Sixty-first General Assembly

Fifth Committee

8^th Meeting (PM)

BUDGET COMMITTEE DEBATES ROLE OF COMMITTEE ON PROGRAMME AND COORDINATION

AS UNITED NATIONS’ PRINCIPAL PLANNING, EVALUATION BODY

 

Most Speakers Stress Committee’s Unique, Critical Role;

Several Question Relevance, Note Continued Failure to Improve Work Methods

Members of the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) once again debated the role of the Committee for Programme and Coordination as the Organization’s principal coordination, planning and evaluation body this afternoon, with a number of delegations questioning its relevance, and others defending its importance for translating the Organization’s legislative mandates into action.

Kenya’s representative said that undermining the Committee’s role and questioning its utility was unacceptable to his delegation.  The members and observers’ overwhelming participation in the latest session of the Committee for Programme and Coordination spoke volumes, underscoring the importance Member States attached to its work.  The Committee should be strengthened to enable it to effectively carry out its mandate.

However, representatives of Japan and the United States disassociated themselves from the consensus adoption of the report of the Committee for Programme and Coordination during its forty-sixth session.  Japan said that body’s discussions were simply a repetition of discussions that had already taken place in other intergovernmental forums, produced no added value, yielded outcomes that failed to live up to expectations, and resulted in recommendations that went beyond its mandate.  The Committee, a subsidiary organ, was behaving as if it were an independent intergovernmental body, and he wondered how other delegations could find that state of affairs satisfactory.  Further, in spite of multiple General Assembly requests to improve its working methods and procedures, the report before the Committee did not contain information worth reporting.

The United States’ representative underscored the critical importance of having a central coordinating mechanism to guarantee efficiency in approaching the “myriad problematic issues confronting the United Nations system”, but said that the lack of progress in improving working methods of the Committee and overlap of its work with the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) had caused his delegation to believe it was time for the Fifth Committee to consider whether the Committee for Programme and Coordination should continue.

Supporting the position of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China -– expressed by the representative of South Africa yesterday and reiterated today -– India said that change was a gradual and continuous process.  The Committee for Programme and Coordination significance was further highlighted by its critical role in ensuring that the United Nations programmes adhered to the legislative mandates given by Member States to implementing entities.  It also identified programmatic changes arising out of decisions by intergovernmental bodies and conferences.  Moreover, the Committee was a unique intergovernmental body that facilitated coordination among the multitude of United Nations institutions and mandates.  Given the critical role played by the Committee, the question of its relevance was itself irrelevant, he said.

Cuba’s representative insisted that the Committee for Programme and Coordination must continue to fulfil its mandate, which was increasingly relevant at a time when reform was called for at the United Nations.  He regretted that some recommendations of the Committee were described as retrograde, and said that not knowing the reasons for those proposals should not be the reason for using such a pejorative term.  Some delegations that were not Members of the Committee had put forward proposals that undermined its work, promoting the objective of eliminating it.  The lack of any clear results on improving the working methods was due to the obstinate intentions and non-participation in the Committee by some delegations.

Pakistan’s representative reiterated the importance of the Committee for Programme and Coordination and the useful contribution it made.  He fully endorsed the recommendations of the Committee and believed that they provided a solid basis for the work of the Fifth Committee.  He welcomed the General Assembly’s call for the Committee to improve its working methods within the framework of its mandate, so its contribution would be even more productive.  During its last session, the Committee had spent a considerable portion of its time considering that agenda item and looked at a wide range of ideas in that regard.  However, given the divergence of views on the issue, all sides would need to be flexible to achieve consensus.

Also participating in the debate were representatives of Canada (also on behalf of Australia and New Zealand), Belarus, Ghana, Iran, Egypt, China and Syria.  Responses to comments from the floor were provided by the Chairman of the Committee for Programme and Coordination, Norma Elaine Taylor Roberts ( Jamaica), and the Director of the Programme and Planning Division, Sharon Van Buerle.

