Sixty-first General Assembly

Fifth Committee

18^th Meeting (AM)

BUDGET COMMITTEE TAKES UP REPORT ON ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR AFRICA

The Economic Commission for Africa (ECA) could only promote economic and social development throughout the African continent if it had well-equipped, effective and functioning subregional offices to deliver on General Assembly expectations and mandates, Nigeria’s representative told the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) on behalf of the African Group this morning, as the Committee took up the plan to strengthen the Commission’s subregional offices.

She recalled that a recent audit by the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) had revealed, to the consternation of all Member States, “a myriad of problems and shortfalls” within those offices, such as a paucity of regular budget funds and inadequate information and communication technology, as well as matters requiring administrative reorganization.  She said that the responsibility conferred on ECA was not matched with corresponding resources and expressed concern that, in spite of the interim measures taken, actual measures to address the very serious issues faced by ECA were being deferred to 2008-2009, contrary to the explicitly stated wishes of the General Assembly.

The Committee was considering the Secretary-General’s report, presenting the Commission’s action plan for implementing the recommendations of the OIOS, as well as the reform arising from review by the Executive Secretary of the ECA on repositioning the Organization.  The document was introduced by the Director, ad interim, of the Office of Strategic Planning and Programme Management for the ECA, Urbain D. Zadi, who said that the Executive Secretary’s plan had been endorsed by the annual meeting of the Commission and the Conference of African Ministers of Finance, Planning and Economic Development last May.  The ECA had already initiated the strengthening process of the offices using the resources currently available to it.  Additional staff and non-post resources identified as being essential would be addressed in formulating the budget estimates for the next biennium.

Presenting the report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) on the matter, Chairman of the ACABQ, Rajat Saha, noted that the reforms aimed to achieve a significant shift towards operational, rather than analytical work, with an increased proportion of ECA resources dedicated to subregional offices.  A key aspect was improvement of the information and communication technology infrastructure and the use of electronic means for the dissemination of information, improved visibility and outreach.  The Commission expected to fund the additional resources required during the current biennium through redeployment of both staff and non-post resources to the subregional offices and to increase the level of extrabudgetary resources raised in 2007.  With respect to the budget proposals for the 2008-2009 biennium, the Advisory Committee requested that a clear linkage between the requested resources and mandated activities be demonstrated and fully justified.

While appreciating the Commission’s initiatives to reorganize and divert resources to the subregional offices, South Africa’s representative, speaking on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China, stressed the need to provide adequate resources for critical areas identified by the OIOS and the Commission.  Like the African Group, the Group of 77 was not clear as to the rationale for postponing critical decisions on resources to the consideration of the 2008-2009 budget proposal.  That was certainly not the approach that had been taken with other critical reforms resulting from the World Summit.  Mandated activities should be financed from assessed contributions and the Commission should not be expected to increase its reliance on voluntary financing for the implementation of reform measures and other core activities.

The ECA and its subregional offices played an important role in the efforts to advance the development agenda for Africa, she emphasized.  Unfortunately, since 2004, there had not been any real growth in the regular budget for activities in support of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD).   The Group believed it was imperative to ensure that the development of Africa -– one of the eight main priorities of the United Nations -– received not only political support, but also more concrete and visible action from the Secretariat and Assembly.

Also taking the floor today were representatives of Finland (on behalf of the European Union and associated States), Brazil and the United Republic of Tanzania.

Under other matters, the representative of the Russian Federation asked for answers in connection with the waiving of immunity of an Inspector of the Joint Inspection Unit and the Chairman of the ACABQ in 2005.

The Committee will begin its general discussion on the financial situation of the United Nations at 10 a.m. Thursday, 9 November.

Background

The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) met this morning to take up the situation of subregional offices of the Economic Commission for Africa (ECA) under its review of efficiency agenda item.

The Secretary-General’s report before the Committee (document A/61/471) was prepared pursuant to the General Assembly’s request, in resolution 60/235, that he submit a comprehensive plan of action to strengthen the subregional offices of the Economic Commission for Africa based on the recommendations of the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS).  The report outlines the plan and provides the timelines and clear lines of managerial accountability that will ensure full implementation of the OIOS recommendations.

