Resumed Fifty-fifth General Assembly

Fifth Committee

53^rd Meeting (AM)

INTERNAL OVERSIGHT OFFICE RECEIVES PRAISE IN THE FIFTH COMMITTEE

The Office of Internal Oversight Services had done a superb job in providing investigative services, and United Nations funds and programmes should use them for this purpose, the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) was told this morning, as it concluded its general debate on enhancing internal oversight mechanisms within the United Nations system.

The representative of the United States added that implementation of the recommendations contained in the Oversight Office’s report would help ensure improvement in United Nations funds and programmes.  Some areas of weakness in internal oversight had been pointed out in the report, however, and he urged the funds and programmes involved to take steps to improve.

Several speakers in this morning’s meeting stressed the importance of internal oversight mechanisms and noted that most of the recommendations of the Oversight Office had been implemented, albeit in varying degrees.

Regarding those recommendations, however, the representative of Syria noted that certain recommendations had been implemented before the report was submitted to the Assembly for approval, and suggested premature implementation of such recommendations could be considered to be in contradiction with General Assembly resolutions on the operations of the Oversight Office. 

Iraq reserved the right to call for serious investigations into reported financial mismanagement by the Office of the Iraq Programme, that country’s representative told the Committee, stressing that the Office carried out its work with Iraqi resources on behalf of Iraq’s Government.

Several speakers asked for a legal opinion on the definition of the term “take note” from the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs, when the Committee turned its attention to other matters.  Syria’s representative asked if the General Assembly taking note of a report could be interpreted -- legally -- as endorsement of the contents of that report.

The representatives of Sweden (on behalf of the European Union and associated States), Saudi Arabia and South Africa also addressed the Committee.  Under-Secretary-General for Internal Oversight Services Dileep Nair and the Fifth Committee’s Secretary, Joseph Acakpo-Satchivi, answered Member States’ questions.

The Committee will meet again tomorrow at 10 a.m. to continue its discussion on improving the financial situation of the United Nations.   

Background

This morning, the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) was expected to discuss the report of the Secretary-General on the activities of the Office of Internal Oversight Services (documents A/55/826 and Corr.1), which was introduced at a previous meeting.  (For background on this report, see Press Release GA/AB/3434 of 26 March.)

Statements

Speaking on behalf of the European Union, MAGNUS LENEFORS (Sweden) said that on the basis of its mandate, the Oversight Office played an important role within the United Nations system.  The report showed overall improvement in the work of internal oversight mechanisms, albeit in varying degrees.  Certain new procedures were being pointed out as examples of improvements as a result of previous recommendations.

He went on to say that the Union shared the concern of others over the lack of capacity of funds and programmes to carry out investigations.  The European Union stressed the importance of adequate oversight services in all funds and programmes.  It was concerned over the drain of Oversight Office resources caused by reliance on its investigative functions.  The Union concurred with the recommendations contained in the report and took note of that document.

THOMAS A. REPASCH (United States) said that his country had great interest in oversight.  That subject had been with the Committee for a long time, and he was grateful for the updated report, which provided a current picture.  He knew that the report had been a little late, but the delay was worth it, for the document was much more comprehensive as a result of consultations with the bodies involved.  Overall, the report was reasonable and he could agree with its conclusions.

The recommendations contained in the report represented a reasonable way of ensuring continued improvement within funds and programmes, he continued. He hoped those recommendations would be implemented.  Some areas of weakness in internal oversight had been pointed out in the report, however, and he urged the funds and programmes involved to take all the necessary steps to improve the situation.  He also agreed that, since the Oversight Office had done a superb job in providing investigative services, the funds and programmes should rely on it within the framework of certain arrangements.

Turning to oversight mechanisms within the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), he said that a management review and oversight committee had been established there, which was expected to be used as a model for other funds and programmes.  He inquired about the current status of that committee.  He also noted that, according to paragraph 19 of the report, the UNDP did not have specific procedures for reporting allegations of waste, fraud and mismanagement and urged that body to take all necessary steps to correct that oversight.

Regarding the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), he said that, according to the report, it had an internal audit section and a post of inspector-general.  He wanted to know what the function of that inspector was if, in fact, the oversight and audit services were provided by the Oversight Office and other oversight bodies.  There was a need for closer cooperation between internal and external oversight bodies, and he wanted to know what could be done to enhance such cooperation.  He added that the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) did not have its own investigative capabilities.  He would be seeking some detailed responses to questions in informal consultations.

