FIFTH COMMITTEE BEGINS CONSIDERATION OF PEACEKEEPING EQUIPMENT LOSSES, OVERSIGHT REPORTS ON ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME, HUMAN SETTLEMENTS, RWANDA

Press Release
GA/AB/3375

FIFTH COMMITTEE BEGINS CONSIDERATION OF PEACEKEEPING EQUIPMENT LOSSES, OVERSIGHT REPORTS ON ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME, HUMAN SETTLEMENTS, RWANDA

Loss of equipment from peacekeeping missions through theft had decreased every year since 1995, the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) was told this morning, as it began consideration of the Secretary-General’s report on losses of equipment in missions from January 1996 to December 1997.

The Chief of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations’ Finance Management and Support Services, Compton Persaud, said that, although the final figures for fiscal year 1998-1999 were not yet available, theft had dropped tremendously in 1997, and he was seeing evidence of similar, although less dramatic, falls for 1998 and 1999.

The representative of the United States observed that that more than 42 per cent of loss in the period covered by the report was due to theft, and that vehicle theft accounted for one third of all loss due to theft. The measures the Secretariat proposed to mitigate theft seemed simple and late. He asked if they had proven adequate to prevent it. He also expressed concern about what he described as an “anomaly” between low average value applied to items lost through theft and higher average values attributed to items lost as a result of accidents.

The Committee also considered three reports from the Office of Internal Oversight Services on the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Field Operation in Rwanda.

Canada’s representative expressed shock that the Rwanda operation was described as established from scratch, while numerous United Nations field operations existed throughout the world that should have been sources of example and experience. The Oversight Office report showed the High Commissioner for Human Rights’ Office had not bothered to oversee the operation, and he asked if any disciplinary action had been taken against staff at that Office.

Uganda’s representative called for substantive comments from the Secretary- General on the Oversight Office reports on the UNEP and Habitat, beyond his concurring with their findings. He expressed concern at the amount of time the Executive Director of UNEP was travelling. The reported lack of interaction between Habitat’s Executive Director and its staff, and unavailability of the UNEP Executive Director to staff representatives, were also of concern, as dialogue was important for efficient management, he noted.

Fifth Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/AB/3375 69th Meeting (AM) 22 May 2000

When the Committee turned to consider two new posts proposed for the Secretariat’s Non-Governmental Organization Section, Libya’s representative supported the recommendation to provide the posts in place of increased dependence on volunteers, because the United Nations goals and objectives would be best assured by using staff. The administration of involvement of non-governmental organizations in the United Nations must be unbiased.

Also making statements today were the representatives of Saudi Arabia, Portugal (on behalf of the European Union), Syria, Republic of Korea, Australia, Cuba, Morocco, Algeria and Nigeria (on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China).

Reports were introduced by the Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ), C.S.M. Mselle, Under Secretary- General for Internal Oversight Services, Dileep Nair, and the Director of the Peacekeeping Financing Division, Bock Yeo. Responding to Member States questions were the Director of the Programme Planning and Budget Division, Warren Sach, and the Officer-in-Charge of the Division for Economic and Social Council Support and Coordination, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Sarbuland Khan.

The Committee will meet again Tuesday, 23 May, when it will continue consideration of the Oversight Office reports on the human rights operation in Rwanda, UNEP and Habitat, as well as resources proposed for the Non-Governmental Organization Section.

Fifth Committee - 3 - Press Release GA/AB/3375 69th Meeting (AM) 22 May 2000

Work Programme

The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) met this morning to discuss management irregularities, the liquidation of the United Nations Transitional Administration in Cambodia (UNTAC), financing the United Nations Verification Mission in Guatemala (MINUGUA) and administrative and financial issues concerning the Secretariat’s Non-Governmental Organization Section.

[For background on the general findings of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ)on peacekeeping operations (document A/54/801), see Press Release GA/AB/3370 of 15 May.]

The Committee had before it the Secretary-General's follow-up report on management irregularities causing financial losses to the Organization (document A/54/793). The report outlines procedures being developed for determining gross negligence and for the effective implementation of the staff rule (rule 112.3) on financial recovery. Those procedures entail the expansion of the mandate of the Joint Disciplinary Committee in dealing with cases of gross negligence. Recent measures taken to establish a more effective accountability mechanism and to improve internal control are also mentioned.

A definition of gross negligence that can be automatically applied without interpretation to any particular situation is practically impossible to formulate, the report notes. A United Nations legal opinion describes it as "negligence of a very high degree involving willfulness, recklessness or drunkenness and, in consequence, manifest disregard for the safety of life and property". That legal opinion further notes that few legal systems go into further detail on the definition, with the determination in each case reached by a “fact finder” analogous to the Property Survey Board in the United Nations administrative context.

The United Nations Administrative Tribunal has said that "gross negligence involves an extreme and reckless failure to act as a reasonable person would with respect to a reasonably foreseeable risk. Thus, to establish gross negligence, a far more aggravated failure to observe the 'reasonable person' standard of care must be shown than in the case of ordinary negligence".

As supported by various legal opinions, it has been the policy of the United Nations since 1969 that proof of gross negligence or willful misconduct is required to justify a staff member being held accountable for losses to the Organization, the report notes.

Implementation of staff rule 112.3, as called for by the Assembly, must ensure that the due process rights of staff members will be protected, the report notes. That would generally require at least notifying the staff member of the allegation and providing an opportunity to rebut it. Application of the rule would therefore require procedures for preliminary fact-finding, notifying the staff member for rebuttal of the allegation, and for referral to an advisory body which would make a recommendation on the alleged gross negligence and possible restitution to the Secretary-General. The Secretary-General is developing relevant procedures. They reflect the assumption that many cases of gross negligence will involve misconduct.

