Fifty-eighth General Assembly

Fifth Committee

25^th Meeting (AM)

BUDGET COMMITTEE REVIEWS STATUTE, WORKING METHODS OF JOINT INSPECTION UNIT

Returning to the proposed review of the statute and working methods of the Joint Inspection Unit for the second time during this session, members of the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) this morning expressed appreciation to the inspectors who had prepared an updated report on the matter, which not only analyses the main problems, but also identifies possible ways to overcome them.

Introducing that document, Chairman of the Unit, Armando Duque, recalled that there was general agreement on the part of the membership on the need to maintain the Unit as a valuable tool -- the only independent external oversight organ with competence over the entire United Nations system of organizations, funds and programmes.  However, some reforms were needed to improve its functioning, and the Unit had elaborated on some of the main issues, which it had formerly identified as impediments to the effective discharge of its functions.

Discussing measures to improve the quality and impact of the Unit’s activities, the representative of Italy (on behalf of the European Union) identified three main issues, which needed to be addressed:  selection of inspectors; strengthening the role of the chair; and individual and collective responsibility of inspectors for preparation of reports.  On the second of those issues, he said that the statute currently gave a merely representative function to the chair of the Unit, who, he believed, should be elected for three years and should be responsible for the programme of work and quality of the reports.  In preparing reports, the Unit should act only under collective responsibility, and the inspectors should meet certain quality standards.

Most delegates taking part in the debate agreed that it was necessary to approve a job description for inspectors and establish a list of qualifications required for the discharge of their functions.  Several speakers also supported the proposal that an advisory candidate review panel be established to review candidates using the agreed job description, with the Unit becoming a proactive partner in that respect.

Senegal’s representative, however, supported maintaining the existing rules for selection and nomination of inspectors without trying “to reinvent the wheel”, or turning inspectors into micromanagers.  Regarding the deficit in research staff, he said that it was necessary to establish a desirable ratio between the number of inspectors and research assistants by increasing the number of assistants.  According to the report, however, some sought to reduce the number of inspectors, which had not changed in many years, even though the volume of the work of the Unit had grown.

On the preparation of the Unit’s programme of work, Saudi Arabia’s representative said that it should be determined by the General Assembly.  Also, concurring with the point of view that the Chairman of the Unit should have a stronger and more permanent role, he proposed raising the level of that post from D-2 to Under-Secretary-General.  Relocating the Unit from Geneva to New York was important and would allow for greater interaction.

Also this morning, as the Committee took up the capital master plan to update the United Nations Headquarters complex, the United States representative called attention to the size of the staff involved -- nine Professional and 11 General Service posts.  In that connection, he advocated a very conservative approach to hiring, with any further expansion favouring the technical aspects of the project.  Without detailed accounting of the posts, it was impossible to weigh the merits of the expertise brought together for such an important effort.  Project management skills could and should be procured through contract and not through establishing posts, as contract staff could be expanded or reduced with the normal ebb and flow of the project.

Also speaking this morning were representatives of Cuba, Canada (also on behalf of Australia and New Zealand), Nigeria and the United Republic of Tanzania.

Other documents were introduced by Executive Director of the Capital Master Plan, Toshiyuki Niwa; Under-Secretary-General for Internal Oversight Services, Dileep Nair; Chairman of the Audit Operations Committee, Alain Gilette; and Chairman of the ACABQ, Conrad S.M. Mselle.

The Committee will continue its work at a date to be announced.

Background

The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) this morning was expected to take up the capital master plan for the refurbishment of the United Nations Headquarters in New York and the report on the review of the statute of the Joint Inspection Unit.

Capital Master Plan

On this agenda item, the Committee had before it a Secretary-General’s report (document A/58/599), which outlines the work undertaken in the context of the project during the year and provides details on the utilization of funds approved to date for project implementation.  The overall schedule for the implementation of the plan is dependent on the progress of technical preparations and availability of funding and swing space.  Progress has been made in all three areas, which remain coordinated although behind the initial schedule.