The OIOS has made 14 recommendations aimed at strengthening the capacity of subregional offices through:  a more focused programming of their activities; the improved dissemination of information, emphasizing electronic means; a closer alignment of staff skills and expertise with subregional priorities; consistent maintenance of staff strength at budgeted levels; strengthening of administrative support to subregional offices; and introduction of reliable mechanisms for cooperation among subregional offices and between subregional offices and ECA headquarters.

According to the document, in early 2006, the new Executive Secretary of ECA also undertook a comprehensive review with a view to repositioning the organization to better respond to the challenges facing Africa.  The outcome of the review concurs with the conclusions of OIOS and prescribes a refocusing of the mandate and the mission of the subregional offices, the improvement of their products, services and delivery models, the development of new partnerships and the strengthening of the use of information and communication technology.

The plan of action includes measures to refocus the Commission’s mandate and mission to promote and support specific subregional priorities and programmes, taking account of Africa’s current context and priorities; improved products and services by the subregional offices; and achievement of visible improvements in their programme outputs.  Also envisioned is a new institutional governance framework for the subregional offices, as well as a strong partnership and networking with other relevant actors, and strengthening the resource base to achieve the offices’ mandated goals.  In line with the new strategy for a stronger field-based approach, the Commission will adopt a subregional office demand-driven planning and programming framework.

According to the document, implementation of the issues highlighted in the report will enable the offices to play an enhanced role in a repositioned Commission.  Moreover, in response to the recommendations of OIOS, specific actions have been planned and, to the extent possible, implementation has commenced.

The Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ), in a related report (document A/61/544) notes that, with respect to human resources, the ECA plans to deploy up to 30 per cent of its staff to the subregional offices and that this proportion, which was 21.1 per cent prior to the repositioning exercise, has increased to 22.2 per cent.  However, informed that ECA did not anticipate that the targeted level of 30 per cent could be reached in 2008-2009, the Advisory Committee requests that progress towards the achievement of this target be monitored and included in future reports.

The Advisory Committee further welcomes the results achieved in terms of improved vacancy rates, which have decreased from over 20 per cent and 6 per cent in 2003 to 7.2 per cent and 0 per cent for Professional and General Service posts, respectively.  While appreciating the efforts of ECA and its senior management to address the recommendations of the OIOS and the conclusions of its own review, the Advisory Committee also points out that a shift towards operational work raises fundamental questions about the respective roles of the ECA headquarters and subregional offices, as well as their integration with other United Nations entities present in the subregions.  It urges ECA to continue to review and define the role of the subregional offices in the context of the repositioning of ECA as a whole, with a view to achieving synergies and optimizing the use of existing resources with a greater balance between headquarters and subregional offices.

At this stage, the estimates outlined for additional post and non-post resources for subregional offices are preliminary.  According to the report, the budget proposals for 2008-2009 should identify a clear linkage between the requested resources and the mandated activities.  The posts requested should be fully justified and supported with a convincing analysis of what can realistically be carried out in the budget period.  Furthermore, the budget document should indicate how the capacity already available at ECA has been taken into account. An analysis of the possible impact of extrabudgetary funds on resource requirements should be included.  The results achieved and lessons learned during the current biennium should be carefully analysed and incorporated into the proposals for the next budget.

The Advisory Committee states that the General Assembly may wish to note the actions already taken to implement the OIOS recommendations concerning the programme and administrative management of subregional offices of the Economic Commission for Africa, without prejudice to such recommendations as the Advisory Committee may make on future proposals for resources and reorganization in the context of the ECA budget proposals for the biennium 2008-2009.

Introduction of Documents

URBAIN D. ZADI, Director, ad interim, of the Office of Strategic Planning and Programme Management, Economic Commission for Africa (ECA), introduced the Secretary-General’s report, saying that the plan of the Executive Secretary had been endorsed by the thirty-ninth session of the annual meeting of the Commission/Conference of African Ministers of Finance, Planning and Economic Development last May.  Relevant revisions to the programme for the biennium 2006-2007 and the strategic framework for 2008-2009 were considered at the forty-sixth session of the Committee for Programme and Coordination.  The revised programme plan for Subprogramme 7 on the subregional offices would be reviewed by the Committee for Programme and Coordination (CPC) at its forty-seventh session.  The ECA had already initiated the strengthening process of the offices using the resources currently available to it.  Additional staff and non-post resources identified as being essential would be addressed in the process of formulating the programme budget estimates for the next biennium.  While the Plan of Action aimed at strengthening the subregional offices was being implemented according to schedule, the offices’ mandated core activities could not be effectively carried out if they were not supported by adequate resources.

