Committee has a useful role, the ACABQ suggests it perform a study on ways and means of establishing maintenance standards for LANs, hardware and software in the United Nations system.

The proposed budget for the Consultative Committee on Administrative Questions for 2000-2001 is some $1.37 million. The United Nations share, at the 1998-1999 rates, amounts to 36.79 per cent, or $502,600. This incorporates the shares of the UNHCR and UNRWA, thereby accounting for the increase of $110,100 over 1998-1999.

Resources requested for the Consultative Committee on Programme and Operational Questions for 2000-2001 amount to $820,100. The United Nations share amounts to 33.8 per cent, or $277,200, which the increase of $105,600 arising from the incorporation of the UNRWA and UNHCR shares.

For special expenses (section 30), the Secretary-General requests some $49.62 million before recosting; a decrease of about $3.06 million. The decrease comes from reductions for after-service health insurance, bank charges and inter-organizational security measures.

Estimated requirements for after-service health insurance amount to some $44.28 million, down about $2.54 million on 1998-1999 because of the impact of reduced membership growth and premium subsidy during 1998-1999.

The ACABQ notes this situation is not expected to continue since enrolment will grow exponentially as increasing numbers of staff reach retirement age and premium costs rise along with medical costs.

It recommends that urgent attention be given to the long-term implications and impact of this expected growth on the Organization and that practical indications of how the Secretariat intends to address the issue be reported.

It also asks that the Secretary-General report on the impact of recommendations made by the Office of Internal Oversight Services following its audit of all United Nations insurance programmes in his next budget proposal.

The ACABQ commends the Secretariat for achieving reduced bank charges, as it had recommended. Inter-organizational security measures are expected to cost some $1.81 million in 2000-2001, including extrabudgetary resources of $853,600. The United Nations share amounts to $908,700, an increase of $79,000 over the 1998- 1999 appropriation.

The ACABQ recommends that detailed information be submitted to it on all safety and security programmes currently undertaken by the United Nations system, including how they are financed and full information on all staff and other resources, in the next budget proposal. It strongly urges the common system organizations to carefully coordinate their security and safety activities in the field, to avoid conflict in policy, activities and guidelines that might endanger United Nations personnel and family members.

Part XI

Part XI of the proposed programme budget, Capital expenditures, consists of one section on construction, alteration, improvement and major maintenance.

For the section on construction, alteration, improvement and major maintenance (section 31), the Secretary-General proposes some $43.13 million, up about $8.95 million, or 26.2 per cent, from 1998-1999. This is broken down into programmes for alteration and improvement -- for which some $22.1 million is requested, up some $8.03 million from 1998-1999 -- and major maintenance, for which about $21.03 million is sought, up $925,800 on the current biennium.

No extrabudgetary resources are included in this part of the proposed programme budget.

The ACABQ notes that the structure of the narratives for the duty stations in this section is not consistent and recommends that, in future, a consistent presentation be employed. Resources for investment in technology infrastructure under each duty station should be identified and presented separately, and terminology should be used consistently.

It reiterates its view that deferring maintenance and improvement projects will be costly to the Organization in the long term. It notes that the proposed requirements of some $45.7 million after recosting for alteration, improvement and major maintenance are less than the amount requested in the proposed programme budget for 1996-1997, before the arbitrary reductions made subsequently.

It expresses concern at the serious state of buildings and asks the Secretary-General to ensure that funds appropriated for maintenance are actually expended for that purpose.

In future, it asks that the scope, duration and full cost of any multi- year phased projects under alterations, improvements and major maintenance be provided.

It notes that the Office of Central Support Services has developed a master plan for capital improvements, but that resources requested here do not include those required for capital improvements identified under that plan. It asks that this master plan, including information on the 10-year plan on improvements, be presented to the General Assembly through the ACABQ by the end of 1999.

Some $2.7 million is requested for major maintenance for the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) buildings.

Regarding the collapse of a ceiling section of the United Nations Conference Centre in Bangkok, the ACABQ reports it was informed that the original contractor had undertaken to make all repairs at no cost to the United Nations. However, the United Nations has had to pay the equivalent of $2,150 for an independent consultant. It also reports that as the collapse occurred in an external portion of the Conference Centre, the Centre’s operations have proceeded normally and no extra costs have been incurred or revenue lost as a result of the accident. In addition, no overtime for ESCAP staff above and beyond normal schedules has been required.