The Secretary-General formally established the capital master plan office and appointed its Executive Director on 1 February 2003.  At present, the total strength of the office comprises nine Professional and higher and 11 General Service posts.

Regarding the project’s financing, the report states that discussions are still ongoing with the host country regarding funding modalities.  However, this process is expected to result in a funding proposal in early 2004, with possible funding availability for the plan in 2005.

The report further explains that the Assembly initially appropriated an amount of $8 million for the preparation of a comprehensive design plan and detailed cost analysis of the capital master plan.  The residual balance of that provision in the amount of $3,700 has been reported as savings to the General Assembly in the context of the second performance report for the biennium 2000-2001.

Later, by its resolution 57/292, the Assembly has further appropriated an amount of $25.5 million for the biennium 2002-2003 for design and related project management costs.  To date, of that provision the amount of $16.87 million has been committed for the implementation of the plan, including $2.08 million for staff costs, $14.17 million for contractual services, and $618,700 for equipment, furniture and other operating expenses.  Also by 57/292, the Assembly authorized the Secretary-General to enter into commitments of up to $26 million for the biennium 2004-2005 for the remaining work related to design, project management and pre-construction services.

The availability of swing space -- the proposed new building to be known as the UNDC5 building -- is currently projected for the second half of 2007.  Current activities on this schedule include the design competition to select the architect for the building.  The capital master plan office has entered into contracts with 21 vendors in the context of implementation of a design stage of the project, awarding contracts for a total amount of $12.3 million.  Some of the proposed measures related to the efforts to strengthen the safety and security of the United Nations premises.

In its related report (document A/58/7/Add.15), the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) notes that, as the capital master plan will be a time-limited and specialized project of the Secretariat, to be implemented on a phased basis, additional staffing for the plan should be requested in accordance with the actual workload requirements in each phase.  Before submitting proposals for additional staffing, the Advisory Committee trusts that the Secretary-General will take full account of available in-house expertise both within the Department of Management, as well as elsewhere in the Secretariat.  Care must also be taken not to replicate existing organizational structures and staffing resources, but rather to maximize opportunities for coordination and collaboration.

As the Assembly, in its resolution 57/292, requested the Board of Auditors and other oversight bodies to initiate immediate oversight activities over the capital master plan and to report annually thereon, the Committee had before it a progress report of the Board of Auditors (document A/58/321).  According to the document, the activities and actual expenditures related to the capital master plan are limited at the present time.  Therefore, the first audit of the financial statements will cover the biennium ended 31 December 2003.  The Board’s first report on the capital master plan will accordingly be transmitted to the Assembly for consideration at the fifty-ninth session.

According to a related report by the Office of Internal Oversight Services (document A/58/342), the process of issuing requests for proposals for the purpose of selecting architectural and engineering firms under the capital master plan has advanced satisfactorily.  There is reasonable assurance that the process thus far has been transparent and fair and that internal controls in the request for proposals process appeared adequate.  However, the real oversight challenge for the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) will begin when the United Nations starts negotiating contracts with the firms selected, which will deliver designs that meet not only all the requirements set forth by the Secretariat, but also the expectations of the Member States.

The OIOS will continue to carry out its oversight duties for each phase of the capital master plan project on a concurrent basis as the contracts are awarded and executed.  The OIOS will require support and resources to accomplish these tasks, it states.

Joint Inspection Unit Statute

Following the introduction earlier in the session of the report of the Joint Inspection Unit on the preliminary review of its statute and working methods (document A/58/343) (see Press Release GA/AB/3573 of 7 October), the Committee had before it an updated report (document A/58/343/Add.1), which presents to the Assembly for its consideration an in-depth analysis of the issues previously identified as the most problematic.  The document reflects the views expressed by the secretariats of its participating organizations, as well as Member States during the current session of the Assembly.