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

Background

The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) this afternoon continued consideration of agenda item 118 on programme planning.  For background, see Press Release GA/AB/3758.

Statements

APEKSHA KUMAR (Canada), speaking on behalf of Australia and New Zealand (CANZ), said the biennial approach for programme planning has been a practical and effective reform of the planning and budget process.  While not wanting to redo the work of the Committee for Programme and Coordination, she sought to clarify the policy basis for, and ramifications of, changes proposed for:  programme 10 on trade and development; programme 13 on international drug control, crime and terrorism prevention and criminal justice; and programme 24 on management and support services.  She was surprised and disappointed that the Secretariat had deleted reference to improved business practices as an expected accomplishment of the Department of Management in 2008-2009, and she sought clarification of the timetable and method for business process review to ensure that the new systems were not merely automating poor processes.

She was also disappointed that the Secretariat sought to delete the General Assembly mandate that it develop ways to assess efficiency and productivity in management and service functions, and appreciated that the Committee for Programme and Coordination had proposed to reintroduce those requirements in the programme plan.  She noted that the General Assembly had attached enough importance to the application of cost-accounting techniques that it had approved a $500,000 programme budget implication statement for this work.  She, therefore, asked, “What has happened to this request?  Where is the report?” and said it was imperative to have a view on how to proceed, while planning a new information technology system.

Some elements added to the programme plan by the Committee for Programme and Coordination were retrograde, she said.  First, the limitation of management reform to measures approved by the General Assembly curtailed action by the Secretary-General under Article 97 of the Charter.  Second, it had deleted reference to the term “best practices” from the section on improving internal controls in programme 24.  Finally, she was deeply concerned with the expression of an objective regarding geographic representation under human resources management, which was at variance with provisions of Article 101 of the Charter.

Finally, she observed that the Committee for Programme and Coordination again failed to act on the repeated requests of the General Assembly to improve its working methods, and that the few, practical proposals on the table were not adopted.  She said the lack of progress in that limited front illuminated the broader challenge confronting the Committee for Programme and Coordination of “adding real value through its work”.

MANORANJAN BHAKTA ( India) aligned himself with the “Group of 77” developing countries and China and reaffirmed the importance of the Committee for Programme and Coordination as the main subsidiary body of the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council for planning, programming and coordination.  Its significance was further highlighted by its critical role in ensuring that the United Nations programmes adhered to the letter and spirit of legislative mandates given by the Member States to implementing entities, besides identifying programmatic changes arising out of decisions by intergovernmental bodies and conferences.  Moreover, the Committee for Programme and Coordination was a unique intergovernmental body that facilitated coordination among the multitude of United Nations institutions and mandates.  Given its critical role, the question of its relevance was itself irrelevant.

Nevertheless, improvement was a continuous and universally applicable process, he continued.  The Committee for Programme and Coordination should perform its mandated tasks in an effective and efficient manner and strive for improvement through self-evaluation.  In that context, he was pleased that its forty-sixth session had devoted considerable time to improving its working methods within the framework of its mandate, as directed by relevant General Assembly resolutions.  He supported the Chairman’s informal paper on that matter and appealed to all Member States to work together in the future, so that they could remain united in their common quest for excellence.

He fully endorsed the conclusions of its report and urged the Secretariat to take full cognizance of the recommendations contained in that document.  In particular, he supported the recommendation that the plan outline of the proposed strategic framework for 2008-2009 should be reviewed, so that it more accurately reflected the long-term objectives of the Organization.  He appreciated the report on programme performance of the United Nations for 2004-2005, particularly the revelation of a 91 per cent overall Secretariat implementation rate for the biennium.

Emphasizing the importance of evaluation within the Organization, he said that, unfortunately, the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) report on the role of evaluation had concluded that evaluation seemed to be a low priority across the Secretariat and few staff resources were assigned to the job.  That needed to be rectified.  He also looked forward to the in-depth and thematic evaluations to be submitted in 2008 and 2009, especially the evaluation of the Department of Management and Office of Human Resources Management, as well as United Nations support for least developed countries, small island developing States and Africa.