Part XII

Budget section part XII, Staff assessment, contains just one section.

For staff assessment (section 32), the Secretary-General proposes some $322.20 million after recosting. This amount is the difference between estimated gross and net salaries of United Nations staff.

[Staff assessment represents the amount determined by the Assembly as deductible from the gross salaries of United Nations staff members in lieu of payment of income tax. It is an internal United Nations form of "taxation" and is analogous to taxes on salaries that apply in most countries.]

The ACABQ notes this estimate.

Part XIII

Part XIII of the Secretary-General’s budget proposal for 2000-2001 contains one section on the Development Account (section 33). The amount requested under this section for 2000-2001 is the amount authorized by the General Assembly in its resolution 52/221 A of 22 December 1997 for the biennium 1998-1999, namely, some $13.07 million. A list of projects that are proposed to be funded from this amount is to be submitted during the Assembly’s current session.

When the ACABQ comments on the Development Account were prepared, the General Assembly had yet to agree on the modalities for operating the Account. Agreement on the modalities of the Account have subsequently been reached and approved by the Assembly. It previously recommended that this section of the programme budget be entitled “Supplementary development activities” and that the term “Development Account” be reserved for financing, accounting and auditing purposes for the sake of clarity.

[For background on the modalities of the Development Account, see Press Release GA/AB/3318 of 22 October.]

Estimates of Income

Under income from staff assessment (income section 1), the Secretary- General estimates some $326.95 million can be expected.

[Income from staff assessment is normally credited to a tax equalization fund and then distributed to Member States according to the scale of assessments of apportionment of the expenses of the United Nations for the regular budget applicable in the financial year concerned.]

Given differences between rates of growth in the budget section 32 on staff assessment costs and those in this section, the ACABQ asks that in future actual income received in prior bienniums be shown in the budget proposal to provide a means of comparison with actual expenditure.

Under general income (income section 2), estimates for 2000-2001 total some $37.9 million, up about $4.31 million on 1998-1999 estimates.

The ACABQ commends the Secretariat for the measures taken to increase income, in particular, the changes resulting in increased bank interest. It reports it was told that the installation of new software has enabled bank balances to be more accurately tracked so excess funds can be transferred into interest-bearing accounts.

While it notes that income from rental of premises for the Addis Ababa conference centre is estimated to be $801,360 for 2000-2001, the ACABQ states that its concern about the profitability of the Addis Ababa centre does not appear to have been addressed, and asks that it be addressed in the next programme budget. It also recommends that measures be introduced to ensure that the Economic Commission for Africa (ECA) and ESCAP have the financial capacity to manage income-generating meetings at their respective conference centres.

It asks the Secretary-General to provide information in the next budget submission on progress made in implementing an Assembly decision that all possible ways and means be explored to provide additional facilities to the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) for its offices, programmes and training courses that are provided at no cost to States and to their representatives accredited to United Nations Offices in New York, Nairobi, Geneva and Vienna.

Regarding a new pricing policy for television and similar services provided by the United Nations, the ACABQ reports it was informed that this arrangement would permit television companies to have access to United Nations programmes free of charge, while the United Nations would be allowed free access to certain of the companies’ resources. It recommends measures be introduced to assess the extent to which the United Nations is using the facilities that have been offered.

Under income from services to the public (income section 3), the estimate for net revenue for 2000-2001 is some $5.59 million, up about $1.28 million on 1998-1999 revised estimates.

The ACABQ reports that sales tax is now being paid on gift item sales, and states that it received no reply when it asked for the basis for this payment. It expresses concern about the payment of local taxes on items sold in the United Nations Building, which is international territory, and asks that the full implications of this be analysed and that immediate steps be taken to revert to a situation where no such taxes are collected or paid.

It welcomes a proposal that an outside contractor run the Palais des Nations Bookshop in Geneva. However, it believes the case for abolishing two related General Service posts is not substantiated, as there would be a need to have staff monitor and supervise contracted personnel, maintain liaison with the sales section and continue to promote sales. The ACABQ asks the Secretary- General to review this situation and to advise the current Assembly session of his review.

