HUMAN RESOURCES PRACTICES AND PEACEKEEPING ADMINISTRATION DISCUSSED IN GENERAL ASSEMBLY'S FIFTH COMMITTEE

Resumed Fifty-fifth General Assembly

Fifth Committee

61^st Meeting (AM)

HUMAN RESOURCES PRACTICES AND PEACEKEEPING ADMINISTRATION DISCUSSED

IN GENERAL ASSEMBLY'S FIFTH COMMITTEE

Human resources management and the annual audit of peacekeeping were the subjects of discussion in the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) this morning.

On human resources management, speakers emphasized the importance of clarity in the formulation of policies and procedures, of consultations with staff representatives and of clear guidelines for delegation of authority, as specified in the recommendations by the United Nations Joint Inspection Unit.  They also addressed the need to introduce a well-designed accountability mechanism before authority for human resources decisions was delegated.

Libya's representative expressed a preference for a multi-stage introduction of increased delegation for human resources decisions, because units within the Secretariat did not currently have the required ability or logistical support. Human resources management was based on rules, regulations, legal interpretation and precedent, so before increasing the authority of managers they, and their support staff, must be trained.

The representative of Iran, speaking on behalf of the "Group of 77" developing countries and China, said that any delegation of authority for personnel matters should entail clear definition of both the lines of authority and responsibilities.  The Group also insisted that changes should be in accordance with the United Nations Charter.

As the Committee continued its debate on the Board of Auditors’ reports, the representative of Sweden (on behalf of the European Union) said that there had been many improvements in peacekeeping management.  Each peacekeeping mission should be required to set out its objectives, which could be reported in the mission's budget submissions, he suggested.  This would allow a more effective assessment of missions.

Among other issues raised in the debate were the method of accounting for claims against the United Nations for equipment provided to peacekeeping missions by the military contingents that took part in them (accrual of contingent-owned equipment); the role of resident auditors; efforts to collect moneys owed by Member States; and the appropriate level of cash on hand for peacekeeping operations.

The representatives of Norway, Canada, United States, Saudi Arabia and Syria also spoke this morning.

Participating in the discussion were the representative of the United Nations Board of Auditors, South Africa's Director of External Audit, Pramesh Bhana; the Director of the Secretariat's Management Policy Office in the Department of Management, Bertrand Juppin de Fondaumiere; Wolfgang Munch, of the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) and Deputy to the Committee’s Secretary, Nora Benary.

The Committee will meet at 10 a.m. on Monday, 14 May, to consider the question of reimbursement to Member States for contingent-owned equipment.

Background

This morning, the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) was expected to conclude its general discussion of the reports of the Board of Auditors (for information on these reports, see Press Release GA/AB/3440 of 7 May) and begin consideration of delegation of authority for management of human and financial resources.

The first document to be introduced today is a report of the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) on the delegation of authority for management of human and financial resources in the United Nations Secretariat (document A/55/857), which notes that, in recent years, there has been a marked trend to create a more trusting and less restrictive management style through greater delegation of authority to line managers.  The Secretary-General's proposal for additional delegation of authority was at the core of his vision for reform.  However, the steps taken over the last few years did not appear very significant, the Inspection Unit states, notwithstanding a number of noteworthy efforts to clarify administrative rules and prepare managers for the new tasks.

Overall, the Secretariat appeared to implement delegation of authority on an ad hoc basis, without a well thought-out comprehensive strategy, the Inspectors state.  Some measures to decentralize administrative tasks have been presented as delegation of authority, while, in fact, managers have not been given additional decision-making powers.  Some officials express a dissatisfaction that delegation of authority has amounted merely to dumping of clerical tasks, without a concomitant shift of resources.  As a result, there is a good deal of confusion, suspicion and discontent among Member States, managers and staff.  Some of the "quick wins" heralded by the Administration, had been discarded as impractical, or deferred.