The Secretary-General considers the preliminary investigation of allegations by managers should be conducted by heads of departments, the report states, with legal guidance provided by the Office of Human Resources Management and the Office of Legal Affairs, if necessary. The Office of Internal Oversight Services may be asked to conduct a preliminary investigation. Following the investigation they would report whether the allegation appeared to be substantiated (including the amount involved) and whether the proceedings for recovery should be instituted. Allegations of misconduct could be considered in the course of the same proceedings.

Based on that report, the Secretary-General will consider appropriate action, the report continues. In cases where evidence indicates gross negligence occurred, the Secretary-General could decide to refer the case to the Joint Disciplinary Committee or another body. The mandate of the Joint Disciplinary Committee should be expanded so it can address such cases, via a change in the staff, and its membership expanded on a case-by-case basis to take account of the level of the staff members concerned. An experienced legal officer would participate in its deliberations on an ex-officio basis to guide members.

When financial losses result from property losses, cases are referred to the Local Property Survey Board and, if required, to the Headquarters Property Survey Board, the report notes. The criteria and guidelines for determining gross negligence resulting in property losses have been established. The Secretary- General states that property losses are not necessarily related to "management irregularities". However, it appears existing mechanisms for assessing financial liability for property losses are functioning satisfactorily.

Regarding the feasibility of recovery from pension benefits, previous attempts were rejected by the United Nations Administrative Tribunal, which held that the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund regulations precluded such recovery, the report notes. Unless the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Board recommends, and the General Assembly approves, an amendment to the Fund's Regulations, such recovery procedures are not feasible, although individual consensual arrangements have been made to recover from pension benefits.

Risk factors that might expose the Organization to management irregularities include unclear procedures and guidelines, inadequate segregation of duties, as well as a lack of management monitoring, training, adequate security arrangements and adequate supervision, the report notes. Management monitoring is central to prevention, assessment and correction of such irregularities.

The Secretary-General has taken measures to improve internal controls, by employing strengthened budgetary and accounting controls, publication of the Guidelines for Internal Control Standards, revision of article I of the Staff Regulations and chapter I of the 100 Series of the Staff Rules, streamlining human resources rules and procedures, and updating the 1954 Standards of Conduct in the International Civil Service of the International Civil Service Advisory Board.

As part of measures to establish a more effective accountability mechanism, the Secretary-General has taken a comprehensive approach to enhancing accountability at senior management level and other levels of the Secretariat. Heads of departments must submit a "programme management plan" identifying their goals and measurable performance indicators at the start of each year, and information on achievements for the previous year, measured against predetermined performance indicators. Accountability by managers and supervisors at other levels will be maintained through the Performance Appraisal System process. An Accountability Panel is being established to advise the Secretary-General. The Panel will make recommendations on actions to remedy systemic management weaknesses, management irregularities and other matters that impact on management issues.

Other recent developments which impact on accountability issues include more effective management monitoring (oversight) and performance systems, the establishment of the Office of Internal Oversight Services, the defining of the Organization's core values and core and managerial competencies, and management training.

The Committee also had before it a report of the Secretary-General on the losses of United Nations property in peacekeeping operations (document A/54/669 and Corr.1) which was submitted in response to General Assembly resolutions 53/230 of June 1999 on the financing and liquidation of UNTAC and 53/235 on the financing of the Military Observer Group of MINUGUA. In those resolutions, the Secretary- General was asked to provide an updated report on losses of United Nations property, as well as to report on the safety measures taken to protect United Nations assets. The current report follows the format previously used by the Secretary-General in his report (document A/53/340) to analyse the types and causes of loss in UNTAC during 1 January 1993 to 31 December 1995. It provides statistics on losses of United Nations property in peacekeeping missions for 1 January 1996 to 31 December 1997 and includes updated information on measures taken to ensure the safety of assets since 1998.

The report explains that the data used in the report have been compiled from documentation supplied by Property Survey Boards, which are established for each mission. The term “United Nations property” refers to non-expendable items valued at $1,500 or more at the time of acquisition. It also refers to items that are considered to be of an attractive nature, such as televisions, cameras and video equipment, and have a minimum value of $500. The causes of loss are defined as accidents, acts of war or hostilities, theft, negligence and items that are unaccounted for. The information provided excludes assets that have been written off or disposed of due to normal wear and tear.

The data collected from the field missions include all peacekeeping missions that were operational or under liquidation during 1996-1997 with the exception of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Rwanda (UNAMIR), for which the liquidation process has just finished. The United Nations Logistics Base in Brindisi -– although not a peacekeeping mission –- is also included in the report since it constitutes a large operation in terms of its inventory size. Because of the vast size of property holdings of the United Nations Peace Forces (UNPF), data on the loss of assets from that mission is presented separately.

According to the report, the total inventory value of losses for 1996-1997 is some $11.45 million. Accidents and theft account for the greatest loss of United Nations property, totally some $4.6 million and $4.9 million respectively. Negligence accounts for some $252,105 and acts of war/hostilities some $1.02 million. Unaccounted for loss is valued at $692,289. Losses due to theft include 136 transport vehicles, 509 data-processing equipment, 749 VHF/UHF/HF and satellite equipment, 211 telephone, fax and other communications equipment, 33 radio station and test/workshop equipment, 229 generators and 1,367 infrastructure, prefabricated hard- and soft-wall accommodations, container units and accommodation equipment and accessories.

The report explains that since peacekeeping missions often operate in dangerous and volatile environments, it is difficult to safeguard United Nations property. A specific example is the United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNOMIL) which, as a result of the outbreak of hostilities in April 1996, suffered mass looting, general destruction of United Nations property and losses of assets, with an estimated total inventory value of $3.8 million. UNOMIL staff made efforts to secure the property by transferring equipment to neighbouring Sierra Leone. Due to the May 1997 coup in that country, however, a large portion of the relocated assets was also looted.