AHMED K. AHMED (Iraq) thanked the Secretary-General for the report, which referred to the Office of the Iraq Programme.  The Office of the Iraq Programme was part of United Nations executive services, he explained.  Its mandate was to implement the “oil-for-food” programme between the United Nations and Iraq.  A previous report had referred to financial misdeeds that had led to millions of dollars being wasted.  The governor of the northern province was mentioned in that report.  The report discussed financial misdeeds in the northern region of Iraq, which had been flagged in a meeting on 22 November.  While those misdeeds had been highlighted by some bodies, no measures had been taken to punish the perpetrators.  Was it fair that Iraq had to shoulder the burden for the loss of millions of dollars because of the financial misdeeds by the people asked to carry out the programme?  Why had Iraq not been given prior warning, since Iraqi resources were being wasted?  Iraq should be given reparations for the wasted resources.  The Office was carrying out its work with Iraqi resources on behalf of the Government of Iraq.

He said that Iraq reserved the right to call for serious investigations of financial mismanagement.  He supported action to intensify cooperation for internal audit coverage to ensure that such misdeeds were not repeated and that the injustice of the unparalleled blockade would not continue.

AHMED FARID (Saudi Arabia) said that the report was comprehensive.  Saudi Arabia believed in internal oversight.  Although he was impressed by the number of investigations and the monitoring, he was concerned that the recommendation calling for funds and programmes to make budgetary provisions for investigations services provided by the Oversight Office had not been implemented.  Gaps continued to exist in oversight arrangements and programmes.  He urged funds and programmes to provide the financial arrangements for investigators to be on board.

ABDOU AL-MOULA NAKKARI (Syria) said that the report would provide a good basis for future work.  Paragraph 60 of the report mentioned that programmes and funds were implementing certain recommendations of the Oversight Office, and he wanted to know if the General Assembly had approved the implementation those recommendations.

The report also referred to the fact that there were memoranda of understanding between programmes and funds and the Oversight Office, and he would like to hear an explanation regarding the content of such memoranda and the points they covered.  There was a monetary travel allowance given to the Oversight Office for the services rendered, and he wanted to know if it was reflected in the contents of such memoranda of understanding.  Were they concluded at the request of the programmes and funds?

The report of the Oversight Office was making references to the fact that a certain percentage of recommendations had actually been implemented before the report was submitted to the Assembly to be adopted, he continued.  In that connection, he wanted to recall resolution 54/224 regarding the establishment of the Oversight Office.  In that text, the General Assembly had requested that Oversight Office recommendations should be submitted to the General Assembly to be adopted as a resolution.  The premature implementation of such recommendations could be considered to be in contradiction with resolution 54/224.  He would further elaborate on that matter in informal consultations.  He also noted that there was a document by the Oversight Office distributed on the implementation of the recommendations by the funds and programmes.

Responding to questions, the Under-Secretary-General for Internal Oversight Services, DILEEP NAIR, thanked the delegates for their support and said that the oversight committee of the UNDP was certainly a model that other bodies should follow.  However, no model was perfect.  The mechanism had been put in place, but its functioning needed to be further addressed.  The body did not meet often enough, and the terms of reference in that respect should be adhered to as closely as possible.  Those terms of reference also needed to be fine-tuned and implemented in the spirit they had been promulgated in.  Complex cases of investigation were referred to the Oversight Office, but if the UNDP internal office met as often as it was supposed to, its oversight would be more effective.

The Inspector-General of the UNHCR dealt with everyday cases, but when it came to major cases -- and a major investigation was currently going on regarding corruption in treatment of refugees -– those were referred to the Oversight Office.  Regarding the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), he said that many investigations were carried out by his Office, and there was an agreement that investigations of more complex nature had to be dealt with in that way.  There was a need for better coordination and cooperation with the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS).

Regarding the annual report tabled at a previous session, he said that it would be more appropriate to respond to those questions in informal consultations.  The funds and programmes should be urged to pay for investigative services, for otherwise the Office was hard pressed to provide the required work.

In response to the question posed by the representative of Syria, he said that the resolution in question had asked for a further update, which had been provided in compliance with that text.  The funds and programmes were allowed to follow up on previous recommendations, for it was in their interests.  Acting on their own, they had followed up on five of the recommendations, and three of them had been reformulated in the current report.  However, many funds and programmes had already responded positively to them.