The report not only analyses the problems, but also identifies possible ways to overcome them, with a view to improving the quality and impact of the Unit’s activities.  Among the main proposed actions presented in the report are formal adoption of a job description and a list of desirable qualifications for members of the Unit; endorsement of new procedures for the establishment of an advisory candidate review panel; review of the ratio of inspectors to research staff; and determination of modalities for the election of the Chairman of the Unit and applicable conditions of service.

According to the report, the Assembly may wish to review article 5 of the statute to assess whether it still reflects the functions and mandate of the Unit accurately and to concur with the Unit’s strategic framework.  Also proposed in the document is further clarification of the question whether full responsibility for all reports rests collectively with the Unit, in which case they should be issued as reports of the Unit, or whether inspectors should continue signing their respective reports, in which case they should bear individual responsibility for their contents.  The first option may require amendment of the statute.

Introduction of Reports

Introducing the Secretary-General’s first progress report on the capital master plan, the Executive Director of the United Nations capital master plan, TOSHIYUKI NIWA, said tangible progress had been made in key areas of the plan’s implementation.  In terms of funding, the host country was considering certain options and he hoped it would be in a position to advise other States in 2004.  He expected full design work to be under way in early 2004.  On the programme management firm, that firm would perform a number of services, including an independent technical review of design work.  It would also maintain the project’s schedule.

There were two different developments on the swing space building, he said.  The city began the selection process with the United Nations participation, and he expected a final decision in the coming weeks.  The city had encountered delays, however, as a result of litigation efforts by the local community.  In short, the initiation of activities of the plan had been launched, as mandated by the General Assembly’s decision.  A dedicated project team had been established, a design team was close to being selected and cooperation with the city was ongoing.

DILEEP NAIR, Under-Secretary-General for Internal Oversight Services, introduced the report of his office and said a key activity of the solicitation and selection phase involved a worldwide search for architectural and engineering firms to develop the design, drawing and construction documentation for the six different components of the project.  Over 30 architectural and engineering firms had submitted proposals for the renovation, which had been evaluated for technical competence using a standardized format and scoring system.  The total amount for the lowest bids received for the six project components was estimated to be approximately $40.1 million.

The OIOS Internal Audit Division had prepared a preliminary audit plan for the review of the architectural and engineering contracts in the design component phase, he said.  In the course of the upcoming audits, OIOS would pay particular attention to those areas that were susceptible to contributing to cost overruns and delays.  As the level of contract execution expanded, OIOS would need additional resourcing and staff to carry out its oversight services on the Plan.

ALAIN GILETTE, the Chairman of the Audit Operations Committee, introduced the progress report of the Board of Auditors, saying the audit of the capital master plan would soon be conducted in accordance with the established rules.  The first audit would cover the biennium ending December 2003, and the Board’s first report would be transmitted to the General Assembly at its fifty-ninth session.

Introducing the ACABQ’s report, the Chairman of that body, CONRAD S.M. MSELLE, said the Advisory Committee welcomed progress made in the current phase of the project.  On the question of additional parking, a separate study would be submitted to the General Assembly.  Regarding project management and staff resources, the future management structure and staffing requirements were under review by the Under-Secretary-General for Management.

DAVID J. FINEMAN (United States) noted significant progress in the design stage of the project and in measures to strengthen security.  It was not insignificant that a transparent selection process had resulted in signed contracts for the distinct segments of the project in a little less than a year since the Committee had approved the capital master plan resolution.  Coordination of the design contracts had been correctly cited as the key to all that would follow, as well as coordinating efforts with the City and State of New York and the United Nations Development Corporation.

Continuing, he called attention to the size of the capital master plan staff:  nine Professionals and 11 General Service posts with particular emphasis on the Professional posts.  Without detailed accounting of the posts, it was impossible to weigh the merits of the expertise brought together for such an important effort.  He hoped the overhead and management focus were robust enough to provide proper direction, while, at the same time, making sure that the posts were sufficiently technical for a construction project of such magnitude.  Since the OIOS and the Board of Auditors were fully capable of providing objective oversight, there was no need for an excessive management component.