Regarding catering operations, it recommends that immediate steps be taken to determine why the quality of service in the Delegates’ Dining Room and the Cafeteria at Headquarters had declined and why cost of some items were so high.

Statements on Proposed Programme Budget

GARFIELD BARNWELL (Guyana), speaking on behalf of the "Group of 77" developing countries and China, said, under part VIII, section 27C, that human resources were a vital component of the Secretariat necessary for the fulfilment of the Organization’s programme. The Group felt the United Nations should provide the best possible conditions to staff to maximize efficiency, and that staff should do their best to live up to the expectations of Member States. A balanced system of recognition for good performance and punitive measures for under-performance was also essential.

On the delegation of authority, he said this should only be done in line with General Assembly resolutions, as should reform of the Office of Human Resources Management (OHRM). He again rejected the idea of Member States “micro-managing” or “over-administering” and expressed doubts about the Secretariat’s plans for its own involvement in the decision-making process.

He said the Group was disappointed with the presentation of the budget proposals in section 27G. The Secretary-General had been requested to bring the financial arrangement for the United Nations Office in Nairobi into line with other United Nations offices. The Group was concerned that the Nairobi Office was being funded largely from extrabudgetary resources and wished to emphasize the principle of equal treatment of all United Nations offices.

He asked what concrete steps were being taken by the Secretary-General to increase resources for the Nairobi Office. The Group was concerned that there was currently no established procedure for establishing costs at that Office, and that there has been no change in resource provisions for conference services in Nairobi. The Office had to be a fully-fledged conference centre, on a par with other centres. He also asked for information on the impact of the centre’s reform process.

NESTER ODAGA-JALOMAYO (Uganda) noted, under section 27A of the budget proposal, the number of posts that had been kept vacant, and he wondered why they were not filled. He asked what had happened to the functions to be performed by these posts. He noticed proposals to abolish certain posts, and wondered if such posts were no longer relevant. He also noted a backlog of cases of the Joint Appeals Board, and sought information on these. He was surprised that only one line in the proposal under this section referred to the work of the Fifth Committee secretariat, which had an important role and performed good work. He would like that secretariat to be strengthened.

He noted that a slight increase was proposed for section 27B, which he supported. He was surprised that the Budget Office was still not on release 3 of the Integrated Management Information System (IMIS) and sought information on progress in this matter. He was pleased that departments could now purchase personal computers and monitors on their own, but he was concerned about the rate of disappearances of personal computers and sought information on that. The review of the financial rules and regulations should be done in accordance with relevant Assembly decisions.

The complexity in recruitment was a great concern, he said. He hoped some procedures could be eliminated by the use of technology. The difficulties with the national competitive examinations were of concern, particularly given the top-heavy nature of the staff table. At some stage, there might be D-1 level staff performing clerical functions. He sought clarification on the details of training.

He shared the representative of Cuba’s concerns about delegation of authority in human resources management, and the Assembly decision on this should be observed, he said. He was disappointed with the lack of streamlining of processes in human resources and hoped this could be corrected.

He expressed concern about vacancy levels under section 27D, and he asked if these posts were left vacant for budgetary reasons. Security and safety was very important. The proposal that the Secretary-General review these was supported by Uganda. He sought assurances that the money spent on explosive device detection was well spent.

He asked why information technology and the IMIS could not be handled by the same organizational unit, and he asked why the IMIS had so few users. He noted that the Ugandan Mission was having trouble accessing the Internet, since the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) had stopped providing it, and the United Nations had begun to provide it. Also he sought information on how printing could be improved in Geneva.

The most important point in the area of travel, he said, was that only one agent was employed to purchase tickets. He asked why the system was not more competitive and how knowledgeable the company was of travel problems in other parts of the world. He also sought advice on how much the agent paid for its occupation of United Nations premises.

He also sought an update on the repair and maintenance of the United Nations Headquarters building, he said.

MARY JO ARAGON (Philippines) reaffirmed her support for the Secretary- General as the chief administrative officer of the United Nations. The staff were an invaluable asset to the Organization, she added, and she paid testimony to those who had died in service to the United Nations and called on all Member States to sign and ratify the Convention on the Safety and Security of United Nations and Associated Personnel.