The memoranda of understanding determined what the Oversight Office would do and how it would proceed, he explained.  Basically, they resembled a service agreement, setting out the terms under which services were provided.  Many funds and programmes had already responded positively, and he hoped others would also follow.

Mr. AHMED (Iraq) said that he would like a reply to his questions in a formal meeting.

Other Matters

Mr. NAKKARI (Syria), referring to his question at the Committee’s last formal meeting, said that he had expected a reply from the Office of Legal Affairs on the term “takes note”.  He would have serious problems in taking note of any report before being informed by the Secretariat of its understanding of the issue.  Undoubtedly, the Secretariat would take the legal opinion of the Office of Legal Affairs.  A legal understanding would also affect the General Assembly.  It would be logical for the Assembly to deal with clear and transparent terminology.  He requested the presence -- at a formal meeting -- of a representative of the Office of Legal Affairs to inform the Committee of the Secretariat’s legal understanding of the term “take note”.  Paragraph 28 of Annex 6 of the General Assembly Rules of Procedure stated that the Assembly, including its Main Committees, took note of the reports of the Secretary-General or of its subsidiary bodies which did not require a decision by the General Assembly.  It was a legal mandate of the General Assembly and, therefore, paragraph 28 constituted the legal authority of the General Assembly. 

He said that the Office of Legal Affairs had given a legal opinion pertaining to the interpretation of the term “takes note” in 1988.  The said legal opinion stated that the term “takes note” meant that the General Assembly had considered the Secretary-General’s report without expressing either agreement or rejection.  He wanted that understanding to be reconfirmed.  A broad discussion could be undertaken with the representative of the Secretariat in that regard.  He repeated his request for a representative from the Office of Legal Affairs to brief the Committee.  From now on, he would find it difficult to “take note” of a Secretary-General’s report in the absence of interpretation by the Office of Legal Affairs.

THEODORE ALBRECHT (South Africa) said that he had been following Syria’s request with interest.  He would also be interested in hearing a reply from the Office of Legal Affairs.  He had expected that that reply would have been given during the current meeting because of Syria’s specific request at the last meeting.

JOSEPH ACAKPO-SATCHIVI, Secretary of the Committee, said that he had contacted the Office of Legal Counsel in regard to the question raised by Syria and interpretation of the term “takes note”.  The answer he had received was that the interpretation depended on the context in which the term was used.  In the Security Council, for example, the term “takes note” meant something different than in the Third Committee.  In the Security Council, when members took note of a Secretary-General’s report, which usually contained recommended action, it meant that the Secretary-General could proceed with an action.  In the case of the Third Committee, however, it did not mean the same thing.  When the Third Committee took note of reports -- usually voluminous reports given at end of the session -- it did not mean that the Committee had agreed to everything in the report.  The Third Committee to be courteous took note of the report and that was where it stopped. 

According to the Legal Counsel, the question had to be formulated in a specific way and had to concern a specific case before any specific answer could be given, he continued.  The answer would vary.  The Legal Counsel could not give a single answer that would be applicable to the entire range of possibilities.  Should the request for interpretation of the term come from the Committee itself

-- and not from one or two delegations -- a specific answer would be given at the next meeting.

Mr. NAKKARI (Syria) said that he had requested the presence of a representative of the Office of Legal Affairs, and he called on the Bureau to satisfy this official request from his delegation.  He had heard the response just provided, but wanted a qualified authority to respond to his question.  Thus, he repeated his request.  He wanted the question to be answered with the seriousness it deserved.

The Acting Chairperson of the Committee, JASMINKA DINIC (Croatia), said that the Bureau would consider the request.

JOHN ORR (Canada) said that the document referred to by the representative of Syria should be made available to the members of the Committee.  It might be helpful in resolving the question.  He also took note of the proper procedure to be followed in regard to receiving legal opinions.

Mr. ALBRECHT (South Africa) said that the Office of Legal Affairs should brief the Committee, for legal opinions should “come from the horse’s mouth”.

Acting Chairperson DINIC (Croatia) said that the Committee would be informed in due time regarding the date when answers would be provided.  As for the Iraqi request, if the speaker insisted on an answer in an open meeting, relevant arrangements would be made.

Mr. AHMED (Iraq) said that his delegation would patiently await the Bureau’s response to his queries, for the question was of great importance to his delegation.

* *** *