TAKING NOTE OF OVERSIGHT BODY RECOMMENDATIONS NOT ENOUGH, FIFTH COMMITTEE TOLD

Press Release
GA/AB/3384

TAKING NOTE OF OVERSIGHT BODY RECOMMENDATIONS NOT ENOUGH, FIFTH COMMITTEE TOLD

The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) this morning began its consideration of the 1999 reports of the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) and concluded its general debate on the requests for exemptions from sanctions under Article 19 of the Charter.

The reports of the JIU were introduced by Louis-Dominique Ouèdraogo, Chairman of the Joint Inspection Unit, who also answered numerous questions from the floor. The JIU is an external oversight body, which makes recommendations on improving management and coordination.

The Chairman of the JIU stressed that the system of follow-up on the Unit’s recommendations, recently approved by the General Assembly, would be an important tool in the future. Receiving reports and recommendations of the JIU, Member States and participating bodies needed to consider them seriously. It was not enough to “take note” of them, which left implementation to the secretariats of the participating bodies. Furthermore, as noted in the reports, “there had not been many instances where legislative organs of participating organizations have actually made specific decisions on the recommendations contained in the reports”, and that was an important issue.

It was also necessary to look into the matter of the Unit’s resources, taking into account the operation of other oversight bodies, he added. Sometimes, in order to stay within approved resources, the Unit had to consider delaying preparation of reports, because other aspects took priority. Following the discussion, he agreed with other speakers that the Unit needed to be more focused, because it had limited resources, while looking at system-wide issues.

Several speakers in the debate stressed the need for an effective oversight machinery for the United Nations, saying that many of the reports of the Unit were eagerly awaited by Member States.

The representative of the United States said that the Unit was an important component of a culture of accountability, as well as a system based on performance-based management principles. It was important that the Unit develop more action-oriented recommendations that could be considered in an expeditious manner, he added.

Speaking on behalf of the European Union and associated States, the representative of France supported the development of oversight mechanisms for

Fifth Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/AB/3384 4th Meeting (AM) 27 September 2000

the effective functioning of the United Nations system, saying that it was important for the JIU to participate in making optimum use of resources. The Unit should set an example in that respect, as well as in the organization of its work.

Concluding its general discussion on requests, for exemption from sanctions that arise as a result of unpaid dues under Article 19 of the Charter, from Burundi, Comoros, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Republic of Moldova, Sao Tome and Principe and Tajikistan, the Committee heard an address by the representative of Tajikistan. He described the severe circumstances beyond his Government’s control, which had led to his country’s arrears in the payment of dues to the United Nations. He said that Tajikistan had experienced a civil war and a severe drought. It was also one of the poorest countries in the world. Several speakers supported granting Tajikistan an exemption under Article 19 of the Charter.

The representative of Somalia put on record her country’s request for an exemption from sanctions under Article 19. Currently, Somalia was in the process of forming a government, she said, and that government would provide all the required information.

Also speaking at today’s meeting were the representatives of Syria, Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Bulgaria, Philippines, Russian Federation, Belarus, Comoros, Ukraine, Libya, India, Tunisia, Cuba and Kyrgyzstan.

The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. on Monday, 2 October, to begin its discussion on the scale of assessments of the Organization.

Fifth Committee - 3 - Press Release GA/AB/3384 4th Meeting (AM) 27 September 2000

Committee Work Programme

As the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) met this morning, it was expected to start its general discussion on the agenda item entitled "Review of the efficiency of the administrative and financial functioning of the United Nations" and to conclude its consideration of the requests for exemptions from sanctions under Article 19 of the Charter.

Reports of Joint Inspection Unit

The Committee had before it a report of the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) (document A/55/34) -- a standing body composed of 11 inspectors appointed by the General Assembly on the basis of their special experience in administrative and financial matters, including management questions. The inspectors have broad powers of investigation in all matters related to the efficiency of services and the proper use of funds. The Unit is assisted by a secretariat of 19 staff members, and its programme budget for 1998-1999 amounted to $8,174,000.