Since 1998, the Secretariat has made progress in its efforts to safeguard United Nations property, the report states. In response to United Nations property losses, a field asset control system was developed to ensure that United Nations property is properly recorded, accounted for and controlled and that appropriate decisions are made on the procurement, delivery, redistribution, replenishment, storage, write-off and disposal of mission equipment. The system was implemented by the Field Administration and Logistics Division of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations in September 1998 and is expected to be fully operational in all missions by the end of 1999.

The mere existence of such a system, however, cannot ensure adequate protection of United Nations property, according to the report. Missions must be provided with sufficient numbers of experienced personnel, particularly during the early and final phases. Nevertheless, losses due to heightened insecurity in mission areas and acts of war or hostilities, as in the case of UNOMIL and more recently in the United Nations Observer Mission in Sierra Leone (UNOMSIL) and in the United Nations Mission in East Timor (UNTAET), are unavoidable. Commitment of governments to ensure the protection of mission personnel and assets is a crucial factor in facilitating security.

The report goes on to say that efforts to instil individual accountability as an integral part of the management culture are ongoing. Accountability is achieved not only through the imposition of restrictions and sanctions, but also by providing clear definitions of functions and responsibilities, regular training and a fair and accurate individual performance evaluation system. An efficient recovery mechanism is one of the best means to ensure accountability of those responsible for losses of Untied Nation’s assets.

The Committee had before it a Secretary-General's report analysing the organizational structure and the personnel and technical resources of the Non- Governmental Organizations Section of the United Nations Secretariat (document A/54/520/Add.1). The report proposes to strengthen that section through the establishment of one Professional and one General Service post.

It advised that the section currently had five Professional and four General Service posts. In addition, the services of volunteers -- equivalent to about 60 work-months annually -– have been used in the section. Continued heavy reliance on voluntary arrangements and the use of short-term staff would cause problems. In order to carry out its work more efficiently and, with a view to optimizing the contribution and participation of non-governmental organizations in the work of the United Nations, the Secretary-General states the current level of staff should be increased by one Professional and one General Service position.

The P-4 post proposed would be used to review and process new consultative status applications, assistance in design of guidelines and arrangements, and support for the launch and implementation of special projects. The General Service post is proposed to update and maintain the electronic network, and to support outreach and coordination functions.

Should the General Assembly approve the establishment of the two posts as of 1 January 2001, additional requirements of $105,600 would arise under the relevant budget section, reflected as a charge to the contingency fund.

In related comments from the ACABQ (document A/54/868) that body states it is aware of both the level of responsibility of the this Section and its increased workload. It also notes the number of meetings originally projected for the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations in the programme budget for 2000-2001 has already doubled.

The ACABQ does not have any objection to the proposed establishment of the two additional posts, but it recommends they be established on a temporary basis for 2000-2001 and that the proposal be resubmitted in the proposed 2002-2003 programme budget.

It repeats that proposals to strengthen the section's capacity were procedurally mishandled and that there was a lack of coordination between Secretariat units, the report states. It regrets the piecemeal basis of presentation of proposals. The Secretariat should submit a comprehensive report on the administrative and management implications of the large increase in non- governmental organizations involved in the United Nations, and particularly the impact on the programme budget.

Statements

Director of the Peacekeeping Financing Division, Office of Programme Planing, Budget and Accounts, BOCK YEO, introduced the Secretary-General’s report on property losses. The report used the same methodology as that in the earlier Secretary-General’s report, he said. It was an update on the statistics provided in the previous report. He said the Secretary-General recommended the Assembly take note of this report.

ROYAL WHARTON (United States) said the Secretary-General’s report was very informative. He noted that one table showed over 42 per cent of loss in the period was due to theft, and the figure showed theft appeared to have risen. Vehicles accounted for one third of all property losses due to theft. He asked what the United Nations was doing to prevent such theft. He also asked what the experience of the new system of assets management was. In addition, he wished to be provided with information on what the Secretariat was doing to recover the loss. Regarding the statement that two weeks of missions subsistence allowance was withheld from departing military participants to cover potential asset losses -- but that that was not enough -- he asked what was being done to address this.

The reported residual value of stolen vehicles appeared to be much lower, on average, than the residual value of those vehicles lost through damage, in 1996, he noted. Similar anomalies applied to other categories of equipment, such as satellite equipment, where the residual value of assets lost due to theft was miniscule when compared to residual value of things lost for other reasons. It appeared that equipment was consistently undervalued in 1996 when losses were due to theft. The measures the Secretariat was proposing to mitigate theft seemed simple and late, he said. He asked if they had proven adequate to prevent it.

Chief of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations’ Finance Management and Support Services, COMPTON PERSUAD, then answered Member States’ questions. In September 1998, when the first report on the matter was prepared, procedures were being implemented to address losses due to theft. Some procedures were further improved during the preparation of last year’s report. To see the benefit of those procedural improvements, Member States would have to wait for the 1998-1999 report, which was currently under preparation.

Based on the information he had seen so far, he could report that the number of losses due to theft had decreased from 1995 to 1996, and then there had been a tremendous improvement in 1997. Improvement continued, but at a lower rate, in 1998 and again in 1999. He was currently seeking additional information from missions for the next report, and he hoped it would be ready in the next two months.

On the experience thus far with the assets system, it had only became operational in all missions in late 1999, he said. Through it, asset holders could now be identified, thus allowing the missions to hold individuals better accountable. It had yielded some benefits, but improvement would continue to be made. When it was complete, the administration would be in a better position to capture all the assets of missions.