He welcomed the annual overview report of the Chief Executives Board as an important and useful element for better understanding of coordination and efficiency of the system.  He called upon the Board to further promote the culture of cooperation among United Nations organizations and provide greater cohesion in action among various implementing entities, especially those engaged in the development agenda and the fight against poverty and hunger.  He strongly urged the Board to continue attaching the highest priority to ensuring effectiveness and coordination of the United Nations system support for Africa and the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD).  He endorsed the request for providing full resources to the Office of the Special Adviser, in order to accelerate the implementation of NEPAD.

HITOSHI KOZAKI ( Japan) noted that his delegation had expressed deep scepticism about the effectiveness and relevance of the work of the Committee for Programme and Coordination, which did not produce outcomes in line with its terms of reference.  Unfortunately, he said, its draft report failed to provide significant answers to the queries posed by his delegation at the outset of its session and Japan, therefore, disassociated itself from the consensus adoption of its report.  He had concluded that the Committee for Programme and Coordination’s discussions were simply a repetition of discussions that already had taken place in other intergovernmental forums, produced no added value, yielded outcomes that failed to live up to expectations, and resulted in recommendations that went beyond its mandate.  Japan was not in a position to express support for the body’s report.

He noted that Committee for Programme and Coordination did not make use of the Secretary-General’s report on programme performance of the United Nations for the biennium 2004-2005 (document A/61/64) submitted to the General Assembly through the Committee for Programme and Coordination, and questioned whether the General Assembly could appreciate the conclusions and recommends in paragraphs 31 through 35 of the Committee as useful inputs.  He also said it was difficult to understand from the Committee’s report why the General Assembly was invited to review the plan outline (Part 1) of the proposed 2008-2009 strategic framework.  He found that specific reasons were not offered for making recommendations changing narratives of programmes, making it almost impossible to support the proposals.  He found several cases where requests for increases in resources were clearly indicated, which he was concerned did not fall within the purview of the Committee’s mandate.

He added that the Committee’s discussion of the basis of the reports of the OIOS tended to focus on the way programmes were implemented, in place of evaluating the impact of the Organization’s activities in relation to their objectives.  The General Assembly had invited the Committee for Programme and Coordination to submit proposals on enhancing its role in monitoring and evaluation, which it had not yet done.  Also, it was not fulfilling the role it is expected to play in the area of monitoring and evaluation because it did not link these activities with programming.

Turning to the Report of the United Nations System Chief Executives Board for Coordination, no attempt was made by the Committee for Programme and Coordination to coordinate the discussions of the Economic and Social Council, although it was part of its mandate, he said.  He was not aware of the recommendations of the Committee for Programme and Coordination ever having been utilized in the General Assembly under discussion of economic development, and he was unable to recall a single instance when the Committee was invited to make contributions in the area of coordination by the General Assembly.  He said the Committee for Programme and Coordination’s conclusions and recommendations had not been taken up under the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) agenda item of the General Assembly.  The overall outcome of the Committee’s deliberations in those areas were of no relevance, and made no contribution to its parent bodies.  He said the Committee for Programme and Coordination, a subsidiary organ, was behaving as if it were an independent intergovernmental body, and wondered how other delegations could find this state of affairs satisfactory.

He said that, in spite of multiple General Assembly requests to improve its working methods and procedures, the Committee’s report at its forty-sixth session did not contain information worth reporting to the Assembly.  He could not accept any attempt to justify the current state of affairs in the Committee, which had failed to respond to the clear language of its parent body, the General Assembly.  He said it was high time for the General Assembly to tackle more fundamental issues concerning the effectiveness and relevance of the work of the Committee for Programme and Coordination, instead of improving its working methods and procedures “within the framework of the mandate”.  He was of the view that energies now devoted to the Committee for Programme and Coordination could better be devoted to more substantive and valuable purposes.  He said his delegation would be deeply disappointed if the majority of Member States pronounced themselves happy with the Committee for Programme and Coordination.  He said that acting complacently and simply maintaining the status quo had been known to happen elsewhere in the United Nations, and he felt obliged to raise fundamental questions about the work of the Committee for Programme and Coordination.