The Inspectors state that clear, unambiguous and current documents guiding the functioning of the Secretariat are needed to create a climate of administrative discipline and order.  It is also necessary to change entrenched bureaucratic habits through leadership and training.  Authority must be clearly defined, and formal responsibilities assigned to specific staff members.  Success will depend on the support provided to managers by administrative staff and by common services, with a clear definition of their respective roles.

Calling recent measures on delegation of authority "a mixed success", the Inspectors conclude that the reform should involve a systematic approach and identification of areas where delegation is possible.  They also stress the need to establish a culture of clarity, transparency and communication; to provide managers with resources and tools to exercise the authority delegated to them; and to establish a framework of accountability, including appropriate monitoring procedures.  The Inspectors also recommend updating relevant paragraphs of the Staff Regulations and Rules to reflect changes and provide clear guidance.

Also before the Committee were the Secretary-General's comments on the JIU report (document A/55/857/Add.1), in which the Secretary-General commends the Inspectors' assessment of the policies regarding delegation of authority. However, many of their general findings and recommendations have been overtaken by events, he states, and a number of reform initiatives appear to have been overlooked, including those on results-based budgeting and review of the administrative budgetary and programming procedures. In some cases, the recommendations seem to advocate new procedures, which differ from those already promulgated in the Secretary-General’s bulletin of 28 May 1997.

The Secretary-General states that he is unaware of any non-compliance with established procedures regarding the issuance of administrative instructions or of his bulletins.  Much effort is devoted in ensuring that every draft administrative issuance is in strict conformity with established policies.  The Secretary-General takes note of the recommendation to ensure the consistency of financial regulations, adding that a thorough review of the Financial Regulations and Rules is currently being undertaken by the Secretariat.  Steps towards the establishment of a culture of transparency and communication throughout the Secretariat have been incorporated into the human resources management strategy.

The Secretary-General remains aware that managers need to have authority over their human and financial resources, relevant information and training. Towards that end, he delegates financial management authority to heads of departments and overseas offices through the Under-Secretary-General for Management.  When the authority is granted, clear information is provided, defining its scope, expectations and the manner in which it will be monitored. Heads of departments and managers have primary responsibility for ensuring the proper exercise of delegated authority.  The Department of Management is responsible for monitoring the exercise of authority and for assisting staff in doing so properly. If necessary, authority can be reduced or withdrawn altogether.

Concerning the training of managers, the Secretary-General observes that reference to the availability of general training “to managers to whom authority is to be delegated” remains unclear.  It unfortunately gives the impression that no proper rules on delegation of authority exist.  The Secretary-General is of the opinion that when a system functions in the manner in which it should, authority is automatically delegated in accordance with the applicable rules.  By implication, therefore, one is automatically empowered with authority to make certain decisions when appointed.  The Secretary-General recognizes the need for managers at all levels to have constant and immediate access to relevant information, and the Integrated Management Information Systems (IMIS) has been developed to meet information needs in the areas of human resources and finance.

The Secretary-General’s proposed reform of human resources management envisages enhancement of the monitoring role of the Office of Human Resources Management.  To this end, it is planned to develop and implement a computerized tracking system for the human resources action plan.  Development of an automated system of recruitment, placement and promotion will also facilitate monitoring and reporting.  The Secretary-General will continue to ensure that the system of accountability outlined in the report functions effectively.  The Performance and Appraisal System (PAS), which has now been implemented Secretariat-wide, has been complemented by the programme management plan, which includes performance indicators relating to programmatic, financial and human resources management responsibilities.  The Secretary-General concurs with recommendation 11 that there must be full and meaningful consultations with staff representatives, but emphasizes, however, that such a dialogue should be constructive and results-oriented.