The decision to change the threshold to $500 for local property board decisions on losses was taken in March, he said. In those matters, the final decision now rested with missions and so could be made before staff departed. Where assets lost had greater value, losses had to be referred to the Headquarters Property Survey Board. Those cases were also now dealt with more quickly, in part because missions were now required to submit information on such losses directly to the Headquarters Property Survey Board. The speeding-up of the processes through those two changes meant the United Nations was now in a much better position to reduce the levels of write-offs.

Regarding the withholding of two weeks of mission subsistence allowance, post-1996 the amount seemed to have proven adequate, he said. However, it would be reviewed after completion of the 1998-1999 report, which should allow a more informed judgement of whether it was adequate and would also be a better assessment of any follow-up action that was required. Regarding securing vehicles from theft, he said that changes had been made, including the enactment of a rule that states that vehicles outside United Nations compounds must be in sight of residences, and in well-lit areas. Additional locking devices had been installed, and gear locks were provided. Those changes had led to reductions in losses from theft.

Responding to the observation that residual values were lower in 1996 than 1997, he explained that in 1995-1996 there were very few funds available for vehicle replacement, thus much of the United Nations holdings were transferred from Cambodia. In the 1996-1997 fiscal year, funds were provided for replacement vehicles, thus losses that occurred included newer vehicles and equipment, with a consequent higher residual value. Prior to the implementation of the assets management system, there was no mission-wide computerized system for accounting for assets. The administration was now able to account for most equipment sent to missions. It did not yet allow for the accounting of all items, but by the end of the fiscal year it would have that capacity.

In 1996 and 1997 there were a number of incidents in missions that resulted in loss of equipment due to hostile action, he explained. Similar incidents occurred in 1999 and more recently in Sierra Leone in 2000. Very little could be done in advance about those losses and, as a category, they must be treated differently from the other categories.

AHMED FARID (Saudi Arabia) asked whether the report called for from the ACABQ on the effect of continuing high vacancy rates on mission operations had been undertaken and, if so, could it be made available to all Member States. He also proposed vacancy announcements for field missions be incorporated into the International Civil Service Commission vacancy announcements bulletin.

Mr. WHARTON (United States) sought additional information on the improvements needed in the assets management system, and asked when it would be fully operational. He also understood the explanation that in 1997 equipment was newer, so its residual value was higher, he added. However, he had also sought clarification of the higher value placed on equipment lost due to damage, compared to that lost through theft. In 1996, vehicles lost in accidents were valued at $6,700 per vehicle, but those lost through theft were valued at an average of $910. That anomaly also applied in many other categories of equipment.

Mr. PERSAUD then explained that the analysis requested by the ACABQ on the impact of vacancy rates was not yet completed. It would be done over the next few months. The Secretariat would provide the outcomes of its analysis in the next round of budget proposals for missions. Regarding mission vacancy announcements, he said they were all posted on the Web site. Vacancies were also communicated to United Nations offices and specialized agencies. In addition, for specialised areas, such as finance, the Secretariat communicated with relevant professional bodies.

On the residual value of equipment, vehicles lost were of various types, including buses, trucks and 4-by-4s, he said. Comparison of absolute numbers was not meaningful and the apparent discrepancy would not be real. One bus or truck lost would skew average figures. Responding on the additional improvements planned for the asset management system, he said that the system was aimed at accounting for non-expendable equipment with a minimum value of $1,500, and certain other items deemed to be “attractive”. It had already gone beyond that, and now included additions to support information on supplies and on smaller expendable items. Improvements had also been made in the data entry fields for better identification of equipment, and for data clean up.

Mr. WHARTON (United States) said there seemed to be a consistent undervaluing of equipment lost due to theft in the 1996 figures in many categories. The 115 vehicles stolen were valued at $910 per vehicle, while the 105 lost due to accident had average residual values of $6,700. He was not talking about one or two vehicles but hundreds, and the average values would therefore not be skewed by the odd expensive item. That anomaly did not just apply to vehicles. The United States could only conclude that when missions reported information of losses due to theft in 1996 they undervalued that equipment, while they gave more realistic values to equipment lost for other reasons, he said.

Mr. PERSAUD assured the United States that the Secretariat had no plan or intention to attribute values to lost equipment that was not real. In 1996, the main reasons for losses were events in Liberia and to some extent in Bosnia. Hostile action meant losses went up tremendously. Information had been entered in whatever rudimentary systems were used in the missions at the time, and that same information was used to prepare the consolidated report. There had been no concerted effort to change any figures to give the appearance of different values.

JOHN ORR (Canada) said that he was not sure there was a need for informals. The Bureau might consider taking note of the report as recommended. There had been an indication that those with questions would take the floor now and not in informals.

EDUARDO MANUEL DA FONSECA FERNANDES RAMOS (Portugal), speaking on behalf of the European Union, agreed with the representative of Canada and said that the debate on the reports might have been exhaustive. A decision might be possible without further discussion in informal consultations.

Reports of Internal Oversight Office

The Committee then turned its attention the reports of the Office of Internal Oversight Services.

Before the Committee was a note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the Internal Oversight Office on the follow-up of the programme and administrative practices of the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat) (document A/54/764). The note explains that in October 1999 the Office carried out a follow-up inspection concerning its report of 23 April 1997 (document A/51/884). The Office assessed progress made in implementing its previous recommendations, and whether Habitat's financial and administrative management had improved. Particular attention was paid to revitalization efforts, which began in September 1998. That allowed the inspection to maintain a forward- looking profile and to provide a constructive input into making the revitalization more effective.