According to the report, in 1999 the General Assembly adopted resolution 54/16, which provides the Unit with new tools to enhance its functioning and impact, endorsing a system of follow-up to its reports. The Assembly also invited the Unit to give priority to reports requested by the participating organizations. In this respect, the JIU notes that the relevance and timeliness of its work programme depends not only on the knowledge gathered by the inspectors about the concerns of participating organizations, but also very much on inputs from their requests and suggestions.

Interaction between the Unit and participating organizations, governing organs and secretariats, as well as improved relations with other oversight bodies, have been receiving special attention lately, the report states. The tracking system, envisioned as part of the follow-up efforts, will be put in place as soon as possible, and the Unit intends to include, in its annual reports, data on the status of approved recommendations which have not been implemented. As the basis for follow-up on the Unit's recommendations it is vital for the legislative organs of the participating organizations to take specific action on each of them.

As a first step in this direction, the Unit has compiled information on the timing of the submission of its reports to the legislative organs of various participating organizations. Information contained in annex I to the report indicates that in 1994-1999, 47 reports were issued, of which 26 dealt with system-wide issues, whereas the other 21 related to either a single organization or a few organizations within the United Nations system.

The Unit concludes that most participating organizations submit its reports regularly or "reasonably frequently" to their legislative bodies, but several organizations did not take up such reports at all. It is also observed that even when reports are submitted, they are often taken up one to three years after their publication. Most importantly, however, there have not been many instances where legislative organs have actually made specific decisions on the recommendations contained in the reports. It is vital that they do so.

Also before the Committee was a note by the Secretary-General (document A/54/960) transmitting the work programme of the Joint Inspection Unit for 2000 and the preliminary list of potential reports for 2001 and beyond.

The provisional work programme includes items on common and joint services in Vienna; management and administration in the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO); delegation of authority in the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO); management and administration in the World Health Organization (WHO); planning, budgeting and evaluation in the United Nations system; support costs for activities financed from extrabudgetary resources; a comparative analysis of the management of junior professionals in the United Nations system; handling of oversight reports by legislative organs; administration of the United Nations Office at Geneva; management of buildings; and administration of justice in the United Nations common system.

Scale of Assessments

The Committee also had before it a letter from the General Assembly President concerning requests for exemption under Article 19 of the Charter from Burundi, Comoros, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Republic of Moldova, Sao Tome and Principe and Tajikistan (document A/C.5/55/2). The appendix to the letter contains sections of the report of the Committee on Contributions from its sixtieth session making recommendations on those requests.

[By Article 19, a Member State in arrears in the amount equal to, or exceeding, contributions due for the preceding two years shall have no vote in the General Assembly.]

The Committee on Contributions recommended that Burundi, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan and the Republic of Moldova be permitted to vote until 30 June 2001. Regarding Comoros, Sao Tome and Principe, and Tajikistan, it concluded that their continuing failure to pay the necessary minimum amount was not due to conditions beyond those countries' control. Accordingly, the Committee on Contributions was not able to recommend granting them exemptions or extending such exemptions any further.

Organization of Work

The Chairman of the Fifth Committee, GERT ROSENTHAL (Guatemala), informed the delegates that the Bureau of the Committee had met last week and yesterday, and had agreed on the programme of work for the next two weeks. Priority in informal consultations would be given to the items on regular budget scale during that time. The programme of work was also based on the availability of documentation, in particular the relevant reports of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ). Accordingly, a list of documents issued so far, and those in translation, was being circulated to the Committee.

ABDOU AL-MOULA NAKKARI (Syria) said that conference officers were not distributing documents to seats if delegates were not in them. Documents should be distributed to all delegations’ places without exception.

The CHAIRMAN then advised that appointments to the various subsidiary organs were scheduled to take place on Friday, 3 November. The deadline for the submission of candidatures was Friday, 19 October.