YURY YAROSHEVICH (Belarus) supported the recommendations and conclusions of the Committee for Programme and Coordination, in particular in connection with programmes concerning “General Assembly and ECOSOC affairs and conference management”, “ECOSOC”, “Trade and Development”, “Environment”, “International Drug Control, Crime, Terrorism Prevention and Criminal Justice”, as well as programmes devoted to economic and social development in various parts of the world.  It was also necessary to pay much more attention to the development of Africa, providing the necessary resources and increasing technical assistance efforts.  He supported the recommendation that the Office of the Special Adviser on Africa, as well as the Economic Commission for Africa (ECA), should be strengthened to coordinate the contribution of United Nations agencies to NEPAD.

He noted with appreciation that the overall Secretariat implementation rate for 2004-2005 was 91 per cent, as compared to 85 per cent attained in 2002-2003.  That was a reflection of improved programme planning.  The Committee for Programme and Coordination had continued moving in the right direction by proposing an efficient strategic framework for 2008-2009.  On improving the working methods of the Committee, Belarus supported the informal paper by the Chairperson.

GLORIA POKU ( Ghana) aligned herself with the position of the Group of 77 and China and said that she was pleased that members of the Committee for Programme and Coordination had been able to reach wide agreement on working methods.  The outcome, reflected in the report, was a very good basis for further discussion.  Her delegation had always valued the Committee’s work and recognized the important role it played in various areas, including in ensuring that the Secretariat interpreted and translated legislative mandates accurately into programmes and subprogrammes.  During its last session, the Committee had done admirable work.

The Committee had been able to complete its revision of the proposed biennial plan for 2008-2009, she continued, and there was not doubt that that would help the preparation process for the programme budget for the biennium.  The fact that the Committee had not failed to carry out a critical examination of the reports of the United Nations System Chief Executives Board for Coordination and NEPAD deserved commendation.  She urged the Chief Executives Board to flag the importance of system-wide support from the Organization as a necessity in the implementation of the objectives of NEPAD.  Furthermore, she supported the recommendation that the roles of the ECA and the Office of the Special Adviser on Africa should be strengthened, to allow them to properly coordinate contributions from various agencies to NEPAD and assist in the implementation of the partnership at the regional and global levels.

BRUCE RASHKOW ( United States) believed in the Committee for Programme and Coordination’s potential to carefully scrutinize the programme and budget aspects of United Nations activities, but still placed a very high premium on reform.  He said that pattern of a lack of consensus on improving the Committee for Programme and Coordination’s working methods continued to plague its work during the forty-sixth session.  Additionally, the proposals contained in the “Chair’s Text” offered little in terms of reform.  That resulted in the United States’ inability to lend support to the proposal.  The failure of the Committee to carry out General Assembly mandates to improve working methods caused the United States to dissociate itself from the report of the Committee for Programme and Coordination.   The United States was, therefore, not in a position to endorse the Committee’s report.

He underscored the critical importance of having a central coordinating mechanism to guarantee efficiency in approaching the myriad problematic issues confronting the United Nations system.  He said that the lack of progress in improving working methods and overlap of its work with the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) caused the United States to believe it was time for the Fifth Committee to consider whether the Committee for Programme and Coordination should continue.

ANTHONY ANDANJE ( Kenya) aligned himself with the position of the Group of 77 and China and said that the Committee for Programme and Coordination, and in particular its role as the main subsidiary organ of the Economic and Social Council and the Assembly, was invaluable for the United Nations system.  Its functions of planning, programming and coordination, as well as reviewing the Organization’s medium-term plan in the off-budget years, and the budget in budget years, were important.  The overwhelming participation of the wider membership of the Committee, including observers, in the forty-sixth session spoke volumes, underscoring the importance Member States attached to the work of the Committee.  The Committee should be strengthened to enable it to effectively carry out its mandate.  Undermining the Committee’s role and questioning its utility was unacceptable.