Following the issuance of the initial Oversight Office report in April 1997, a number of disjointed and inconclusive efforts at reforming the Centre were attempted, the report explains. However, a decisive breakthrough came in July 1998, when the new Acting Executive Director launched the revitalization campaign. By the beginning of 1999, the revitalization effort had resulted in a new vision, translated into a strategically focused draft work programme, and a streamlined organizational structure for the Centre based on strategic goals.

The report goes on to say that the Oversight Office observed convincing advances in redefining Habitat's mission, in redesigning its work programme to concentrate resources on strategic goals and in aligning the new organizational and programmatic structures. The Oversight Office also noted that the revitalization had established viable linkages between the operational and normative activities of the Centre, and had infused a healthy flexibility into its work processes. The revitalization effort has given a new impetus to Habitat's future work.

However, the administrative support necessary to sustain those efforts is still weak, the report states. The Oversight Office recognizes that, owing to the historic legacy of inadequate management, efforts in renewing the administrative and financial areas had to start from an unusually low base. That resulted in efforts at improvement being reduced to crisis management, leaving little room for the development of a comprehensive, forward-looking reform policy.

While "fire-fighting" efforts undoubtedly achieved certain changes for the better in the most problematic areas, the Oversight Office believes that it is now time for Habitat to emphasize strong financial and personnel management, to ensure that the revitalization momentum is maintained and that staff morale and donors' confidence are not adversely affected. That will require the same strategic planning, policy guidance, professional expertise and persistence in implementation as was shown in the programmatic areas.

The Oversight Office recommends that financial and personnel management be given priority attention and be tackled as decisively, expeditiously and comprehensively as the programmatic areas. Moreover, with the United Nations Office at Nairobi, the Oversight Office recommends that Habitat should continuously update, and energetically implement, concrete and detailed measures relative to financial and human resources management.

The Committee also had before it a note by the Secretary-General transmitting the Office’s report on the follow-up to the 1996 review of the programme and administrative practices of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (document A/54/817). The report explains that the follow-up has confirmed that UNEP's new management team, headed by its Executive Director, who took over in 1998, has concentrated its efforts on addressing the recommendations made by the Secretary-General's Task Force on Environment and Human Settlements, as well as the issues that were identified by the Office in the 1996 in-depth review of the agency. The new reform measures include: the redesigning of the organizational structure of the agency, with a view to enabling it to carry out its refocused role and mandate as defined by the Nairobi Declaration on the Role and Mandate of the United Nations Environment Programme; the strengthening of the regional offices and outposts, as well as the secretariats of the UNEP- administered conventions; the strengthening of cooperation with United Nations agencies, including its funds and programmes, as well as with non-governmental organizations; and the clarification of the agency's relationship with the United Nations Office at Nairobi, to ensure that UNEP is served efficiently and economically with regard to its administrative and budgetary needs.

An essential part of the reorganization process has been the regaining of the trust and confidence of governments, including their participation in UNEP policy development and governance, the report states. The strengthening of the Governing Council and the Committee of Permanent Representatives has improved direct interaction between governments and UNEP senior management and has enhanced relations between them. Discussions with members of the Committee of Permanent Representatives and UNEP senior management indicate that both parties seem to have a common understanding of the role and mandate of UNEP in the post-United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) period, and are equally aware of the areas of comparative advantage in which UNEP activities should be focused.

The Oversight Office believes that UNEP has been re-established and revitalized as the leading United Nations proponent of environmental issues, although it is too early to assess the outcomes of the reorganization and new vision of the agency. A further review should be undertaken by the Office in mid- 2002, at which time it should be possible to assess, in more tangible terms, the impact of the reform.

The special session of the Governing Council, which was held in May 1998, considered and endorsed the broad outline of the new functional organizational structure of UNEP, as well as its programmatic areas of concentration. The conceptualization of the new organizational structure marks a significant departure from the previous organizational framework, which had been based on a sectoral approach. The underlying principle in the functional structure indicates an effort by the Executive Director and his new senior management team to address all environmental issues in a holistic and integrated manner, rather than sectorally. The new organizational chart represents the new management's efforts to better respond to UNEP stakeholders by implementing the environmental agenda across programmatic sections and divisions.

The note states that the members of the Committee of Permanent Representatives have given the Executive Director high marks for the renewed vision he has given UNEP, as well as for his bold and courageous efforts in pushing forward an environmental agenda that emphasizes cutting-edge issues affecting the world community. Furthermore, Committee members are encouraged that the Executive Director's travels have significantly increased the number of countries making contributions to the Environmental Fund and have enhanced the global image of UNEP as the leading environmental agency of the United Nations.

The commendations of the members of the Committee are, however, accompanied by concerns that the Executive Director is spending too much time outside of Nairobi and, therefore, managing the agency from a distance. However, the inspection team learned that, unlike the situation that pertained in the past, when both the Executive Director and his Deputy were often on mission abroad, the Deputy now spends much of his time in Nairobi and ensures the smooth functioning of the agency in the absence of the Executive Director, including through constant liaison with the permanent missions.

On the basis of the findings, the report contains 11 recommendations, which include: making the new functional structure operational; the rationalization of the Executive Director's travel schedule; delegation of authority to senior managers; the alignment of programme planning with budgeting; and the institution of systematic feedback mechanisms to assess the relevance and usefulness of the agency's implemented programme outputs.

Also before the Committee was a note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report on the audit of Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Field Operation in Rwanda (document A/54/836). The report states that the Human Rights Field Operation in Rwanda was established by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in September 1994 to carry out a variety of human rights activities. From inception through its closure in July 1998, the Operation's expenditures totalled $30.2 million. It was the first human rights field operation and the OHCHR indicated that it was keen to absorb lessons from it. At the request of OHCHR, the Office of Internal Oversight Services carried out an audit of the Field Operation in Rwanda from September 1998 to February 1999.