Statements

CARL MAGNUS NESSER (Sweden), speaking on behalf of the European Union, concurred with the recommendations of the Board of Auditors.  He regretted the late submission of the Board’s report, which significantly affected the work of the Committee.  With peacekeeping budgets growing fast, scrutiny of management and evaluation of peacekeeping should increase, and it was difficult to do it properly with reports being issued late.  Audit was an essential function, and the role of resident auditors was to facilitate control over the management of peacekeeping operations.  He was pleased to note that, apart from the issue of non-accrual of valid claims, there were no significant outstanding matters in respect of the Board’s report on the period ending June 1998.  The Board had, however, reminded the Administration to ensure full implementation of its previous recommendations, and he trusted they would be dealt with expeditiously.

Some of the Union’s concerns had been expressed in its statement on the financing of peacekeeping, he continued.  There was no need to catalogue them all today, but the Committee should address weaknesses in the management of missions.  The Board’s comments were based on an examination of some issues at different missions, and could well be applicable on a wider basis.  All too often, the Board reported problems that could have serious consequences for the implementation of missions’ mandates, including non-compliance with financial rules and regulations.

Recognizing improvements in staff training, he went on to stress its importance.  All too often, however, training took place after staff had started their duties in the missions.  In other cases, staff had been trained, but were not available for mission service.  The staff should not be placed in a position where they had to perform duties without full knowledge of what was involved.

He noted the Auditors’ comments on such issues as the verification of contingent-owned equipment, management of the Field Assets Control System, procurement, proper valuation of assets and the liquidation process.  Proper and timely training could act as an incentive to mobility or recruitment, which could go some way to alleviating the high vacancy rates experienced in some missions. Proper use should also be made of PAS.  He also noted related comments by the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ), particularly regarding procurement and inventory management. 

While many improvements had been made in peacekeeping management, there was a need to adhere to regulations and rules, he said.  To assess the effectiveness of missions more easily, each should set its own objectives, which could be reported in each mission’s budget submissions.  Missions could also explain how vacancies affected their work.  The General Assembly had recently requested something similar in its resolution on the Tribunals.  The Department of Peacekeeping Operations could monitor the setting of objectives and attainment thereof.  The process could also be considered by the Board and reported on to the Assembly.  Regarding the early discussion of accruals, in particular on claims for contingent-owned equipment, the Board had brought that issue to the Committee’s attention, and he looked forward to discussing it further.

ANNE MERCHANT (Norway) expressed strong support for the Board -- the report of which should be put to good use.  In order for Member States to assume their leading role in oversight, they must be able to devote sufficient time and attention to the subject.  That task would have been simpler if the report had reached them in advance of the resumed second session.  As for the information provided by the Auditors, she agreed with the ACABQ that the report should include progress achieved and the results and changes produced through implementing the recommendations.

With regard to contingent liabilities, the Committee had been informed that the reference to some $39.9 million related mainly to claims for contingent-owned equipment, based on the old method of reimbursement.  She noted the difference of opinion between the Board and the Administration on the treatment in the accounts of that amount.  As the new procedure would not have given rise to such a situation, she hoped that the issue would be solved as soon as possible.  She welcomed the recommendations concerning the need to avoid setting off accounts payable against accounts receivable, and agreed with the ACABQ on the need to ensure that such a practice was not extended to other United Nations operations.

The Auditors had also pointed out that an amount of $2.1 million had been obligated by the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET) without valid supporting documentation, she continued.  She supported the recommendation that the Administration should implement procedures to ensure adherence to rule 104.1 of the United Nations Financial Rules and Regulations, which required obligations to be supported by appropriate valid obligating documents.  Obligations should also be raised in the correct financial period against the appropriate budgeted amounts.  She agreed with the ACABQ that raising obligations without valid supporting documentation created a potential for fraud.

Norway welcomed the general improvement in the recoverability of staff debts, she continued.  Efforts should continue to recover those still outstanding.  Regarding determining reimbursement to Member States for contingent-owned equipment, she supported the ACABQ’s request for a comprehensive assessment, in the next audit, of all aspects of the implementation of the arrangements for contingent-owned equipment, preferably at selected representative missions.  The Board should also inquire about the adequacy and effectiveness of resident auditors. 