Review of the Efficiency of the Administrative and Financial Functioning of the United Nations

Introducing the reports of the JIU, the Chairman of that body, LOUIS-DOMINIQUE OUÈDRAOGO, explained that, based on General Assembly resolution 46/220, the Fifth Committee was to consider the Unit’s reports on a biennial basis. The fact that the Committee had considered such reports in 1999 was due to the backlog of JIU annual reports. It therefore served as not simply an exception to the rule on biennialization, but also as a signal to the Unit regarding the Committee’s commitment to take up the JIU reports in a more timely manner.

Endorsing the system of follow-up to the Unit’s reports, resolution 54/16 of the Assembly had indeed provided the Unit with new tools to enhance its functioning and impact, he continued. The way in which participating organizations handled JIU reports was very much at the heart of the new process. The exercise of monitoring this year had been aimed at getting a clearer indication on the status of recommendations made by the Unit, in terms of whether they had been approved or rejected by legislative bodies, instead of the frequent and ambiguous “takes note” which left implementation to the goodwill of secretariats. The JIU hoped that improved handling of its reports would result from the reassessment being conducted with all its participating organizations.

Turning to document A/54/960, he said that the JIU drew up its programme, which was then circulated as a General Assembly document. The Fifth Committee could play a guiding role in providing suggestions in that respect. The Unit’s programme of work was flexible, and a preliminary list of agenda items was given to the Fifth Committee for consideration. In addition to the items listed in the report before the Committee, the JIU had also agreed to prepare a new report on the administration and management of the International Telecommunications Union (ITU).

GUILLAUME GAUBERT (France), speaking on behalf of the European Union and associated States, said that for several years the Union had supported the development of oversight mechanisms for the effective functioning of the United Nations system. It was important for the JIU to participate in making optimum use of resources for carrying out tasks. The Unit should set an example in the organization of its work and the use of its resources. The Union welcomed the fact that the mechanisms to follow up on the Unit’s recommendations were being implemented properly.

The Unit’s programme of work for 2000 and beyond was useful, he said. The report which the Unit planned to issue on planning, budgeting and evaluation was much awaited by a great number of organizations. The Union thought that assessment of planning, budget and evaluation rules could only be carried out at a later date.

M. RIAZ HAMIDULLAH (Bangladesh) said that, for a system as large as the United Nations, no one would dispute the necessity of an elaborate and effective oversight machinery. The JIU remained an important component of the oversight family. Last year, Bangladesh drew the Committee’s attention to the forward- looking outcome of the Princeton retreat in October 1998, which discussed various elements of improvement of the United Nations oversight machinery. Many of the retreat’s recommendations on the JIU remained valid. It had recommended that the Unit should indicate which recommendations required approval by the legislative organs of the Organization and which did not. An independent review panel that would review the candidatures of the prospective inspectors upon their nomination of regional groups had also been recommended. The Unit should be allowed to submit budget estimates to the Secretary-General. It had also said that the Unit’s effectiveness could be ensured by maintaining equitable geographical distribution of its inspectors. Also, in addition to formal notes, the Unit should have greater recourse to informal notes and confidential letters.

Bangladesh appreciated the seriousness with which the Unit had been following the status of its recommendations, including its observation that the Unit’s reports were being taken up by legislative organs some one to three years following publication. He wanted to understand the reason for that.

HILAIRE SOULAMA (Burkina Faso) said that all oversight bodies, among which the JIU played an important role, deserved attention, especially with regard to resources. He was in favour of increasing the resources given to the Unit so that it could reinforce its secretariat. He was interested in knowing what the inspectors had planned with respect to the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS).

THOMAS A. REPASCH (United States) said that the United States placed great importance on oversight mechanisms, and was therefore interested in the functioning of the Joint Inspection Unit. The Unit was an important component of a culture of accountability, as well as a system based on performance-based management principles. In the annual report, he noted that chapter 4, paragraph 11, stated that the Unit had experienced high turnover of secretariat staff in the last year, resulting in a number of vacant posts. Since the effective functioning of the Unit was important to good oversight, he would like to know why it experienced such turnover. On the total outputs for 1999, the report said that the Unit had sent seven reports out for action, and that this was an improvement. A previous report showed, however, that the Unit had submitted nine reports. He asked why seven reports were being considered an improvement, when it appeared to him to be a decline in productivity.

