FIFTH COMMITTEE DEBATE FOCUSES ON PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO PLANNING, BUDGETING PROCESS

Fifty-eighth General Assembly

Fifth Committee

23^rd Meeting (AM)

FIFTH COMMITTEE DEBATE FOCUSES ON PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS

TO PLANNING, BUDGETING PROCESS

The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) this morning focused on the proposed improvements to the current process of planning and budgeting and on the administration of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Introducing the mock-ups of the proposed formats of a biennial programme plan and budget outline, which would be incorporated in the strategic framework proposed by the Secretary-General, the United Nations Controller, Jean-Pierre Halbwachs, explained that they had been prepared to facilitate decision-making by the Committee.  Limited format changes were being proposed to synchronize the processes of programme planning and preparing the budget outline.

Commenting on the proposals, Canada’s representative, also speaking on behalf of Australia and New Zealand, said everybody knew that performance reporting and evaluation were not well linked to the budget process and that improvements were urgently required so that the lessons of the past could influence the decisions about the future.  The Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) had observed that the new document looked so much like its predecessor that it did not appear to be shorter or more strategic, and he agreed that the proposal did not address all shortcomings.  The important changes, however, lay in the fact that the cycle itself was being made both more strategic and more responsive to the need for Member States to participate more effectively in it.

The proposal created a strategic connection between programme and resource planning, he continued.  Under the new arrangement, the budget outline would be prepared after the programme plan had been considered by the Committee for Programme and Coordination (CPC).  At present, the budget outline was simply free-standing and was not inherently influenced by planning decisions.  The two-year horizon would not only allow for more agile and responsive budgeting, but also remove the need for the CPC to review the programme budget, reducing a time-consuming burden with little added value for Member States and Secretariat alike.

Cuba’s representative emphasized the importance of serious analysis in the current planning and budgeting process and measures to improve it, without impairing any bodies, processes or instruments just because they were considered of marginal importance by some countries.  Improvement of the medium-term plan, strengthening the CPC, changes in the budget process, including preparation of the outline and the way in which the budget was adopted, were agreed upon by wide- ranging, intergovernmental agreement.  To press for decisions that would violate that agreement would impair forever the confidence placed in such negotiations.

As the Committee continued its discussion on the administration and management of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, delegates commended the Office for steps it had taken to improve its management, while, at the same time, noting that it had implemented only several of the recommendations of the Office of Internal Oversight Services.  The Office needed to develop a more strategic and forward-looking view of what it sought to accomplish, they said, to update related programmatic and administrative systems and to adopt the organizational structure accordingly.  A key factor contributing to the strain on the Office was the disparity between resources and workload.  Member States had a responsibility to be clear and disciplined in tasking the Office.

The representatives of Venezuela, Botswana, United States, Egypt, Jordan and Japan all made statements.  Dennis Thatchaichawalit, Office of Programme Planning, Budget and Accounts, responded to delegates’ questions.

The Committee will continue its work at 10 a.m. Thursday, 4 December, when it is scheduled to take up the Capital Master Plan for refurbishing the United Nations Headquarters and the report of the Joint Inspection Unit on the review of its statute.

Background

The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) this morning was expected to continue its consideration of the proposed changes in the current planning and budgeting process and the administration and management of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.  (For background information on related documents, see Press Releases GA/AB/3586 of 31 October and GA/AB/3595 of 26 November.)

Before the Committee was a note of the Secretary-General (document A/58/600), prepared to facilitate decision-making by the Committee on the proposals to improve and rename the medium-term plan and create a better budget outline.  Those initiatives are among the measures being considered to improve the current process of planning and budgeting.

The document includes mock-ups to illustrate the proposed formats of a biennial programme plan and budget outline to be incorporated as parts I and II of the strategic framework proposed by the Secretary-General.  It also summarizes the decisions being sought on the proposals of the Secretary-General.

The Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ), in a related report (document A/58/610), requests that the Secretary-General clearly identify ways in which the content and structure of the medium-term plan could be modified to make it more streamlined.

The Advisory Committee also recalls that it had requested the Secretary-General to clarify how the medium-term plan could be made an instrument of policy rather than a listing of activities (see document A/58/7/Add.5, para. 9).  The Committee points out that this request has not been addressed in the note.  As yet there has still been no analysis of the problems, in the current budget process, in allocating resources according to priorities in the plan and outline documents.

Moreover, the Advisory Committee points out that the note does not address its request that clarification be provided with regard to the proposed measures to improve the current process of programme planning, monitoring and evaluation, including a modified biennial programme performance report and improved format and timing of evaluation reports.

Should the General Assembly wish to proceed to take decisions on the proposals contained in paragraph 5 of the note by the Secretary-General, the Advisory Committee will provide further comments and recommendations when it takes up the plan and the outline.  Since the changes now being proposed are minimal, there will be only minimal consequential amendments to the relevant financial and planning regulations.

Introduction of Documents

United Nations Controller JEAN-PIERRE HALBWACHS introduced a note of the Secretary-General (document A/58/600), which has been prepared to facilitate decision-making by the Committee on the proposals to improve the medium-term plan and budget outline.  Limited format changes were being proposed to synchronize the processes of programme planning and preparing the budget outline.

Introducing the related ACABQ report, the Chairman of that body, CONRAD S.M. MSELLE, said that the Advisory Committee’s comments were brief and preliminary, referring to the issues that had not been clarified in the note of the Secretary-General.  Should the General Assembly wish to take action on the minimal changes proposed, the Advisory Committee would provide further comments and clarifications.

Statements

NORMA GOICOCHEA ESTONEZ (Cuba) took note of the fact that the Secretary-General’s report was prepared pursuant to a request put forward by the Fifth Committee at its nineteenth meeting.  That posed a serious procedural problem, as the Committee had not adopted a decision on the item.  She requested that the summary records of the nineteenth meeting be distributed.  While she appreciated the interest in reaching a decision as soon as possible on the matter, all due prudence must be used and the Committee must act using established procedures to ensure that the decision took into account the interest of all Member States.  The Cuban delegation had participated in negotiations leading to the adoption of resolution 57/300, and the follow-up to decision in that resolution must be transparent and preserve the confidence among Member States and the various main bodies.

She said Cuba attached great importance to serious analysis in the current planning and budgeting process and measures to improve it, without impairing any bodies, processes or instruments just because they were considered of marginal importance by some countries.  Improvement on the medium-term plan, strengthening the Committee for Programme and Coordination (CPC), changes in the budget process, including preparation of the outline and the way in which the budget was adopted, were agreed on by wide-ranging, intergovernmental agreement.  To press for decisions that would violate that agreement would impair forever the confidence placed in such negotiations.  The General Assembly must provide specific guidelines on the mock-ups.  Existing gaps in the analysis of the existing gaps in the current planning and budgeting process were needed.

In view of the status of the Fifth Committee’s work, she proposed that the matter be held in abeyance until the fifty-ninth regular session, which would make it possible to collectively arrive at true improvements to the process, which would go beyond the contents of the Secretary-General’s report.  She also proposed that summary records of meetings where reform was discussed be made available.

ASDRUBAL PULIDO LÉON (Venezuela) said he attached great important to the budgetary reform process, which must be wide ranging.  The United Nations required a budgeting process that was more effective.  However, he would have hoped for a more profound change.  What had been presented did not dispel his concerns.  The ACABQ’s report said that the information provided by the Secretariat was vague.  He asked the Controller to answer the questions raised by the ACABQ in its report.  That body had reached the conclusion that a biennial programming process would not be any more expeditious than the current plan.  It was his understanding that the Secretariat was well prepared to conduct the reform process in the planning and budgeting process.  He reiterated his commitment to reform in the budgeting process.  To achieve that, however, more explicit information was needed.