The Philippines was pleased with the emphasis placed on training and development, she said, and it supported the proposed resource growth of 10.1 per cent for training activities. The paramount consideration in recruitment and promotion of staff should be the necessity of securing the highest standards of efficiency, competence and integrity. Recruitment, appointment and promotion should be made without distinction as to nationality, race, sex or religion, in accordance with the Charter and the Staff Rules and Regulations.

She expressed the Philippines serious reservations about the Assembly decision made in resolution 53/221 to realign the General Service to Professional Examination (G to P) with the national competitive exam for recruitment to the United Nations. This would deny General Service staff the opportunity to be promoted on the basis of their nationality. The majority of General Service staff were women, she noted. She appreciated efforts by General Service staff to support their aspirations by gaining university degrees. The G-to-P exam should be a promotion, not a recruitment, exercise, and all nationalities must be given equal access to promotion.

Lastly, she urged the Secretary-General to exert greater efforts to increase the representation of women from developing countries at senior levels of the Organization.

KIRILL FEDOROV (Russian Federation) said the Secretariat continued to put out documents on human resources management without giving the agenda item they referred to. His delegation agreed with the Group of 77’s concern about the policy for moving staff from the General Services to Professional category –- he was dissatisfied with the desire of the Secretariat to make a “general problem” of this which complicated the relationship between the Secretariat and the General Assembly.

The Secretariat had to give a general analysis of its staffing policy, he said, but this should, in no way, be directed towards procedures for adopting decisions in the Fifth Committee. The Secretariat should give full information on staff policies, including questions that related to human resources management. The procedure adopted in informal consultations was useful and, he believed, appropriate. He was against the Secretariat attempting to change agreed procedures before a draft decision was adopted.

DJAMEL MOKTEFI (Algeria) said that, under section 27B, he agreed with the ACABQ that the funding of peacekeeping-related and other long-term posts should become permanent as they dealt with permanent tasks.

He shared the concern about the need to reduce the time taken to recruit, he said, and stressed that the use of consultants and experts was no true solution to vacancies. The Office of Human Resources Management should be more active in the area of equitable geographic distribution. He agreed with the ACABQ that the presentation of information in the proposal on training and development was not very transparent and asked that, in the next budget proposal, the presentation be clearer to allow Member States to see how resources were used.

On delegation of authority, he said he agreed with the ACABQ that this must be preceded by approval from the Assembly, he said. On the IMIS, he agreed with the ACABQ that the amounts proposed were not easily comprehensible, and that resources used for operational activities and those that would be invested in new technologies should be distinguished. The formatting of the proposal in this area could be clearer. He asked why there were so few users of the IMIS –- far fewer than were anticipated, given the objectives of the system.

On common services, he said he agreed with the ACABQ that they should be introduced when they would improve effectiveness, productivity and viability. On travel, he shared the concern of the representative of Uganda that there was only one travel agency used by the United Nations. This agency had given him a price for travel that was twice as high as he was able to find outside. He also asked why steps had not been taken to deal with the disappearance of computers.

The Vienna Office clearly had a major problem -– asbestos, he said. This was a public health question affecting United Nations staff and representatives of Member States, and it needed to be resolved. He sought a written response on what work had been done to eliminate asbestos in New York and what was planned.

On 13 October, on the thirty-ninth floor in the Group of 77’s office, a private contractor came and cleaned the ceiling, but officials had not been previously informed, so this was done while people tried to work. Dust from asbestos was in the air. He asked why staff were not informed in advance. He also appealed to the medical service to provide exact numbers for asbestos- related problems noted in the Building. This problem was the same in Vienna.

The Nairobi administration should enjoy the full status enjoyed by other United Nations Headquarters locations, he said. Necessary resources should be provided to Nairobi in this budget for a permanent interpretation service.

HENRY FOX (Australia) said he was concerned at the continuing high levels of vacancy rates throughout the Organization and doubted whether automation was the right way to solve the problem. There was an absence of a strategic vision for workplace reform. Training was important, but was not an end in itself and, in this case, the end was a more responsive workforce. There was a lack of transparency in the training process. There was also a lack of integration between human resources management and information technology.

Australia wished also to reiterate its concern about the absence of a long-term and comprehensive strategy on information technology, he said. There were also further efficiencies to be found in travel costs. Was the organization getting value for money for its “travel dollar”? he asked.