He also joined the European Union in stressing the importance of benchmarks and performance indicators. The Unit should serve as an example for the rest of the system. With regard to number and composition of reports, the United States supported the comments of the representative of Bangladesh concerning the value of confidential letters. They were a valuable tool for the Unit to perform its work and achieve short-term improvements without the expense and time to put out a regular report.

On resource requirements, he said that he noted the last sentence of the Unit’s report which said that serious consideration must be given to resources for the Unit. “More adequate resources” was a curious phrase. In his view, things were either “adequate” or “inadequate”. “More adequate” did not have a logical flow. He wanted to know what it meant exactly. In chapter 7, paragraph 28 of the report, he noted that the Unit was represented at the thirtieth meeting of internal auditors held in 1999. As the JIU was an external oversight body, why had the Unit been represented at that meeting? He also asked what the Unit had learned from that meeting of value for its own operation.

On follow-up to recommendations, it was an important topic, especially since the Committee decided last year to approve the system for the Unit to follow up recommendations, he said. He believed that it had been a major advancement. He was disappointed, however, to see that not much had been done regarding the follow-up system. The tracking system was supposed to be in place as soon as possible. He wanted to know what the timetable was for it to be up and operating. On planned JIU reports on UNESCO and the WHO, he noted that the Unit had limited capabilities. The Unit did not have the capability to inspect the world. The placement of such reviews in its programme of work suggested that the Unit believed that it could undertake them, and in a short time frame. The United States would like to see the Unit more narrowly focus its work on more achievable, time-sensitive issues. The tracking system should also be taken seriously. Full attention should be given to the Unit’s recommendations. It was important that the Unit develop more action-oriented recommendations that could be considered in an expeditious manner.

Mr. NAKKARI (Syria) noted the ambitious programmes of the Unit compared to the modest resources available to it. He said that outsourcing was being used in Geneva, and that topic needed to be further considered, for it would lead to much larger commitments. As for the reports for the year 2001, his delegation believed that the report on the financial situation of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) was of particular importance. The reform of the International Trade Centre of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) was also important.

Responding to questions, the CHAIRMAN of the JIU said that the report on the management of buildings in the United Nations system was being prepared. He agreed that the usefulness of the JIU report would depend on the possibility of considering the relevant issues simultaneously with the Secretariat. As for delays in taking up the JIU reports by participating organizations, many of them had their own agendas, which reflected each body’s priorities. Delays were an indication of how much importance was being accorded to the Unit’s reports. That was one of the Unit’s concerns. Several years’ wait before reports were discussed certainly did not suggest they had a significant impact.

The 10 notes submitted to the secretariats of participating organizations, which were mentioned in the report, related to the handling of the JIU reports by those organizations, he continued. The follow-up system envisioned examination of the handling of the Unit’s recommendations by various bodies. For that reason, the Unit was trying to cover as many organizations as possible, both in 1999 and this year. As for confidential letters, the need for their use often came in preparing reports, when an issue was urgent enough and required a decision by an executive head. That matter could not be decided in advance.

The preliminary work programme mentioned a possible report on the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), he said. That programme had been expanded, and many States had expressed concern at the spread of the pandemic. Increased coordination among the agencies was needed. A report on the WHO had also been included in the programme of work, for its work was closely related to the work of UNAIDS. The preliminary programme of work would not be approved until next January, and requests from governing bodies and suggestions from all participating organizations would be taken into account.

Regarding the Unit’s staffing, he said that new staff had been recruited. He was satisfied with the choices in that connection. Concerning the JIU’s outputs, he said that there had been an improvement. Besides looking at the number of reports produced by the Unit last year, it was necessary to consider all aspects of its work.