As for the technical positions, he said that project management skills could and should be procured through contract, and not through establishing posts.  Contract staff could be expanded or reduced with the normal ebb and flow of the project.  The same could not be said with staff posts, which had permanence.  He advocated a very conservative approach to hiring, with any further expansion favouring the technical aspects of the project.  In the next progress report, he wanted to see detailed accounting of the posts, including a matrix of the skills acquired.

AHMED FARID (Saudi Arabia) made a request that a permanent lounge be designated within the United Nations complex where all the Muslims working at Headquarters would be able to pray five times a day.  The room should be larger than the one on the 4^th floor, where Friday prayers were currently held.

Joint Inspection Unit

ARMANDO DUQUE, the Chairman of the Joint Inspection Unit, introducing that body’s report, said that following consultations on the Unit’s preliminary review, the Unit had concluded that there was general agreement on the need to maintain the Unit as a valuable tool, as it was the only independent oversight organ with competence over the entire United Nations system.  It had also been concluded that there was need for some reform to improve the Unit’s functioning.  The Unit had transmitted the preliminary review to heads of the various United Nations organizations and had consulted with them.

He said the Unit had concluded its review and had submitted its final report.  In that report, the Unit had elaborated on the main issues and presented proposals for the Assembly’s consideration.  One area of consideration was whether individual inspectors should continue to submit reports in their areas of competence, or whether they should be submitted by the Unit as a whole.

MAME BABA CISSE (Senegal) emphasized the importance of the Joint Inspection Unit oversight role, particularly within the global framework of the reform of the United Nations.  The human resources of the Unit needed to be consolidated through the maintenance, if not an increase in, the number of inspectors, which now stood at 11.  It was also necessary to increase the number of research assistants, in order to establish a desirable parity between the number of inspectors and assistants.  It was interesting that some sought to reduce the number of inspectors, which had not changed in many years, even though the volume of the work of the Unit had grown.

Looking at the statute, he believed it was imperative to maintain the rules of procedure for choices and nomination of inspectors without trying “to reinvent the wheel”, he said.  Inspectors should enjoy broad authority.  To seek to establish the composition of the Unit solely on the basis of budgetary and financial considerations was overly simplistic.  Of course, inspectors should possess all the necessary qualifications, and it was important to follow all the provisions for their selection.

Since 1996, a set of corrective measures had been introduced to improve the programme of work and the structural aspects of the functioning of the Unit, he continued.  Now, any arbitrary changes of methods would not guarantee the strengthening of its structure.  Regarding the geographical balance in the composition of the Unit, he said that it seemed to be acceptable, although Africa had only 2 seats there, and its representation could be further improved.  The reform needed to be based on a methodical and transparent approach, as opposed to hasty measures that could be harmful in the long run.

Mr. FARID (Saudi Arabia) concurred that there was a need for the General Assembly to approve a job description for inspectors and to establish a list of qualifications required for the discharge of their functions.  He supported the proposal that an advisory candidate review panel be established to review candidates using the agreed job description.  The Unit should be a proactive partner that would help the Organization become more effective and strengthen the United Nations common system as a whole.

On the preparation of the Unit’s programme of work, he said the General Assembly should set up that work programme.  On the power of the Unit Chairman, he concurred that a stronger and more permanent role could facilitate greater effectiveness of the Unit’s role.  He proposed raising the level of the Chairman from D-2 to Under-Secretary-General and that the level of inspectors remain at the D-2 level.  Relocating the Unit from Geneva to New York was important and would allow for greater interaction.  The time had come to make changes.  He proposed that January 2006 be the date for the General Assembly to see a better Unit.

THOMAS REPASCH (United States) said the report provided sufficient basis for the General Assembly to take a decision on the important matter.  Regarding the selection of inspectors, he agreed with the proposal in the report on the need for the General Assembly to approve a job description for inspectors, as that had been a long-standing concern for the United States.  The issue of qualifications of inspectors had figured prominently in discussions over the years on how to improve the Unit’s effectiveness.  He also agreed with the proposal to establish an advisory candidate review panel.