JERRY KRAMER (Canada), also speaking on behalf of Australia and New Zealand, said that that the mock-ups before the Committee displayed how the two-part strategic framework envisaged by the Secretary-General could look, comprised of a biennial programme plan in part I and a budget outline in part II.  The delegations could see in black and white that the biennial programme plan mirrored the format and structure of the medium-term plan, with the key difference being the two-year time horizon, rather than the present four.  The format for the budget outline was also very similar to what was already being used, with the main changes being some additional information in tables that told more about the composition of resource demands.  Perhaps the one new table challenged the Committee, just a little bit more than in the past, to think about changes in the pattern of resource distribution.

While valuing the contributions of the ACABQ on many subjects, he continued, on this occasion the delegations he represented respectfully differed from its observations.  The present note of the Secretary-General, together with the supplementary information provided, had responded reasonably well to the few substantive points raised by the Advisory Committee in its earlier report.  The ACABQ had done the Committee a service in suggesting mock-ups, because they tended to clarify things, yet in paragraph 4 of its report, the Advisory Committee seemed concerned that the Secretary-General had responded quickly and submitted the mock-ups without the benefit of guidance from the General Assembly.  No guidance could have been given without the mock-ups, because of uncertainty among delegations about what they were dealing with.  The process suggested by the ACABQ in paragraph 7 of its report A/58/7/Add.5 could inadvertently have deferred any change for four years, because the Committee risked missing the next cycle.

The ACABQ also restated its earlier observation that the timing of consideration of the biennial programme plan and the budget outline should be clarified, he said.  That was a good question, and he thanked the Secretary-General for having provided the specific timing in page 5 of the supplementary information provided to the Committee on 13 November.  The timing scenario sensibly reflected the ACABQ’s suggestion that the outline be prepared after the biennial programme plan was considered.

Responding to the observations by the ACABQ that the new document looked so much like its predecessor that it did not appear to be shorter or more strategic, he said that he would be the first to agree that the proposal before the Committee did not address all the shortcomings.  However, the important changes lay not in how the documents looked, but in the fact that the cycle itself was being made both more strategic and more responsive to the need to enable Member States to participate more effectively in it.

The positive attributes of the proposal were the strategic connection between programme planning and resource planning, he added.  Under the new arrangement, the budget outline would be prepared after the programme plan had been considered by the CPC.  The two-year horizon would not only allow for more agile and responsive budgeting and lead to a more purposeful and strategic plan by allowing sharper definitions of expected accomplishments, but also remove the need for the CPC to review the programme budget, reducing a time-consuming burden with little added value for Member States and Secretariat alike.

Everybody knew that the performance reporting and evaluation were not well linked to the budget process and that improvements were urgently required, so that the lessons of the past could influence the decisions about the future, he said.  Those changes would be needed even if revisions to the budget cycle were not being considered.  The proposals of the Secretary-General would enhance evaluation by sharpening the definition of expected accomplishments and by creating space for the CPC to devote more attention to evaluation work and drawing conclusions from it.

He did not want to be misunderstood, he said.  It was not his intention to proclaim the great virtues of the Secretary-General’s proposals, which represented only a very modest change.  However, they had merit and, if only modest, the change was at least progressive.  With the hopes for more substantial improvements having been trimmed back because initial proposals had seemed too radical to some, it would be disingenuous for the Committee to now refuse those steps on the grounds that they were too conservative.  The Committee did not have to solve everything before it did anything at all.

COLLEN VIXEN KELAPILE (Botswana), speaking on behalf of the African Group, stressed the importance of the subject and requested another formal meeting on the issue to allow the Group to further study the documents before the Committee.

HOWARD STOFFER (United States) associated himself with the comments made by the representative of Canada.  The report presented modest proposals.  Small steps must be taken to see if the proposal worked now, in order to evaluate whether those proposals could work for the 2006-2007 budget.  If those small steps were deferred now, there would be no change for five years.  That was not acceptable.  The Secretary-General had made a genuine effort.  It was a moderate step forward that gave the CPC a very meaningful role.  The Committee only had 12 days in which to finish its work.  While the Committee could not stop time, it could stop its ability to get its work done.  He would reserve the right to speak if there was an unnecessary formal meeting on the issue.