On the issue of “more adequate resources”, he went on to say that as an oversight body with a system-wide mandate, the JIU sometimes had to limit its review to a sample of units. Sometimes, in order to stay within approved resources, the Unit had to consider delaying preparation of reports, because other aspects should take priority. The issue of the resources should be looked into, taking into account the operation of other oversight bodies, particularly the internal oversight ones. It was necessary to have a wider perspective in preparing reports. As an external oversight body, the Unit should not act as if it did not know how internal oversight bodies worked. For that reason, it had attended meetings with other oversight bodies, which were very useful.

Concerning follow-up, he agreed that the Unit now had a new tool at its disposal. The report before the Committee covered 1999, and the follow-up system had only been approved in October 1999. The Unit was trying to make sure that all participating organizations followed the same system. Whether the Unit was able to deliver what was expected of it should be judged in the future.

A report on common services in Vienna had not been issued yet, he continued. The Unit’s programme of work was flexible and subject to change. New reports were sometimes added in the course of work, when needed. While the report on common services in Vienna had been delayed, it would be presented later. Views of all participating organizations should be taken into consideration in that respect.

A report on the administration and management of UNESCO had been issued within a limited time frame of four months, at the request of that organization, he said. The JIU had given priority to that report. The JIU and the secretariat of UNESCO had worked hand in hand to produce optimal results. He agreed that the Unit needed to be more focused, because it had limited resources and was trying to look at system-wide issues.

Participating organizations needed to take seriously the tracking system, which was being put into place, he said. Upon receiving reports and recommendations from the JIU, Member States and participating bodies must consider them seriously. It was not enough to “take note” of them, which left implementation to the secretariats of the participating bodies. When no action was taken, implementation of recommendations could not be tracked. That was an important aspect of consideration of JIU reports. Mr. NAKKARI (Syria) then repeated his delegation’s comments, at Mr. Ouèdraogo’s request.

Mr. OUÈDRAOGO replied that a report on UNCTAD was still on the agenda, because the Unit had been forced to give priority to other issues. The same was true for the expected report on UNRWA. For the time being, that report had been put on hold pending new developments concerning UNRWA. After approving its programme of work for 2000, the Unit had received an urgent request from the Secretary-General of the ITU to provide assistance to that organization. For that reason, the JIU had prepared a report on the ITU, delaying some other reports.

Article 19 of Charter

RASHID ALIMOV (Tajikistan) said that his country had quite recently emerged from a civil war. It was not yet in a position to meet the humanitarian needs of its people and to achieve a quick restoration of its economy. Tajikistan’s request was related to the fact that the country suffered from the dual shock of civil war and a drought. The harm done by the civil war was well known. The very severe drought had destroyed more than 50 per cent of cereal and other crops. Some 3 million people were experiencing serious food losses. One humanitarian organization had appealed for $76 million for Tajikistan. Some 20 per cent of Tajikistan’s population lived below the poverty level. Average monthly earnings were only some $11. Tajikistan’s external indebtedness must also be taken into account. In accordance with World Bank estimates, Tajikistan was among the 20 poorest countries in the world.

Yet, despite the circumstances facing it, Tajikistan in the past four years had contributed to the regular budget, he said. The Committee should bear in mind that Tajikistan’s indebtedness occurred in the first four years of the civil conflict. The Government now faced other major tasks, including the need to provide for 800,000 refugees and displaced persons that had returned, restoration of housing and civil services and the restoration of the economy. With post-conflict peace-building, Tajikistan was increasing its efforts to improve the economy. Peace-building in the country was expanding, giving Tajikistan cause to be optimistic. Based on that, Tajikistan submitted a plan for a stage-by-stage payment of indebtedness, based on an objective analysis of the economic situation in that country.