She also looked forward to the report of the Secretary-General on the Field Assets Control System following the completion of its evaluation by the Office of Internal Oversight Services.  Norway agreed with the ACABQ that a fully resourced peacekeeping section should be established within the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, dedicated to its procurement requirements.  The issue should be dealt with in the context of the comprehensive review of the Department.

JOHN ORR (Canada) said he joined with others in expressing disappointment at the late issuance of the report of the Board of Auditors.  He said that chapter I of the report provided a valuable overview of activities during the year.  Of particular interest was the information on peacekeeping missions, which highlighted the fact that, while only 12 such missions were currently active, there were 30 missions listed as having available cash or liabilities.  He understood that the main reason many of those missions remained on the books was because of the failure or refusal of some Member States to pay their assessed contributions.  He called on all Member States to honour their Charter obligations and pay their assessments in full.  He wondered what steps, if any, had been taken to collect those long overdue debts.

He also wondered why the report stated that some $20.1 million remained in the accounts of the United Nations Transition Assistance Group in Namibia (UNTAG) when liabilities were virtually zero.  There were several other closed missions where cash was greater than liabilities, and he believed that cash should be paid out and the books closed, with the remaining cash returned to Member States.  He also wanted to know what the Secretariat’s view was on the appropriate level of monthly cash on hand for peacekeeping operations.  He recalled that last year Canada had expressed concern at failure to disclose, in financial statements, the liabilities incurred by the Organization.  He welcomed the fact that that practice had changed substantially from last year.  He also believed that management shortcomings identified by the Board should be addressed systematically, and supported the recommendations of the ACABQ with respect to improving the quality of civilian staff in peacekeeping missions, particularly offering longer-term contracts if missions were terminated.  It was difficult, he added, for the Organization to recruit the best and brightest if they were unsure whether they could be offered more than a six-month contract.

THOMAS REPASCH (United States) said an important component of oversight of the Organization was timely review of reports.  It was regrettable that the very comprehensive report of the Auditors had been issued late.  The findings must be studied carefully so that they could be used as the Committee reviewed the budgets of peacekeeping missions.  He hoped this serious issue could be addressed as soon as possible. 

The United States noted that the process of reviewing memoranda of understanding was duplicated in two different parts of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations.  He hoped that could be corrected and the resulting savings could be put to better use elsewhere in that department.  In light of the information in the report, he also wondered whether the Secretariat saw vendor performance evaluation as an important matter.  The report also noted that two missions had raised miscellaneous documents for transportation services that appeared to be in contravention of United Nations financial requirements, and wondered if the Secretariat would comment on that.  Finally, he said that, as of November, nearly 20 per cent of the Organization’s post positions remained unfilled.  He would like to know what processes were under way to address that important issue.

AHMED FARID (Saudi Arabia) said that the ACABQ in its report had stressed that procurement and inventory management were large investments by the Organization, and that it was essential to ensure that adequate qualified staff were assigned and trained for that purpose.  Those were very pertinent remarks, which should be taken into account.  He also drew attention to the statement by the Auditors that the Field Assets Control System must be updated and maintained in a timely manner, by tracking equipment bar codes. It was necessary to focus on that area, as well.

The Deputy to the Committee’s Secretary, NORA BENARY, said that the Office of Documentation and Publications had provided an explanation regarding the late issuance of the Board of Auditors’ report.  In that response, the Office had acknowledged the importance of the document and the problems encountered as a result of its late issuance.  The volume was submitted on time, in February, but it was lengthy and difficult to process.  Longer manuscripts moved more slowly through the system.  Also, the Office had been involved in processing documents for the first resumed session and the pre-session documentation for the current session.  The bulk of those documents had been issued expeditiously, but the report in question had, unfortunately, fallen behind.