Responding to questions, Mr. HALBWACHS noted that the report did not deal with everything, but was limited to the question of the mock-ups.  In a handout dated 13 September 2003, the Secretariat had addressed all questions raised on the matter, including the question of how the medium term plan could be made an instrument of policy.  On the issue of output and resource requirements made available to Member States in the budget fascicle, report A/58/395 answered that question.

YASSER ELNAGGAR (Egypt) said that the procedure followed by the Committee when considering various topics was important.  When questions were posed and when the ACABQ asked for specific clarifications, answers must be provided in writing and translated.

MOHAMMAD TAL (Jordan) said that many questions remained unanswered.  He was concerned that the time at the Committee’s disposal was limited and the reform proposals were very modest.  At the same time, it was necessary to move forward.  He supported a request by Botswana to hold an additional meeting on the matter.

SHINICHI YAMANAKA (Japan) recognized the important role played by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and considered improvement of its management as indispensable.  Commending efforts to improve its management, he noted that only three of the 17 recommendations by the Office for Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) had been implemented.  He was interested in the current status of the recommendations, in particular, on the subject of posts, as well as the information requested by the delegate of Cuba last week.

Mr. KRAMER (Canada), speaking also on behalf of Australia and New Zealand, said the report brought together information on two distinct but mutually reinforcing initiatives, namely, the Secretary-General’s agenda for further change and the management review initiated through the budget resolution two years ago.  The Oversight Office report was primarily about organizational change and painted a portrait of an office that had made significant contributions to the promotion and protection of human rights.  It was, at the same time, an office on which Member States conferred new mandates without commensurate budgetary means.

The main theme of the OIOS was the need for the Office to develop a more strategic and forward-looking view of what it sought to accomplish, to update related programmatic and administrative systems, and to adopt the organizational structure accordingly.  A key factor contributing to the strain on the Office was the disparity between resources and workload.  Member States had a responsibility to be clear and disciplined in tasking the Office.

There was no doubt that the management and administrative improvements recommended by the OIOS would require disciplined attention of the Office’s leadership, he said.  There was a clear view, however, of what needed to be done and a basic framework for systematic implementation of the OIOS recommendations.  He was pleased that the Office had set out a clear vision of human rights protection systems at the country level and of the centrality of fieldwork.  The Office’s new structure represented a more coherent model.  He wondered if the positive steps that were in line with OIOS recommendations had already been implemented.  He appreciated the clarity with which the Secretary-General’s report had related the reform and management changes to the resource proposals set out in the proposed programme budget.

Responding to questions and comments from the floor, the Officer in Charge of the Economic, Social and Human Rights Service, Office of Programme Planning, Budget and Accounts, DENNIS THATCHAICHAWALIT, said that three of the recommendations contained in the report had been completely implemented.  The rest were being implemented, but had not yet been fully completed.  Regarding the conversion of some 100 series posts to 200 series, he clarified that such action was being taken in response to one of the OIOS recommendations. It did not change the source of funding, only the contractual status of staff who were dealing with technical assistance, particularly those assigned to field offices.

Regarding the Petition Unit, he said that, historically, there had been a need to deal with petitions received under various treaties.  In view of the workload involved, it was felt that such efforts had to be properly organized to ensure efficient implementation of mandated activities.

Regarding the position of the Chief of Staff, he said that it was intended to ensure integration of input from various substantive services within the Office.  The proposal was also in response to one of the recommendations of the Oversight Office, which referred to the need to streamline the organizational structure of the Office.  The D-2 would, in fact, be the office manager for the High Commissioner.  He would also maintain liaison with governments, international entities and institutions dealing with human rights.

* *** *