He welcomed the Committee’s report, saying that his delegation was delighted to note that it had been able to make some progress on improving its working methods, despite the divergent opinions.  Viewed against the background of previous sessions of the Committee, the fact that the working methods had been discussed at all was a small step that amounted to something significant.  Change in the Organization mostly occurred incrementally.

The report before the Fifth Committee focused on numerous issues, including 27 programmes, and coordination and evaluation matters, he added.  He appreciated the support to the Programme on Safety and Security and welcomed the merging of two previous subprogrammes into one.  His delegation commended the Department of Safety and Security for measures to enhance coordination of security arrangements at Headquarters and regional commissions.  Kenya, as a host of the United Nations Office in Nairobi, was fully committed to the protection of United Nations personnel and property.  There was ample room to further strengthen and deepen the partnership between the Government of Kenya and the Department of Safety and Security.  His Government reaffirmed its commitment to honouring its host country obligations.

Supporting the position of the Group of 77 and China, AHMED FAROOQ ( Pakistan) said that the Committee was discussing an important agenda item, which formed the basis of budget formulation for the United Nations.  With regard to the plan outline of the proposed strategic framework for 2008-2009, he said that a number of key areas, including poverty eradication, NEPAD, the Middle East crisis, HIV/AIDS and disarmament, had not been adequately covered in the document.  The outline also did not reflect the longer-term objectives of the Organization.   Similarly, in order to build institutional capacity and make the programme delivery more effective, the document also needed to reflect past experiences.

Turning to Part 2 of the strategic framework, he emphasized the importance of specialized bodies’ input on various programmes of the plan.  As for the structure and format of the programmes, the indicators of achievement remained abstract and did not reflect the targets.  Some indicators of achievement unduly concentrated on the quantity of work, neglecting the quality of results achieved.  As provided in the rules of budgeting and programme planning, his delegation would be considering the strategic plan in the light of the recommendations of the Committee for Programme and Coordination.  Coming to programme performance, he noted with satisfaction that the implementation rate for 2004-2005 had been 91 per cent, as compared to 85 per cent in the previous biennium.  He hoped that the trend would continue and the rate of implementation would be further improved in the future.

Evaluation and monitoring of the programme were of critical importance, he continued, and he regretted that evaluation seemed to receive low priority and there were gaps in the evaluation capacity, both in quantitative and staffing terms, within the United Nations.  He took note of the weaknesses in capacity and methodology of evaluation, as contained in the OIOS report.  In order to promote greater accountability, managers needed to adapt best practices of self-evaluation.  He supported the actions of the OIOS for improving the process, in particular the Secretariat-wide evaluation needs assessment to identify specific evaluation needs, functions, resources and capacity, as contained in paragraph 29 of the report.

In conclusion, he reiterated the importance of the Committee for Programme and Coordination and the useful contribution it made.  He fully endorsed the recommendations of the Committee and believed that they provided a solid basis for the work of the Fifth Committee.  He welcomed the call of the General Assembly asking the Committee for Programme and Coordination to improve its working methods within the framework of its mandate, to make its contribution even more productive.  During its last session, the Committee had spent a considerable portion of its time considering that agenda item, and looked at a wide range of ideas.  However, given the divergence of views on the issue, all sides would need to be flexible to achieve consensus.

PABLO BERTI OLIVA ( Cuba) believed that the Committee for Programme and Coordination must continue to fulfil its mandate, which was increasingly relevant at a time when reform was called for at the United Nations.  He regretted that some recommendations of the Committee were described as retrograde, and said that not knowing the reasons for those proposals should not be the reason for using such a pejorative term.