MUHAMMAD YUSSUF (United Republic of Tanzania) said, under section 27C, that he had noted the estimated $73,400 for communications costs for the OHRM as a whole and other sums. He asked what the difference was between communications costs and communications needs. There was also a provision of $10,400 for “specialized supplies”. What were these? he asked.

MATHIAS DAKA (Zambia) said the OHRM needed to work very hard to shorten the recruitment period. On travel services, he had been told that it was cheaper to outsource, but asked whether this was really the case.

WARREN SACH, Director of the Budget Division, answered Member States’ questions. He explained, regarding the comment about the number of references to the work of the secretariat of the Fifth Committee in the budget proposal, that the value of the work of a unit or body was not a criteria used in determining the amount of references to it in the budget proposal. Rather, the changes proposed and the reasons for changes determined the amount of space given to any activity.

The IMIS was designed to address a number of activities, he said, but it was not designed to provide the budget information needed by the Budget Office. Different software, which would need to be replaced at some stage, was used for this. He was not proposing its replacement at present, because the Secretariat was focused on getting the IMIS up and running.

The information provided on human resources was fully intended to be in accordance with the Assembly’s decision on this matter, he explained. As it had been stated that it was not, he would ask for details in informal consultations and take those details seriously into consideration.

On the lack of transparency of information on staff training and development, the point had been taken, he assured Member States. In future, efforts would be made to make it clearer. There had been an evaluation study of training activities which would be provided to Member States in informal consultations.

On the specific enquiry about the Staff Management Coordination Committee and the staff association communications expenses, these included long-distance telephone calls and mailing, and he did not think there was anything unusual in the costs. However, he would seek details and advise Member States accordingly.

On the specialist supplies requested under budget section 27C, he would seek information and respond when he had received it.

On section 27D, under central support services, he explained that the travel agent in the Building had been contracted following competitive bidding. The United Nations had changed travel agents in recent years as a result of certain agents being more competitive. It was not an easy contract to administer, he said. One aspect of the bidding process was what rent the agent was prepared to pay. The rent was set as part of the competitive bidding process.

The Secretariat attempted to contract travel agents that could provide tickets at the lowest cost, he said. The net amount the United Nations paid for a ticket was the price less a discount for volume purchases. Therefore, ultimate cost was less than that stated on the ticket. He did not think that this discount arrangement extended to other users of the service, as the contract was geared to the travel needs of the Secretariat.

On the vacancy rate, he assured Member States that no vacancies had been kept open for budgetary reasons. High rates would have to be explained in the context of the performance report.

On the Information Technology Support Division and IMIS, the Secretariat currently had separate offices dealing with ongoing technology support and with the development of the IMIS. The development of the IMIS was not finished, as its installation was ongoing. When it was installed in all duty stations, the Secretariat would attempt to determine how the IMIS maintenance would best fit into the United Nations organizational structure.

Use of the IMIS extended beyond the Secretariat, he noted, as it was used, to some extent, by the UNDP, UNICEF and the International Labour Organization (ILO). In the integration of its maintenance into the Organization over the long run, a way to charge costs to other users would have to be found.

The number of IMIS users would grow with its installation into other duty stations and its spread into payroll management, he said. This figure for users at present was only an interim number.

He would speak about Internet access in informal consultations, he said. The congestion referred to might be because of the links between Headquarters and the user. He was advised that the current LAN system was adequate for Headquarters needs.

He could add little to his answers given yesterday on security, he said. The information given to the ACABQ on explosive detection would be given to Member States.

On asbestos abatement, a progressive programme was in place that called for action when construction was required. Asbestos was best left where it was, unless construction would disturb it. He would seek information about the disturbance in the Group of 77 office, he added.

Regarding the abolition of posts in the United Nations Office in Geneva, these did not reflect a reduction in its capacity to service programmes, he said. On the remarks made on strengthening Nairobi, he drew attention to the fact that the report indicated that an arrangement for regularizing the budget was in place and that changes were being made to implement the Assembly resolution over time.

Mr. ODAGA-JALOMAYO (Uganda) said he intended to further pursue the issue of the travel agent, as there were still unanswered questions.

Mr. MOKTEFI (Algeria) said he too would follow up on the question of the travel agent. The main question was not the rent it paid, but the overall business it did. He also said the Group of 77 office had not had any reply to its letter on the question of asbestos.