On behalf of the Board of Auditors, the Director of External Audit of South Africa, PRAMESH BHANA, thanked the Committee for its interest in the report and took note of particular comments from the floor.  Many issues had been raised in the discussion, including the question of liability for some $39.9 million claims.  The Board believed that once claims had been submitted and verified as valid, a liability was created.  Accordingly, those claims should be accrued in the period when they were validated.  The qualified opinion was not issued, however, because the Secretariat had followed procedures in conformity with relevant rules and regulations.  Also, the Board had taken account of the Administration’s efforts to reduce the level of accrued liabilities by some 73 per cent.  The old system of the contingent-owned equipment had been significantly improved, and the Board expected that such accrued liabilities would be phased out in the near future.

He acknowledged the concern of some delegates regarding the late issuance of the Board’s report and pointed out that the report had been signed by the members of the Board at the end of January and submitted on time.  He concurred that resident auditors were useful in ensuring proper audit process.  Regarding equipment, he said that the managements of a number of missions were taking measures to better control equipment under their custody. 

Turning to the use of miscellaneous obligating documentation in contravention of the rules, he said that the rules prohibited the use of such documents for transportation and purchase of goods and other requirements.  There was no justification for their use, and the Board had noted that issue. 

BERTRAND JUPPIN DE FONDUMIERE, Director of the Secretariat's Management Policy Office in the Department of Management, said the Secretariat had taken note of the Committee's concern about the use of the $39.9 million in claims for contingent-owned equipment, and assured Members that actions taken did, indeed, adhere to the financial regulations and requirements of the United Nations.  He added that the issue of treatment of contingent liabilities had been difficult to address, as the Organization had adopted the accrual system of accounting, and there were no Assembly resolutions on a mechanism to record such funds.

He said that continuous efforts were being made by the Administration to collect overdue debts.  Requests were constantly being made and reminders being sent out to States on what was owed.  On the appropriate level of cash on hand, he said that amount actually fluctuated from year to year.  It was affected by the activities under way in peacekeeping operations, in general.  He noted the amount decreased last year because several missions, including UNTAET and the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC), had required particular attention calling for increased resources.

Mr. ORR (Canada) said, while he appreciated the Secretariat’s response to queries on the late issuance of documents, he felt that the rather “process oriented” answer did not address the critical concerns of the Committee, namely, that such a comprehensive document had been dropped on their desks with under two days for review.  In fact, the same thing had occurred last year.  He said that the Committee would look carefully at this issue when it examined the budget for Conference Services next year, particularly as regarded outsourcing of materials for processing.

WOLFGANG MUNCH, of the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU), then introduced that body's report on delegation of authority for the management of human and financial resources (document A/55/857).  He said that the Unit strongly supported the Secretary-General’s overall reform package, of which the issue of delegation of authority was a large part.  Indeed, as the global community began to expect more and more of the United Nations, it would become more essential to ensure important managerial functions, such as delegation of authority of both human and financial resources, were strengthened.  He said that the basic message of the report was that delegation of authority should be based on a systematically thought-out and comprehensive plan of action.  While recognizing the difficulties that could be encountered when attempting to implement new ways of thinking in the Secretariat, he felt that greater progress could be achieved

He went on to say that having observed that clear policies and procedures were not always followed, the Inspection Unit recommended that the Secretary-General take steps to ensure strict compliance with procedures for the promulgation of administrative issuances.  He said that the Unit had also recommended that, in addition to the delegation of authority, there should also be a system of individual delegation orders.  The obvious aim of that recommendation was to ensure that individual staff members to whom certain authority had been delegated were explicitly aware of their roles and responsibilities. 

He was somewhat puzzled by the Secretariat’s response to that approach -- that delegation of authority should be made “generic” through bulletins or instructions, and that it was “clear that proper delegation of authority existed within the Secretariat”.  It was still the JIU's view that proper delegation orders would reduce the amount of confusion about responsibilities within the Organization.  He said that the recommendation on the empowerment of managers had little to do with the existence of proper rules on delegation of authority, as had been suggested in the Secretary-General’s report.  Indeed, the Unit’s thrust was for the provision of specialized training and briefings, as well as adequate support services, so that managers would not be “left alone” in the fulfilment of their duties.