He regretted the consensus had not been reached during the Committee for Programme and Coordination’s last session on working methods.  But he offered the criticism that some delegations that were not members of the Committee had put forward proposals that undermined its work, promoting the objective of eliminating it.  The lack of any clear results on improving the working methods was due to the obstinate intentions and non-participation in the Committee by some delegations.  He said it could be taken for granted that his delegation opposed any attempt to eliminate the Committee.  Moreover, improving the working methods within the framework of its mandate was a task unique to the Committee, and his delegation could not accept any Fifth Committee discussion of the matter.  He said the progress made in the Committee for Programme and Coordination’s report showed that an agreement could be possible among the members.

He fully endorsed the recommendations in the Committee’s report, and hoped to achieve a positive result before concluding the year.  He also called for compliance with the revisions of each of the programmes, so the Fifth Committee could begin to draft the budget for the next biennium.  He added that the recommendations of the Committee for Programme and Coordination were of great value for that purpose.

KAREN LOCK (South Africa), speaking on behalf of the Group of 77 developing countries and China, said that, although she had presented the position of the Group yesterday, having listened to various statements today, she wanted to make some points quite clear.  She respected the right of every Member State to make statements on various issues and decide what discussions they did not want to participate in.  But, speaking for the majority of Member States, she could say it was unfortunate if some decided not to participate in the work or debate against the usefulness of such a committee.  She supported the work performed by the Committee for Programme and Coordination.

On the plan outline, she said that the Group understood that the Committee for Programme and Coordination, in looking at the outline, had recognized that it did not meet the long-term needs of the Organization, as it responded to only some of the mandates of the World Summit and did not address others.  Although the Committee had not requested a review of the outline by the Secretariat -- leaving the decision to the Assembly -- she said it might be beneficial for the Committee if Member States asked the Secretariat to review the plan now.  She would appreciate an indication from the Secretariat if that would be a feasible approach, in view of the heavy workload.

On evaluation, she drew attention to the fact that the Secretariat was grappling with self-evaluation and the OIOS had stepped in to assist to some extent, but it only had one or two people doing that.  Before apportioning blame for the lack of evaluation to an intergovernmental body meeting for two weeks a year, it was necessary to weigh the whole situation.

Regarding the usefulness of the Committee for Programme and Coordination, she said that, again, one should not apportion blame for an issue clearly associated with the General Committee, which assigned agenda items.  As for the issue of the Chief Executives Board’s report and NEPAD, the Fifth Committee had adopted those recommendations last year, and she welcomed continued focus on those issues, which were very important.  She did not quite understand the reference to overlap between the Fifth Committee, the ACABQ and the Committee for Programme and Coordination, and would like to discuss that at an appropriate time.  It was important for the Committee for Programme and Coordination to find if the delivery of programmes had been impeded by a lack of resources or capacity and bring that to the attention of the Assembly.  While the Committee did not have the power to allocate resources, certainly there was a link between the lack of resources and the ability of the Secretariat to implement mandates.

She was not complacent about the status quo, she stressed.  The Assembly had requested the Committee for Programme and Coordination to consider its working methods, and she wanted to hear an elaboration of that discussion from the Chair.  While the debate on that in the Fifth Committee might have been relevant in previous years, she was surprised it had occurred this year.  The discussion in the Committee for Programme and Coordination had been fruitful, and she was happy that the majority of the members of the Committee had been able to join the consensus.  She hoped others would be able to do that in the future.  However, the lack of consensus was certainly not a veto and it would not justify the conclusion that the Committee for Programme and Coordination did not meet its mandate.

The Group looked forward to discussing some of the questions raised in regard of specific programmes, but certainly did not expect the Committee for Programme and Coordination to give an explanation for each and every recommendation it made, she said.  The Group’s understanding was that the Committee’s mandate was to see how legislative mandates were to be translated into programmes.  The Group would engage in a constructive dialogue with colleagues and stood ready to adopt the Committee’s report.

