FIFTH COMMITTEE CONTINUES CONSIDERATION OF OVERSIGHT REPORTS ON HUMAN SETTLEMENTS, ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME, RWANDA

Press Release
GA/AB/3376

FIFTH COMMITTEE CONTINUES CONSIDERATION OF OVERSIGHT REPORTS ON HUMAN SETTLEMENTS, ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME, RWANDA

Speakers Say Rwanda Human Rights Operation Report Describes Extensive Management Failures, but Holds No One Accountable

The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) this morning continued its consideration of the Office of Internal Oversight Services report on the Rwanda field operation of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (1994-1998), with speakers pointing out that, although the report described extensive management failures, no one was being held accountable.

The Oversight Office had not “pointed a finger” at anyone for the operation’s failures, the representative of the United Republic of Tanzania said. The people responsible were hiding behind fact that it was the first field operation that the Human Right’s Office had undertaken, but, that being the case, the Office should have sent the best people to oversee the operation.

The representative of the United States asked what had happened to the managers and officers involved in the operation, and had efforts been made to hold people accountable.

The Director of the New York Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Bacre Waly Ndiaye, said concern about the Rwanda operation had led the current High Commissioner to call for the audit in the first place. Subsequently, she had made in-depth changes and had issued extensive instructions to all human rights field offices. Audit reports on all other human rights field offices had been commissioned, and the High Commissioner had sought recovery in every possible instance, from both organizations and individuals, he explained.

The Chief of the High Commissioner’s Administration Section, responsible for the headquarters oversight of the operation, had been changed, he added. While there was no excuse for bad management practices, he said, it should be remembered that the Oversight Office audit revealed no fraud, and the losses that had occurred were not extensive. The problems should be kept in proportion, he concluded.

As the Committee continued its consideration of two other Oversight reports -– on the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) -- Saudi Arabia’s representative commended

Fifth Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/AB/3376 70th Meeting (AM) 23 May 2000

the visionary and forceful leadership provided by the current Habitat Acting Director. Decisive action had been taken to enhance the Centre’s financial performance, he added, and he hoped to see continued tangible improvements.

The representative of Cuba said the General Assembly should consider funding the activities of UNEP and Habitat from the regular budget of the United Nations. While she appreciated progress made by both, the Oversight Office had noted fundamental problems remained that were the result of a lack of resources.

The Committee also continued its discussion of two new posts proposed for the Non-Governmental Organizations Section of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs.

The representatives of Turkey and Israel also spoke.

Responding to Member States’ questions this morning were: Chief of the Central Monitoring and Inspection Unit, Office of Internal Oversight Services, Ellen Abrenica; Officer-in-Charge of the New York Office of Habitat, Aliye Celik; and Associate Programme Officer, UNEP, James Sniffen.

The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. Thursday, 25 May, to discuss the financing of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, as well as the financing of the United Nations Iraq-Kuwait Observation Mission (UNIKOM).

Fifth Committee - 3 - Press Release GA/AB/3376 70th Meeting (AM) 23 May 2000

Committee Work Programme

The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) met this morning to continue its discussion on: report of the Office of the Internal Oversight Services on the Rwanda field operation of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP); and administrative and financial issues concerning the Secretariat's Non-Governmental Organizations Section.

[For background on these issues, see Press Release GA/AB/3375 of 22 May.]

Statements

DULCE MARIA BUERGO RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said she appreciated the progress that had been made at the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat), and also the new activities proposed for the immediate future. She noted the concern of the Oversight Office that fundamental problems still existed regarding the Centre’s activities, as a consequence of the lack of resources. Proposals had been made to fund some of its activities, like its financial management programme, from the United Nations regular budget. The Assembly should perhaps consider resourcing the Centre itself from the regular budget of the United Nations.

On delegation of authority, the Oversight Office said the Centre had taken measures to ensure control and had documented terms of delegated authority, she said. She would welcome assurance that the steps taken were in line with the Assembly’s decisions on delegation of authority, including the decision that delegation of authority should not take place until appropriate accounting mechanism were established. There was a serious lack of resources provided to Habitat, as was highlighted in the various comments in the report on its activities, she said.