Since completing the audit of the Rwanda Operation, the Oversight Office has, also at the request of OHCHR, conducted audits of OHCHR headquarters field support services and its field operations in Burundi and Colombia. The Oversight Office is reporting separately on the results of its audit of the Field Operation in Rwanda because of the significance of the problems identified and the lessons to be drawn. The report also provides OHCHR management with the opportunity to comment on progress made in implementing Office recommendations and strengthening controls at other field operations.

The report states that the audit determined that the internal controls of the Field Operation relating to finance, personnel, procurement and property management either were not in place or did not function effectively. There were also serious breakdowns in communications and cooperation between the field and headquarters. Based on the audit results, OHCHR recognized that it needed to fundamentally change the administration of its field operations to improve management accountability.

The audit disclosed the fact that OHCHR headquarters oversight and controls were inadequate. Some field staff lacked the necessary skills and experience, and were not adequately trained and had not received sufficient guidance from the Office. Furthermore, the Field Operation's administrative support arrangements were not clear and OHCHR headquarters administrative staff made no field visits to monitor its activities. The Rwanda Field Operation had no established internal controls, nor had any standard operating procedures been implemented. OHCHR has since sought to regularize contacts with United Nations oversight bodies to ensure that major field operations are audited regularly.

The report also explains that the financial management system of OHCHR had not been fully established and did not function properly, thereby exposing the Field Operation to a considerable risk of fraud. Moreover, the system for processing inter-office vouchers was seriously deficient and, as a result, vouchers from 1996 totalling $2.5 million could not be cleared. The Field Operation lacked accountability in handling cash. Cheques for project activities amounting to over $65,000 had been issued to individual staff members without adequate reporting procedures and controls. The Field Operation implemented projects worth approximately $1 million financed by different United Nations entities, without the knowledge of, or authorization from, OHCHR management in Geneva.

The Oversight Office could not establish accountability within the Rwanda Field Operation for vehicle maintenance services and approximately $330,000 in vehicle maintenance charges billed by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) had not been settled at the time of the audit. OHCHR has since established an audit implementation team, which has been pursuing the payment of the outstanding maintenance bills. The Rwanda Operation did not establish an adequate property management system for its non-expendable property valued at approximately $2 million. Further, a local property survey board was not established until less than one week before the closure of the Operation and the Oversight Office questioned the thoroughness with which the board reviewed 177 cases pending since 1995. OHCHR advised the Oversight Office that the audit implementation team has followed up on these issues.

Finally, the audit disclosed that liquidation planning and allotment controls were inadequate. Expenditures for the period ending 31 December 1998 exceeded allotments by more than $220,000 during the liquidation phase. Also, there were discrepancies in the amounts of property transferred and sold to other OHCHR operations and other United Nations entities.

Although the Human Rights Field Operation in Rwanda has already closed, the Oversight Office feels that the OHCHR has benefited from the lessons learned and the related recommendations resulting from the audit. The Oversight Office recommends, therefore, that OHCHR management establish systems to regularly monitor and review the efficiency and effectiveness of internal controls at OHCHR field operations. It also recommends that it reassess the systems for reviewing, recording and reporting field operation financial data and develop procedures to improve internal controls over the processing of OHCHR field transactions.

The note goes on to say that the Oversight Office recommends establishing in all field operations the controls necessary to properly account for OHCHR property. That should include ensuring that cases involving the loss and damage of equipment are regularly presented to the appropriate local and Headquarters- level property survey boards for review. OHCHR should also ensure that liquidation plans are prepared well in advance and that adequate procedures are in place for archiving documents and records. OHCHR management agreed to implement those and several other recommendations designed to improve field operations and has established an audit implementation team to follow up on each recommendation.

DILEEP NAIR, Under-Secretary-General for Internal Oversight Services, then introduced the three reports.

Mr. ORR (Canada) said that it was important that the Committee noted one of the comments made in the audit report with respect to the Human Rights field operation in Rwanda. It was shocking that in the first paragraph of the observations it stated that the Rwanda operation had been an important learning experience and that it had to be established from scratch. There were numerous United Nations field operations throughout the world that the Rwanda office could have used as examples. Although it might have been first time for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Rwanda office might have borrowed experience from other previously established operations.

For the operation to have been undertaken in the first place, it should have been the duty of that office to look to the experience of other operations for guidance in creating their field office, he continued. The Rwanda Office basically said that it did not know what it was doing. Furthermore, there was no representative of the Secretariat to hear and respond to delegate’s comments. The agenda item would be considered again tomorrow, at which time the Secretariat would hopefully have a representative present to hear and respond to questions.

He said that the Chief of the Administrative Unit admitted that he had only limited knowledge of controls. That admission begged the question, what had the Chief done if he didn’t oversee the financial aspects of the operation? The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights never bothered to oversee the operation. It indicated a complete lack of control. Also, he wondered if there had been any procedures or disciplinary actions taken against those at the Human Rights Office in Geneva.

THOMAS REPASCH (United States) noted that the Secretary-General in each case took note of the findings and concurred with recommendations. The United States looked forward to speedy implementation of all recommendations. All three reports had a common theme, which was weak internal controls and financial management. The United States was concerned about that. It was ironic that last week the Committee spent much time discussing internal controls and much debate on whether internal control standards should be incorporated into the financial rules and regulations of the United Nations. The Committee had decided that it was not appropriate.