The Committee then turned its attention to part IX of the budget proposal, Internal oversight.

The CHAIRMAN of the ACABQ, C.S.M. MSELLE, introduced that body’s report on the subject, as well as on part X, Jointly financed administrative activities and special expenses.

Mr. BARNWELL (Guyana), speaking on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, said he had noted with great concern that a large number of formulations in the foreword and introduction of section 29 on the Office of Internal Oversight Services did not comply with the mandate of the Office in resolution 28/218B.

He said the Group had noted that the resources for the Oversight Office had grown from $13.8 million in 1996-1997 to the proposed $20.78 million in 2000-2001. This needed to be justified, as the Office was not a priority in the medium-term plan. The resource growth was not justified as there had been no new activities mandated by the General Assembly to the Oversight Office during the last biennium or even since 1994.

The Group also sought clarification from the Secretariat on the phrase “insufficient delegation of authority” in the ACABQ’s report, he said. In the view of the Group, the delegation of authority should be in accordance with resolution 53/221.

JARMO SAREVA (Finland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Cyprus, Malta, Iceland and Norway, said, under part IX, that the Union had never viewed the Oversight Office as a vehicle for budget cuts. Instead, it was a mechanism for allowing the most effective use of the Organization’s resources and optimizing programme delivery. The Office had been critical in making the United Nations more responsive, efficient, accountable and transparent than it had been a few years ago.

He said the Under-Secretary-General for Internal Oversight Services, Karl Paschke, had fully met the expectations and intentions of Member States and he was confident that the Oversight Office would continue to do so. He believed it should be given the resources needed to fulfil its mandate.

He agreed with the proposals of the ACABQ regarding the establishment of new posts for the Office and looked forward to clarification in informal sessions about the proposed reclassifications. He added that planned resources for the Investigations Section were insufficient.

Mr. MOKTEFI (Algeria) stressed that oversight was not a priority in the medium term plan and was sceptical about the requested increase, while other sections had remained static. He supported the view that there should be no reclassification of the P-5 post -- the Oversight Office should not become bureaucratic and top-heavy.

There was a need for coordination between the different parts of the Office, he said. Algeria had questions about the Office’s reform process, he added. Mr. ODAGA-JALOMAYO (Uganda) said that with the resources at its disposal, the Oversight Office could have performed more effectively. Recruitment was also an essential priority; people needed to be properly qualified. He asked how the Office coordinated with the OHRM in that regard.

He supported some of the new posts proposed, but doubted the need to reclassify the post of Special Assistant, he said. The Board of Auditors provided a good example as an oversight body, but without as large a staff.

THOMAS A. REPASCH (United States) said that when the Assembly directed the Secretary-General to open the Office, it had taken an important step to improve accountability and efficiency. It had been a wise decision, and the Office had become a key tool of management. In particular, it had carried out the new and critical mandate of conducting investigations and reporting findings of fraud, mismanagement and abuse.

The Oversight Office had identified savings, and much had been collected, he said. It also served a deterrent purpose. An oversight function sent a message that efforts were being made to detect and report mismanagement, waste and abuse.

The United States supported the budget proposal for this activity, he said. It also supported the related Committee for Programme and Coordination (CPC) comments.

He noted the ACABQ comments on the request for posts, he said, and asked the ACABQ to provide the criteria it used for determining whether posts were justified or not, in writing. He appreciated the information provided by the ACABQ on cost-reimbursement procedures for Oversight Office activities for United Nations funds and programmes. He understood the need for reimbursement, but said this was not related to the issue of the Oversight Office’s authority to investigate the funds and agencies, which was clear from the mandate accorded to it by the Assembly and backed up by United Nations Legal Office opinion.

EVA SILOT BRAVO (Cuba) said there was a frequent reference to reform measures, and it would appear there was a kind of mandate being given to the Oversight Office in the area of reform. She doubted the wisdom of giving the Office responsibility in this area. The reference to such links should have been avoided in the narrative on this section.

She, too, pointed out that oversight was not a priority in the medium-term plan, which continued to be the main policy guideline for the budget programme. She was, therefore, doubtful about the extra resources being sought for oversight. She said there was a double standard in the treatment of resources for this Office -– and this was not the first biennium in which this had occurred.