Introducing the Secretary-General’s comments on the JIU report on delegation of authority, RAFIAH SALIM, Assistant Secretary-General for Human Resources Management, said that the Secretary-General welcomed the comments of the Inspectors and their recognition of the efforts made to promote delegation of authority to programme managers.  It was especially inspiring to see that a number of the Unit’s recommendations were parallel to the Secretariat’s evaluation of the challenges and required solutions in that area, since many of the Inspectors’ findings and recommendations had been overtaken by events.  A number of reform initiatives had been proposed by the Secretary-General for practical implementation.  In particular, she wanted to draw the Committee’s attention to the initiatives contained in his reports on accountability and responsibility, and on human resources management reform. 

While the Secretary-General provided comments on each of the

10 recommendations contained in the JIU’s report, one issue partially fell within her sphere of responsibility –- that was recommendation 6, on promulgation of individual delegation orders, she continued.  The Unit recommended instituting individual delegation of authority, in addition to the existing general delegation of authority, and providing clear definitions of the authority thus delegated.  The Secretary-General believed that instruments for proper delegation of authority did exist in the Secretariat, and provided an appropriate framework to adjust the levels of the delegation and ensure responsibility and accountability of United Nations officials.  Of course, the system could be further improved, and that was the aim of the Secretary-General’s recent initiatives. 

However, she said, it appeared that the two-tier mechanism of delegation of authority -– at the organizational and the individual levels (through documents ST/STB/1997/5 on the organization of the Secretariat and ST/STB/213/Rev.1 on designation of staff performing significant functions) in addition to the relevant regulations and rules -- presented a sound basis, on which the system of the delegation of authority in the Secretariat could effectively function.

SEYED MORTEZA MIRMOHHAMMAD (Iran), speaking on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China, expressed concern over the late issuance of the Secretary-General’s comments.  If they had been submitted on time, the Committee would have been able to consider both reports earlier.  He asked for explanations for their late release.

Any delegation of authority should be in accordance with the Charter and should entail clear definition of the lines of both authority and responsibilities.  In general, supporting the Unit’s recommendation 2, on the need for clarity in the formulation of policies and procedures, the Group attached particular importance to strict compliance with the procedures set out for the issuance of administrative instructions.  Recommendation 6 provided a number of clear guidelines for delegation of authority and was in line with the Group’s concerns on that delegation.  He asked for clarification as to whether that recommendation called for additional delegation.

Also important was recommendation 9, on monitoring, he said, for the Assembly had frequently emphasized the need for introducing a well designed mechanism for accountability before delegating authority.  He also attached great importance to recommendation 11, on the need for consultations with staff representatives, on the matter.

Mr. FARID (Saudi Arabia) said his delegation aligned itself with the statement made by the representative of Iran, on behalf of the Group of 77.  He supported the view that performance evaluations and indicators should be established when considering delegation of authority.  The Committee’s attention should also be drawn to recommendation 6 of the report, on clearly defining the delegation of authority of individuals.  His delegation would make further comments during informal consultations.

ABDOU AL-MOULA NAKKARI (Syria), also supporting the statement of the Group of 77, said recommendation 6, on the promulgation of individual authority. was essential, and could address many of the concerns of the Assembly, which had asked for a clear system of accountability before delegation of authority was undertaken.  That would help the Secretariat establish the proper machinery for delegation of authority.  His delegation disagreed that the current system of delegation of authority was balanced.  He expressed satisfaction that the report had been prepared in consultation with the Organization’s staff representatives.