After looking at the Oversight Office reports it was obvious that internal guidelines needed to be distributed widely, he said. There were still instances when internal control standards were operating very badly. In the Rwanda case, no internal control standards had been established. The manager had not thought about internal controls. That was a basic step in opening any new office. The United States wondered what the focus of the manager had been. His delegation took note of the report and agreed that it should act as a lesson learned. The field office had closed and the only use the report could now have would be to establish a precedent for future operations.

With regard to report on UNEP, the United States was pleased to see that the programmatic aspects of the programme had improved since the last inspection report in 1997, he said. He was glad to see that a number of recommendations had been implemented. While the report focused on programmatic aspects, it seemed to focus only a small amount on financial management. Was that because of the scope of the inspection, or was that part of the operation working smoothly? Moreover, in the findings of the report, the Oversight Office concluded that the Director of that office had spent a great deal of time outside of Nairobi. His first reaction was “here we go again”. The United States wondered if it was something endemic to that position. He was glad to see, however, that the Deputy had stayed in Nairobi. He also noted that improvement could be made in evaluation and programme appraisal and hoped that the Secretariat would pay special attention to that.

Regarding the Habitat report, the United States recalled the 1997 inspection, which was a serious report because it contained many instances of weaknesses in the operation of Habitat, he continued. Habitat had a legacy of inadequate management. There was no excuse for it. The Centre needed to pay additional attention to internal controls. He also noted that, while steps had been taken to improve performance monitoring and project appraisal, there was still more to be done. It was difficult for Member States that contributed to determine how well their contributions were being used. Without proper evaluation, they remained in the dark. As in the past, the United States proposed that the Committee take note of the three reports.

ABDOU AL-MOULA NAKKARI (Syria) said he noted that the reports of the Oversight Office referred only to Assembly resolution 48/218B as the source of the mandate for the Oversight Office’s actions. That resolution was reviewed at the fifty-fourth General Assembly session, yet the Oversight Office made no reference to the newer resolution, or referred to only one paragraph of it. He was surprised at this selective citing of Assembly instructions.

NESTOR ODAGA-JALOMAYO (Uganda) said he would comment on the Rwanda report tomorrow. On UNEP and Habitat, the reports did not meet the requirements established in the General Assembly's resolution 54/244, which reviewed its previous resolution 48/218B on the Office of Internal Oversight Services. The newer resolution stated that the views of the substantive departments concerned should be included and that the Secretary-General should make substantive comments on the Oversight Office’s analysis and recommendations. Substantive comments from the Secretary-General were not included in the reports, beyond the standard response of his taking note of the reports and concurring with their findings.

Regarding UNEP, he agreed with most of the Oversight Office's recommendations, and thought the report was well done, he said. He looked forward to the early implementation of the recommendations. Like others, he was concerned at the amount of travel the Executive Director of UNEP undertook and he hoped that the recommendation on it would be implemented. He also agreed with the Oversight Office observation about delegation of authority, and with its comments on the unavailability of the Executive Director to staff representatives. Those issues should be adequately addressed.

UNEP was highly technical, and he was concerned about its training resources, he said. A recommendation called for establishment of a task force, which should be aligned with budgeting to ensure congruency of management of the environment fund. What was the nature of that and were there any financial implications? It was a good recommendation, and he hoped it would be implemented.

Regarding the Habitat report, he said he too was concerned about resource mobilization, and he hoped the Oversight Office recommendations on that would be implemented, and resources were subsequently mobilized. He asked what had thus far happened in response to the recommendation asking the Centre to seek specialized assistance from the United Nations archives management section. He sought clarification of the recommendation on the reclassification of Habitat posts. Dialogue was important for efficient management, he stated, and he noted that the Oversight Office had highlighted that there was not much interaction between Habitat’s executive and its other staff.

The Under Secretary-General for Internal Oversight Services, Mr. NAIR, then responded to Member States’ questions. On the implementation of the Oversight Office’s recommendations, he explained that the recommendations had been accepted, and that the Office now had a system to track implementation. Like Member States, he looked forward to seeing them put into affect. In response to the lapses in management and administration in Rwanda, he said the High Commissioner’s Office had said it was the first time it had established a mission of that size and scale. All he could add was that he was heartened to know that measures had been put in place to ensure that similar lapses did not take place in the future and to institutionalize the lessons learned.

Responding to the observation that UNEP and Habitat had better responded to the programmatic aspects of the Office’s findings than to the organizational issues it had raised, he said he could only agree. However, he was aware of some measures taken in other areas. The idea behind the task force that had been recommended for UNEP was to ensure that the people concerned were focused on the objective of solving problems, he explained. He did not intend that such a task force would result in the need for additional resources. Regarding the Oversight Office straying from its mandate, he understood that Assembly resolution 54/244 had reaffirmed the mandate of the Oversight Office, he explained.

Mr. NAKKARI (Syria) said he had asked why there was no reference in the reports to Assembly resolution 54/244, which was a total review of the earlier resolution 48/218B. Both resolutions applied to the Oversight Office. He was not questioning the Office’s mandate, but stating that full reference to the latter resolution was required in the reports, as it reviewed the earlier resolution. The current mandate of the Oversight Office was based on both resolutions.

PARK HAE-YUN (Republic of Korea) said that regarding the audit of the Rwanda office, his delegation noted the significance of the problem and the lessons that must be learned. He believed that office’s failure resulted from lack of experience as the first human rights field operation. He urged that all Oversight Office recommendations be fully reflected in future operations and implemented in an expeditious manner.

C.S.M. MSELLE, Chairman of the ACABQ, introduced that body’s report on the Non-Governmental Organizations Section of the United Nations. In paragraphs five and six of the report, the ACABQ recalled the circumstances which governed the previous submission of the subject. Those paragraphs also referred to the ACABQ’s reservations and request on the need for the Secretariat to submit a comprehensive report on the large increase in non-governmental organizations involved in work of the United Nations. The Advisory Committee regretted that the comprehensive report had not yet been submitted.