At the time his country submitted its request, the members of the Committee on Contributions did not have detailed information on the scope and possible consequences of drought, he said. No one had such data at the time. Today, the data was known to all. It had been mentioned in the yearly report of the Secretary-General, as well as in appeals of humanitarian organizations. The Government of Tajikistan hoped that its request would be considered carefully, thereby enabling Tajikistan to carry out its obligations to the Organization.

VLADIMIR C. SOTIROV (Bulgaria) said that his delegation appreciated the report of the Committee on Contributions on the matter. He fully subscribed to the Committee’s view that all countries had a legal obligation to pay their contributions in full and on time. In considering requests for exemptions, the Committee on Contributions had to take all relevant information into account. The representative of Tajikistan had just described the difficult situation in his country, which had encountered civil war and severe drought. An alert for the mitigation of the effects of the drought in Tajikistan had been issued by several international organizations, but recent assessments of the effects of the drought had not been taken into consideration by the Committee on Contributions. The failure of Tajikistan to pay its contributions was due to events outside the Government’s control. Thus, an exemption should be extended to that country.

Mr. NAKKARI (Syria) said that in the light of the information just presented by Tajikistan, he supported considering carefully the case of that country, and exempting Tajikistan from the application of sanctions under Article 19 of the Charter.

FATUN MOHAMED HASSAN (Somalia) wanted to put on record her country’s request for an exemption from sanctions under Article 19. Currently, Somalia was in the process of forming a Government, which would bring forward all relevant information in that respect.

MARY JO B. ARAGON (Philippines) said her delegation had listened carefully to the statement by the representative of Tajikistan. Additional humanitarian assistance had been requested to alleviate the consequences of the drought in that country. She wanted to put on record her support for granting an exemption to Tajikistan. The Comoros and Sao Tome and Principe also deserved exemptions from the application of sanctions under Article 19.

NIKOLAI V. LOZINSKI (Russian Federation) said that the representative of Tajikistan had presented additional information on the situation in that country, and he supported Tajikistan’s request for exemption.

ULADZIMIR VANTSEVICH (Belarus) said that he was well acquainted with the situation of the countries in the Commonwealth of Independent States and, of course, with the situation in Tajikistan. Belarus expressed its official support for Tajikistan’s request.

MAHMOUD MOHAMED ABOUD (Comoros) said that since his delegation had already made its appeal for an exemption, it would reiterate that request in informal consultations.

OLEKSII V. IVASHCHENKO (Ukraine) said that Tajikistan’s request was fully justified and that the Committee must seriously consider it.

KHALIFA O. ALATRASH (Libya) said that all Member States should honour their commitments to the budget of the Organization. Certain countries, however, faced difficult economic situations. Within the framework of established regulations, the Committee must take such matters into consideration. His delegation wished to affirm the necessity of exempting Tajikistan from the application of Article 19, due to the conditions in that country. Some African countries were also suffering from similar conditions, and should also be exempt.

A.V.S. RAMESH CHANDRA (India) said that his country also supported the request from Tajikistan. He looked forward to pursuing the matter later in informal consultations.

RADHIA ACHOURI (Tunisia) said that she supported the principle of strengthening the provisions of the United Nations to prevent both delays in payments and an increase in precariousness of financial situation of the United Nations. However, there were many reasons why Member States did not honour their commitments. She believed that the Committee should respond favourably to the requests of Sao Tome and Principe, Tajikistan and the Comoros.

DULCE MARIA BUERGO RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said that her delegation had listened carefully to all the requests. Cuba believed that it was essential to emphasize the legal obligation of all Member States to pay contributions on time, in full and without conditions. However, in the case of countries which requested exemption of Article 19, she believed that the General Assembly should examine those requests carefully. In the case of recommendations made for this session, Cuba fully supported the requests from the Comoros and Tajikistan.

MARAT RYSMENDIEV (Kyrgyzstan) said that, like Tajikistan, his country had an economy in transition. He fully recognized all the difficulties faced by Tajikistan and supported granting it an exemption under Article 19 of the Charter.

The meeting was then adjourned.

* *** *