Cuba had also noted the increase in posts for this section, she said, but the criterion followed should be a conservative one. Here again, the medium- term plan was what mattered. Cuba also believed that the Office had sufficient work without going into new areas not mandated by Member States. Reform in this area should also be an example for other departments, and she found it strange that there should be a budget request that seemed to depart from this principle. JOHN ORR (Canada) said he wished to respond to comments by Member States that the Oversight Office was not a priority activity of the United Nations, as established by Member States in the medium-term plan. He noted that no administrative activity was a medium-term plan priority, despite the fact that such activities absorbed a large proportion of the United Nations budget. Indeed, he would be concerned about the message it would send the world if oversight was determined to be a priority activity for the Organization.

It was important, however, that the Oversight Office was properly funded, he said. At less than 1 per cent, the increase proposed was modest, and he supported it. It was not possible to compare its costs directly with those of the Board of Auditors, the activities of which were in effect outsourced to the three Member States whose Auditors-General served on it.

It was important that the Oversight office be properly funded and that the medium-term plan not be the sole element for considering the funding of areas of the Organization, he said. The eight medium-term plan priority activities were important and should be properly funded and implemented. The Oversight Office played an important role in ensuring these activities were effectively implemented.

JUICHI TAKAHARA (Japan) asked for clarification on the progress of self- monitoring and self-evaluation for managers -– how were results here taken into account in the planning of the budget proposal? He asked for additional information on cost reimbursement in the next programme budget. He asked for clarification on the reclassification of the P-5 post. On resource requirements for travel, he asked for significant workload indicators or some other indicator for determining the necessity of this.

Mr. YUSSUF (United Republic of Tanzania) said, on the Oversight Office recommendations, that he felt that most of them had budgetary implications. He asked for information on the dollar amount for the resultant cost.

AMJAD SIAL (Pakistan) said internal oversight was essential to efficient and effective use of resources. He supported all Oversight Office activities that were in concert with the rules and regulations of the Organization and the decisions of the Assembly. He hoped the deficiencies in the Office that Member States had pointed out would be overcome in the next biennium.

The existence of the Office should have resulted in the frugal use of resources, he said. However, it had not only requested more resources for itself, but other offices had asked for fund to implement Oversight Office recommendations.

He supported the request by the representative of the United States for written criteria used by the ACABQ to determine whether posts were justified, he said, and he would also like to be provided with the general criteria used in determining the recommendations and comments made by the ACABQ.

He asked how the savings identified in the Oversight Office annual report were reflected in the budget performance reports and how they were accounted for. He supported the comments by the representative of Canada that the Office required a proper level of resources, he said. Determining a proper level would require discussion in informal consultations.

Mr. FOX (Australia) said effective internal oversight was a key responsibility of the chief administrative officer of the United Nations, and it had been identified as an area for which additional resources were sought. He wished to register his support for this.

Ms. SILOT BRAVO (Cuba) took the floor again to associate herself with the statement of the representative of Guyana, speaking on behalf of the Group of 77 and China.

The Chairman of the CPC, TOMMO MONTHE, said, in response to an earlier question from the representative of Guyana, that he wished to clarify the meaning of the words "main programme" in the CPC’s report. He said the source of the authority of the CPC’s comments were the appropriate rules in the area.

The Secretariat and Member States were constantly changing the content of programmes, but they did so in the context of the rules, which allowed for amendments to be made, he said. Member States could, in the light of evaluations provided, make any correction to the objectives or the content of the medium- term plan or the policy guidelines provided by the Secretary-General. If the Secretary-General wanted changes, he proposed them according to the rules. If the changes were to substantive activities, he submitted them through the CPC. If they related to services, he did it through the ACABQ, and if they were about conferences, he proposed them through the Committee on Conferences. This was how the Secretary-General could legitimately change the programmes.

When the budget was adopted, all its narrative became a commitment, he pointed out. The evaluation and implementation of activities would have to comply with them. Thus, Member States were very careful with the narrative, because they were committing to abiding by them.

Mr. SACH, Director of the Budget Division, then answered questions on the internal oversight portion of the budget proposal. Regarding five paragraphs of narrative in the proposal which had been described as inappropriate, when drafting the proposal for this section the Secretariat had tried to stay extremely close to medium-term plan wording, he said. The narrative aimed at elaborating on the existing mandate without straying outside of it. He would discuss redrafting of it in the informal consultations, and he was confident the problems could be solved.