On the request for the addition of two new posts under the regular budget, the ACABQ states in paragraph four that it had no objection to the two additional posts. The Advisory Committee also recommended, however, that for the time being the posts be established on a temporary basis. When the comprehensive report was prepared, the Secretariat might wish to take into account the findings of the Joint Inspection Unit in document 51/655 submitted in 1996. That report was a comprehensive review of financial resources for the activities of the work of the NGO section.

Mr. REPASCH (United States) said that the United States had read the proposal carefully and as a result concluded that the case for the two positions was not a convincing one. He asked what the vacancy rate was in the NGO unit. He also noted that the last paragraph of the ACABQ’s report stressed the importance for the need for a comprehensive review of the NGO Section. Until that review was received, the United States would have difficulty accepting the proposal.

NABIL ABDALLAH AL-AKURI (Libya) asked the Secretariat about the procedure for accepting non-governmental organization volunteers to work in the unit in order for the unit to cope with the increased requirements. Was there special criteria for accepting non-governmental organizations? He was not sure if there were any non-governmental organizations from developing countries working in that section. There must be a way to achieve a balance in the representation of different non-governmental organizations, taking into account their different viewpoints. Libya supported the ACABQ’s recommendations and he supported the recommendation to provide for the two posts. Loyalty to the goals and objectives of the Secretary-General and the United Nations would be best assured by staff that held contracts.

NESTER ODAGA-JALOMAYO (Uganda) said that his government placed importance on the work of the NGO unit and was willing to support any proposal from the Secretary-General to enhance it. In that regard, he supported the proposal of the Secretary-General for the establishment of the two posts, and he concurred with the views of the ACABQ. Just by looking at the increased level of activity at the Secretariat during non-governmental organization conferences, one could see that the workload of the section had increased. While a comprehensive report of the management of the unit was important, Uganda did not see any relationship between the need for a report and the establishment of the posts.

HENRY FOX (Australia) said that he attached important to the ACABQ’s request for a comprehensive report on the work of the unit. When might the Committee expect a report from the Secretariat?

WARREN SACH, Director, Programme Planning and Budget Division, said that there were five Professional posts and four General Service posts in the unit and zero vacancies. In the Department of Economic and Social Affairs as of the end of March there were 20 vacancies in the Professional category, a 7 per cent vacancy rate. That was very close to the budgeted rate. On the General Service component, there were 230 posts with only 1 vacancy. Overall, the vacancy situation was tighter than that of the Secretariat.

On the need for a comprehensive review, the remarks were well taken and would be addressed. The review would take into account the report of the Joint Inspection Unit, document A/51/655, which was referred to as very relevant.

SARBULAND KHAN, Officer-in-Charge of the Division for Economic and Social Council Support and Coordination, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, said that in response to the question of Libya concerning the use of non-governmental organization volunteers, such volunteers were not used for substantive work for the section. They were mostly used for logistical and administrative support. Furthermore, volunteers were offered to the Department, they were not sought out by the Secretariat.

Mr. ABDALLAH (Libya) said he would not want the meeting to enter into a lengthy discussion of the subject. However, he had noticed that there was an inclination on the part of non-governmental organizations to support specific points of view. Other points of view were sometimes totally marginalized. The Committee was obliged to include in the decision the method for choosing non- governmental organization representatives. A method that supported expressing one point of view at the expense of another was not correct. The use of volunteers would lead to discrimination of viewpoints. The tasks of accreditation, logistical support and backstopping could be fulfilled in a different way if those who were working came from the same pool and represented the same point of view. The non-governmental organization section should be sure that volunteers represent the whole spectrum of views.

MERCEDES DE ARMAS GARCIA (Cuba) said that as a member of the Non- Governmental Organization Committee, she knew first hand the great amount of work confronting the section. Cuba had carefully considered the report before them and noted with satisfaction the proposal to include two new posts. Bearing in mind the increased workload of that section, which had very few posts, the request for two new posts was not enough. She had misgivings that in the earlier report there was a proposal for a reclassification of a post from the P-4 level to P-5. She sought clarification for what happened to that proposal. She agreed that geographical distribution of volunteers was important. Interns from developing countries should be included in the non-governmental organization section.

Mr. SACH said that the proposal for reclassification of the P-4 post to the P-5 level had been made in the course of informal consultations in November last year. There was a proposal from the floor for reclassification of a P-5 post to the D-1, level which had been approved. The second proposal for reclassification of a P-4 did not meet with the agreement of the delegates in informal consultations. So far it had not been proposed by the Secretary-General. Given the formulation proposed by the ACABQ, they would be looking at the composition of the service and would look at appropriate levels against the background of comprehensive review that had been requested.

ABDESALAM MEDINA (Morocco) said that he encouraged the strengthening the unit and had defended the reclassification of the P-5 post to the D-1 level and the P-4 to the P-5 level. Morocco was pleased that the P-5 post was reclassified. The Secretary-General might have included the reclassification of the P-4 post in his proposals. He was pleased that the Secretary-General made some proposals to create two new posts. He would continue to support reclassification of the other posts.

ABDELMALEK BOUHEDDOU (Algeria) said he strongly supported the proposed new posts recommended by the Secretary-General. He agreed with the statement by the representative of the United States that a complete evaluation of the needs of the section was required. However, the approval of those two posts should not be linked with the appearance of that evaluation.

HASSAN MOHAMMED HASSAN (Nigeria), speaking on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China, said the report clearly showed that the Non- Governmental Organizations Section had experienced an increased workload, and on that basis the Group expressed its strong support for the approval of the two new posts proposed.

* *** *