She also appreciated indications of progress made in the activities of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and noted that many of its difficulties were caused by a lack of resources. Foreseeable and sufficient resources were clearly required, and it may be necessary to also consider financing UNEP activities for the environment through the regular budget. The recommendations of the Oversight Office included a call for more delegation of work by the Executive Director, and she said she would be interested to know what the impact of that would be, in particular, regarding delegation and authority.

The Oversight Office had discussed a link between programme planning and budgeting, and that should be clarified, she said. The report, like the Habitat report, should perhaps be considered by the Assembly’s Second Committee (Economic and Financial), as it impacted on the programmatic activities of the bodies.

On the audit of the Rwanda human rights office, she agreed with comments made yesterday about the lack of internal oversight in the operation, she said. She was surprised that the note of transmission indicated the report was for the attention of the Assembly. That was contrary to lengthy negotiation on the work of the Oversight Office by Member States, which resulted in the determination that they should be submitted for approval. Also, the annex to the report, which included recommendations, as well as comments by the High Commissioner’s Office, was unnecessary, merely repeating material in the body of the report. The report could have been shorter without it.

AHMED FARID (Saudi Arabia) said that his delegation had reviewed the Habitat report and commended the efforts of the visionary and forceful leadership provided by the current Acting Director. He also commended decisive actions taken to enhance the effectiveness of the Centre’s financial performance. He hoped to see continued tangible improvements in the next report.

MUHAMMAD YUSSUF (United Republic of Tanzania) said that he had read many Oversight Office reports, but the report on the field operation in Rwanda was quite amazing. On page 3 of the report, he failed to understand how the field operation had been able to implement the appropriation of some $1 million without the guidance of the Office administration in Geneva. Posts were not classified and post-level determinations were not based on approved staffing tables. Suppliers of goods were selected without specific criteria and contracts were drawn without calling for bids.

The Oversight Office did not point a finger at anyone for the failures, he said. The persons responsible were hiding behind fact that it was the Office’s first field operation. Rather than being an excuse, however, since it was the first operation, the Office should have sent its best people to oversee the operation. It was very surprising that the report did not point the finger squarely on the party responsible. The report simply said that it was the first time such an operation had been conducted. The comments made by the Oversight Office were serious charges, and it was necessary to know who was responsible. He welcomed the comments of the representative of the Office and requested compelling reasons as to why the situation was allowed to take place.

THOMAS REPASCH (United States) said that his delegation had made a statement on the audit report for the Rwanda field operation yesterday which expressed his delegations concern, yet failed to ask what had happened to the managers and officers involved in the operation. He wondered if accountability had been pursued for the fact that procurements had been made without calling for bids and proposals, and projects worth more than $1 million had been implemented without Geneva’s approval.

ELLEN ABRENICA, Chief, Central Monitoring and Inspection Unit of the Office of Internal Oversight Services, responded to delegate’s queries on the delegation of authority in Habitat and UNEP. The delegation of authority was in the form of decision-making to enhance accountability. The Executive Director had administrative and financial authority invested in him from headquarters. In his absence and in the day-to-day administration, programme managers would have the authority to recruit and expend project funds.

ALIYE P. CELIK, Officer-in-Charge of the New York Office of Habitat, said, in response to delegates queries regarding paragraph 75 of the Oversight Report, there were encouraging signs in the upward trend of voluntary contributions. The Centre’s forecast for 2000 was for $4 million or more, reflecting an increase in amounts from both traditional supporters and new supporters. On paragraph 77, the Centre had upgraded computer technology, focusing on the implementation of Lotus Notes. A group of users in Habitat were currently operating Lotus Notes on a test basis. With regard to staffing, the Centre was looking at redeploying existing posts before seeking to mobilize additional resources, she said. On paragraph 79 of the report, senior management posts had been classified and the vacant posts had been advertised under the 100 series. For most other senior management posts, recommendations were being reviewed by the relevant bodies. All mid-level posts had been reviewed, as well, and classified either as 100 or 200 series posts. On paragraph 81, management meet with the staff union on a monthly basis to discuss the overall running of the Centre. A renewed team spirit was emerging progressively.