Regarding the ratio of inspectors to research staff, the United States had long agreed that the ratio needed to be changed, he said.  The proper way to do that would be to increase the number of research officers and decrease the number of inspectors.  He concurred with the Chief Executives Board that the best way to improve the Unit’s effectiveness was to reduce the number of inspectors and increase the number of research staff.  He was disappointed that the report did not go further on that matter and he had hoped for a more specific proposal on how to proceed with the issue.

On the functions of the inspectors, he agreed that inspectors had infrequently looked at issues of efficiency and effectiveness.  That was part of the Unit’s statute, and he urged inspectors to pursue reports and investigations that focused on efficiency and effectiveness.  He disagreed that the Unit should become a management-consulting outfit.  The Unit was an external oversight body, not a management-consulting firm.  It was supposed to provide an objective view to the governing bodies, not department heads.  Other internal oversight bodies had a consulting function.

He also agreed that Unit reports should involve the concept of collective wisdom.  There should be a greater effort to ensure that the reports met the Unit’s collective standards.  On the handling of the reports, it was well known that they did not get proper consideration by the various governing bodies.  He believed that the consideration of Unit reports would improve, however, as the Unit reformed.  He also concurred that the role of the Chairman should be strengthened.  There was also a need to ensure that the Unit’s reports reflected the standards agreed to, and provided the necessary advice to the various governing bodies, including the General Assembly.

ROBERTO MARTINI (Italy), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that the Unit had done an excellent job in providing the Committee with the list of proposed actions, taking into account the views of the participating organizations, as well as points of view expressed in the debate on the matter.  After reading the reform proposals, there could be no doubt that changes in the working methods and the rules of procedure were needed to strengthen the Unit.  The list of concrete proposals presented to the Committee could be taken up during the current session.

It was important to address three important issues, he continued:  selection of inspectors; strengthening the role of the chair; and individual and collective responsibility for reports.  In order to enhance the Unit, it was necessary to replace the present system of selection with a new one, which would allow candidates from all regions to apply.  Article 10 of the statute currently gave a merely representative function to the chair of the Unit, but he believed that the chair should be elected for three years and should be responsible for the programme of work and quality of the reports.  The Unit should act only under collective responsibility.  In preparing reports, the inspectors should meet the quality standards established.

NORMA LUCIA GOICOCHEA (Cuba) said that she had taken note of a comment in the debate that the topic would be taken up under the programme budget item.  That was not acceptable.  The subject of the Unit was a separate item on the agenda.

JERRY KRAMER (Canada), also speaking on behalf of Australia and New Zealand, said that change was needed in the way the Unit conducted its work.  He appreciated the alacrity with which it had responded to the concerns expressed in the debate, setting forth useful proposals to make the Unit more responsive to the needs of the membership.  He did not have much to add to what had already been said.  The important issue was to capture the spirit of reform in specific action.  His delegation was prepared to work on the matter.

NONYE UDO (Nigeria) thanked the Chairmen of the Unit for the report and reserved the right to make comments on the report at a later date.  She asked the Committee Chairman to elaborate on the Bureau’s decision on how to proceed with the issue.

HYNEK KMONÍČEK (Czech Republic), Committee Chairman, said the Bureau had made no such decision.

JOHN JUMA NG’ONGOLO (United Republic of Tanzania) supported the comments made by previous speakers, especially the representatives of Senegal and the United States.  On the issue of the ratio of inspectors to research staff, however, he said the issue was determined by the competence of the inspectors.  Researchers were hired to assist the inspectors.  He believed that the ratio of inspectors to researchers should be maintained.

Responding to the comments from the floor, Mr. DUQUE expressed his gratitude to the speakers, particularly those who had spoke in appreciation of his service in view of his pending retirement.  The report had been prepared with agreement of all the inspectors.  At this point, he had only one parting piece of advice -- not to politicize the issue, but to look at it from the point of view that, indeed, the Unit was a valuable tool at the service of Member States.  With action taken to address the issues identified, it could do even better work.

* *** *