Regarding the reimbursement by funds and programmes for Oversight Office activities and investigations, the ACABQ comments were well taken, he said. All extrabudgetary funds from other sources were reflected in the budget. In the case of reimbursement from United Nations funds and programmes though, some activities were reimbursed in kind, rather than in cash, and this made accounting harder. A clearer way of accounting for this would be sought.

In response to a question about the classification of a post that normalized a gratis position at a different level from the level it had had as a gratis post, this had been done according to the standard criteria used by the OHRM, he said. The level was the appropriate level for the function according to its duties and responsibilities.

On the criteria used for reclassification of a post, he said it was necessary to compare the functions to the master standard promulgated by the ICSC. This was required, but was not a sufficient condition for reclassification. The reclassification also had to be the best available use of resources. Just because a function could be described in a more sophisticated manner did not mean that reclassification was the best use of funds. Another solution, perhaps by changing the function of the post, might be found to provide a more efficient use of scarce resources.

On the budgetary implications of Oversight Office recommendations, he said there were indication in the Oversight Office annual report of the ultimate level of savings arising from its recommendations. In some cases, savings were in the nature of cost avoidance, and so they were not savings from anticipated expenses; rather, they had helped avoid budgetary expansion.

It was not possible to identify ex post the items the Oversight Office referred to, he said. Savings were often calculated on an in-principle basis, rather than a realized basis. Oversight Office estimates of savings were calculated independent of budget area calculations.

On the reclassification of an ESCAP Field Service post to the P-4 level, this was reflected as a reclassification in the staffing table, and the related adjustments were explained in the budget proposal, he said. The number of Field Service posts listed was one less than previously. Overall, the number of P-4 posts proposed was one less than that for 1998-1999, but there were two other changes -- on upward reclassification from P-4 to P-5 and one redeployment – that, combined with the proposed reclassification, would mean one less P-4 post in the area. The arithmetic was correct.

On self-monitoring by programme managers and how this was reflected in the budget proposal, he said managers were required to undertake self-monitoring exercises, and to implement the results, where possible. In some instances, the outcome could be implemented immediately; in others, the outcome required actions that must be reflected in future budget proposals. Managers took them into account when they gave their input into the budget proposal, although they were not separately identified.

Mr. REPASCH (United States) clarified that he had been asking about the criteria used by the ACABQ to evaluate the Secretariat’s proposals regarding posts. He asked for a response in writing.

Mr. BARNWELL (Guyana), speaking on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, said he looked forward to further discussion in informal session. On his request for clarification on the words “insufficient delegation of authority”, he said the Budget Director had not fully responded and he looked forward to hearing more in informal sessions.

Ms. SILOT BRAVO (Cuba) said there were a number of questions that should be pursued at greater length in informal session, particularly the role of the medium-term plan and the interpretation of the regulations on programme planning with respect to evaluation.

Mr. REPASCH (United States) asked that his request be responded to prior to informal sessions.

The Committee then turned its attention to part X of the programme budget, Jointly financed administrative activities and special expenses.

The Chairman of the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU), LOUIS-DOMINIQUE OUEDRAOGO, told the Committee that the JIU had endeavored to conform to a zero- growth policy in its proposals for 2000-2001. He wanted to reiterate, however, that there was a clear case for the need to increase the staffing of the JIU, and hoped that such a proposal would eventually meet the Committee’s support.

He said that the current practice, under which secretariats reviewed the initial proposal made by the Unit before they were submitted to the General Assembly, could lead to an infringement of the independence of the Unit, as it allowed the inspectees to be the judge on the resource requirement of the inspectors. He felt it would be advisable in future budget submissions to take into account the status of inspectors as non-staff members and to show this resource requirement under a specific non-staff compensation budget line, as in the similar cases of the Chairman of the ACABQ and the Chairman and Vice- Chairman of the ICSC.

He pointed out that the Unit had recommended that the General Assembly might wish to reaffirm, as a matter of principle, its own role in reviewing through the ACABQ and in approving on behalf of the United Nations system, the total budgets of all jointly financed activities currently under section 29. Such a procedure had so far been applied only to the ICSC and the JIU.

* *** *