JAMES SNIFFEN, Associate Programme Office with UNEP, responded to questions raised by Member States. He assured them, and the Oversight Office, of the seriousness with which UNEP treated the recommendations in the Oversight Office report. Steps were already in place to address them, he said. Regarding training and staff development, he said that general exercises were conducted by Human Resources at the United Nations Office in Nairobi. The specialized skills UNEP staff required were complemented by encouraging staff to use the United Nations sabbatical programme, and also through staff participating in the informal networks that UNEP had developed in its areas of expertise.

Programme planning and budget congruency was undertaken in one unit, he explained. The task force recommended by the Oversight Office had been already established. It was constructed informally, with participation from staff of UNEP, Habitat and the United Nations Office in Nairobi, and aimed to ascertain how to make better use of Nairobi’s facilities. Relevant UNEP staff worked very closely with the United Nations Budget Division and with the Oversight Office to ensure that programme planning and budget monitoring were parallel processes, and worked with the United Nations Nairobi Office to ensure requisite funds existed for environment activities.

BACRE WALY NDIAYE, Director of the New York Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, said the Fifth Committee’s consideration of the Oversight Office report on Rwanda had only been brought to his Office’s attention at a late stage, so he apologized for yesterday’s non-attendance. The High Commissioner recognized that many things had gone wrong in the Rwanda operation. For that reason, the current High Commissioner had asked for the audit of the Rwandan operation, and she had taken measures to address problems as a matter of urgency.

First, the Office had commenced implementation of the recommendations and would continue to work to implement them, he explained. Mindful of the audit outcome, the High Commissioner had made in-depth changes and extensive instructions had been issued to all field offices. It had also commissioned audit reports for every human rights field office, to head off such problem in the future.

Regarding Rwanda, the High Commissioner’s Office had pursued recoveries in every possible instance, from both organizations and individuals, he said. There was no allegation of fraud in the report, he noted, and while some losses had occurred, there was no evidence that there was extensive loss. That was no excuse, but the problems must be kept in proportion. The Chief of the High Commissioner’s Administration Section, responsible for the headquarters oversight of the operation, had been changed.

The High Commissioner was looking for ways to ensure that such problems did not occur in future, he said. She had asked for authority to move additional staff to administration and finance to address structural problems. She also envisioned requesting funds for strengthening that area in future, in accordance with the needs of an increasingly operational Office. The Office had also joined with the Rwandan Government in a project to support national human rights institutions.

Mr. YUSSUF (United Republic of Tanzania) thanked the High Commissioner’s representative for his explanation, but said he was not satisfied that those irregularities were not extensive. What did Mr. Ndiaye mean by that? One million dollars had been spent without the knowledge of management. Much money had clearly been wasted. No one was held responsible and no one was held accountable. One senior staff member had been replaced, but no information had been provided as to whether he was still in the system, or even still with the High Commissioner’s Office.

In the past when reports had raised similar concerns about Habitat, for example, staff had paid the price, including the Under-Secretary-General for Habitat, he said. He could not accept that serious charges had been made and no one was being held responsible. Unfortunately, even the Oversight Office had not stated who should be held accountable. That was intriguing. The matter was very serious and the charges could not be taken lightly.

The Committee then turned its attention to the Secretary-General’s request for two additional posts for the Department of Economic and Social Affairs’ Non- Governmental Organizations Section.

FIKRET DEMIR (Turkey) said he had spoken to the Chairman of the Non- Governmental Organizations Committee -- his colleague from Turkey -- and he had confirmed the Section’s need for the two posts, and even suggested more resources were required, given the number of non-governmental organizations in consultation with the Economic and Social Council, and the number of applications awaiting consideration.

Turkey supported the comprehensive review of resources for this activity proposed by the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ), he said, but the issue of the two posts and the review of the activities should not be linked.

RON ADAM (Israel) said Israel supported the strengthening the Non- Governmental Organizations Section and supported the approval of the proposed two additional posts. He repeated his concern about the workload of the Section, and affirmed the importance of the participation of civil society and non-governmental organizations in the work of the United Nations, at present and in the future.

The Committee concluded its general discussion on the matter.

* *** *