JAVAD SAFAEI ( Iran) believed that the role of the Committee for Programme and Coordination, as the only independent intergovernmental body, was to ensure that the Secretariat was accurately and faithfully interpreting and translating legislative mandates into programmes and activities.  He said it ensured that priorities and goals, as set out by Member States, received adequate attention.  He strongly endorsed the recommendations contained in its report, and said that that sole crucial and formal intergovernmental input must be maintained.

HESHAM MOHAMED EMAN AFIFI ( Egypt) reaffirmed the importance of the Committee for Programme and Coordination as the main subsidiary body of the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council, and the only unique intergovernmental body for coordination of institutions and mandates.  He said that Egypt had participated in the Committee as an observer, and noticed the efforts of the Chairperson to reach agreement on working methods.  He said that the Chair’s text formed the basis to work on the issue in the future.  He said the achievement of a certain level of relative progress made the idea of discontinuation of the Committee’s work confusing.  He said any reform was an evolving process, and that the need for reform emphasized the high importance of the Committee.

SHEN YANJIE ( China) said that the Committee for Programme and Coordination played a very important role in the planning and coordination of programmes.  He agreed with the relevant conclusions and recommendations of the Committee, and took note that it was already taking positive actions to carry out reforms.  He said reform was a gradual process, so the Member States should have confidence in the work of the Committee, and give it positive support and guidance.

YASSAR DIAB ( Syria) stressed the importance of the Committee for Programme and Coordination as a subsidiary organ of the Economic and Social Council and the General Assembly, as well as an intergovernmental body responsible for planning and coordination.  He welcomed its report and recommendations, and fully supported the informal text put forward by the Chairperson on improving its methods of work.

The representative of Japan offered clarification of the matter before the Fifth Committee.  He pointed to the decision of the Committee for Programme and Coordination in its thirty-ninth session that discussion and negotiation should be avoided when consensus was lacking.  Additionally, he pointed to General Assembly resolution 32/197 on restructuring the economic and social sectors of the United Nations system, which called for continuous review of the working methods and terms of reference of the Committee for Programme and Coordination.

The Chairperson of the Committee for Programme and Coordination, NORMA ELAINE TAYLOR ROBERTS ( Jamaica), thanked all delegations for their comments on the report and noted that a number of views had been expressed, most of which would be better addressed during informals.  As the Chair of the forty-sixth session, in terms of accountability, she said resolution 60/257 had called on the Committee to continue to review its working methods and ensure that it did not have a negative impact on the effective consideration of other agenda items, in particular the strategic framework.  The Committee had done exactly that, which was why it had been able to conclude its consideration on 27 out of 28 programmes.  This session, the Committee had reached the broadest possible agreement on several proposals in respect of its working methods.  As pointed out in the debate, change was an ongoing process.  Within that context, other issues could be taken up.  For the forty-sixth session, a particular mandate had been given to the Committee and, in her view, it had fulfilled that mandate.

SHARON VAN BUERLE, Director of the Programme Planning and Budget Division, said that the Enterprise Resource Planning system had been approved by the Assembly in June 2006 as a replacement of the Integrated Management Information System.  The business process review was an integral part of the Enterprise Resource Planning need analysis currently being undertaken and would be considered in that context.  Consequently, it would be reported early next year in the context of the Enterprise Resource Planning.  Cost accounting was also being taken in the context of the overall needs analysis of the Enterprise Resource Planning as it had far-reaching consequences.  The issue had been raised with the Secretariat of the Fifth Committee and brought to the attention of the Bureau.

The Plan Outline had been broadly considered by managers within the Secretariat, having been brought to the attention of the Management Committee prior to its issuance to the General Assembly.  As for the review of the long-term objectives, she drew attention to document A/61/6, Part 1, where such objectives were detailed, and indicated that all efforts had been made to incorporate the decisions of the World Summit Outcome, as well as all other mandates, in the plan outline and in the context of subprogrammes.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record