Mr. REPASCH (United States) said that the report was interesting and important, but it had highlighted what was perhaps a deficiency in the oversight process. Indeed, it might not be optimally effective for the Committee to consider the related reports -– one of a year-long review and another on the Secretariat’s comments on that review which noted that many of its findings and recommendations had been overtaken by events in the interval.  The conflicting information in the reports seemed to present the Committee with a “cat fight” to deal with.  Perhaps a more consultative process would be a more effective form of oversight.

ABDALLA ABDALLA (Libya) said that the question of the delegation of authority, particularly for the Office of Human Resources Management, was particularly important.  That had been emphasized in all meetings on human resources management.  It was also very thorny -- not easy at all.  He would have liked to see a multi-stage approach, rather than a complete delegation of authority, because he did not believe that the current units of the Organization had the ability or the logistical support to fully exercise complete authority. 

There was an urgent need to train managers themselves and support staff, he said.  The issues of human resources management dealt with laws, rules and regulations, as well as legal interpretation and precedent.  Thus, it was important to prepare the ground before cultivating plants there.  Training was an extremely important issue and must take place before implementing any delegation of authority.  The JIU report was a useful document, and he attached great importance to the recommendation regarding consultations with staff representatives.  What was needed was not just pro forma, but in-depth consultations.  To diagnose an illness and prescribe the correct medicine, a doctor needed a consultation with the patient, and he felt that the same approach should be applied by the Administration in this case.

Another point of great importance was the question of accountability and responsibility of managers for the use and possible abuse of authority, he said.  No satisfactory information had been provided by management on that.  Therefore, he would like the topic to be given enough priority.  Also, the role of central  administration in general supervision and monitoring should not be underestimated.  It was important to define and delegate authority in a precise and accurate way, with managers exercising authority within defined limits.

Responding to the questions and comments from the floor, Inspector MUNCH thanked all the delegations for their interest in the report of the JIU and the interesting issues raised in the debate.  The gist of the interpretation of recommendation 6 was that specific rules and procedures were to be observed.  He agreed with the remarks on unsatisfactory oversight, saying that, in his view, that was, indeed, the case.

Turning to the Secretary-General’s comments to the report, he agreed that it was not satisfactory that seven months had passed before they were issued.  It would be better if the statute of the Inspection Unit was respected, as drafted: three months were provided for delivering the comments on one organization.  When comments referred to several organizations, they were to be provided within six months.  If the comments had been provided on time, the subject could have been

discussed in depth sooner.  He also agreed that the recommendation regarding training was of central importance.

Assistant Secretary-General SALIM said she looked forward to detailed deliberation on the report during informal consultations, particularly on recommendation 6 of the JIU report.  The issue of promulgation of individual delegation orders was not about additional authority, but about clarification of authority and establishing proper instruments to ensure such clarification.

Mr. DUPPIN DE FONDAUMIERE said he had taken note of the concerns expressed by many delegations on the amount of time that had lapsed between the Inspection Unit review and the report of the Secretary-General.  He drew attention to that fact that, in October, when the report was presented to the Secretariat, many of the parties that were to comment on its findings were involved in other high- priority endeavours.  He apologized for the delay in the consultation process, which accounted for the lateness in the issuance of the report.

Mr. REPASCH (United States) said his delegation was looking for some ideas on how to strengthen the inspection process, by perhaps making it more consultative.

Mr. ABDALLA (Libya) asked who had taken part in the consultations on the recommendations of JIU.

Mr. MUNCH said that according to the statute of the Unit on standards and procedures for inquiries and investigations, the secretariat of an organization was invited to make substantive comments on specific aspects of the Unit’s investigation.  In fact, it was generally felt that the more detailed the comments were, the better informed was the Unit’s overall review.  Unfortunately, the dialogue between the Unit and secretariats often were contradictory.  Moreover, the consultation process might tend to delay the issuance of reports.

Mr. JUPPIN DE FUNDAUMIERE said consultations on items in the Inspection Unit report took place within the Secretariat.

* *** *