Chairman of the ACABQ, RAJAT SAHA, said that the reforms aimed to achieve a significant shift towards operational, rather than analytical work, with an increased proportion of ECA resources dedicated to subregional offices.  A key aspect was improvement of the information and communication technology infrastructure and the use of electronic means for the dissemination of information, improved visibility and outreach.  The Commission expected to fund the additional resources required during the current biennium through redeployment of both staff and non-post resources to the subsequent regional offices and to increase the level of extrabudgetary resources raised in 2007.  With respect to the budget proposals for the 2008-2009 biennium, the Advisory Committee requested that a clear linkage between the requested resources and mandated activities be demonstrated and fully justified.

Statements

KAREN LOCK (South Africa), speaking on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China, said that the World Summit Outcome had reaffirmed the commitment of Member States to address the special needs of Africa, which was the only continent not on track to meet any of the Millennium Development Goals by 2015.  The Heads of State and Government had resolved to strengthen cooperation with the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) by providing coherent support for the programmes drawn up by African leaders within that framework.  As a result, the Group in 2005 had expected the Secretariat to prepare concrete proposals, as in other areas of reform, to strengthen United Nations activities in support of the special needs of Africa.  However, that commitment had not been reflected in the revised estimates prepared last year in response to the World Summit decisions, where less than 1 per cent of new resources sought was to be expended in support of NEPAD.

She also recalled that the General Assembly, in its resolution 60/235, had consequently expressed its concern at the findings of the OIOS that the activities of subregional offices were constrained by the lack of resources for core functions.  The Assembly had further stressed the need to strengthen the subregional offices and requested the Secretary-General to provide a comprehensive action plan for that purpose and ensure that adequate resources were provided to the ECA and its subregional offices.  The Group welcomed the efforts to implement the OIOS recommendations and appreciated the seriousness of the ECA in meeting that goal, as illustrated by the review conducted in early 2006.  The African ministers had endorsed the reform measures last May and invited the Secretary-General to support the efforts of the Commission by the providing adequate resources in order to scale up the subregional offices operations.  The Group would have expected that aspect to have been addressed more concretely in the report before the Committee.

The Group appreciated the initiatives to reorganize the Commission and divert resources to the subregional offices, so as to address the OIOS recommendations in the short term.  However, it also recognized that those efforts were not entirely dependant on the actions of the Commission alone.  The Secretariat and Member States would have to provide adequate resources for critical areas identified by the OIOS and the Commission.  The Group was not clear as to the rationale for postponing critical decisions on resources to next year, when the Committee would consider the budget for 2008-2009.  That was certainly not the approach that had been taken with other critical reforms resulting from the World Summit.  While welcoming the efforts by the ECA to increase its extrabudgetary resources, she stressed that mandated activities should be financed from assessed contributions and the Commission should not be expected to increase its reliance on voluntary financing for the implementation of reform measures and other core activities.  The Group trusted that the Secretary-General would take concrete action to meet the provisions of resolution 60/235 and the request by the African ministers.  Development activities should be given similar treatment.

The ECA and its subregional offices played an important role in the efforts to advance the development agenda for Africa, she said in conclusion.  Unfortunately, since 2004, there had not been any real growth in the regular budget for activities in support of NEPAD.  The Group believed it was imperative to ensure that the development of Africa –- one of the eight main priorities of the United Nations -– received not only political support, but also more concrete and visible action from the Secretariat and Assembly.

SINIKKA KOSKI (Finland), on behalf of the European Union and associated States, was pleased to learn that the ECA had already achieved practical results from implementation of OIOS recommendations, such as computerizing subregional offices.  She noted the aim of enhancing the subregional offices through more focused programming of activities, creative dissemination of information emphasizing electronic means, and better horizontal and vertical coordination.  She said the reforms of ECA were under way, and that the action plan endeavoured to support regional integration in Africa, while paying attention to the priorities of each subregion.  She agreed that subregional cooperation helped create beneficial synergies for African societies and economies.  She acknowledged the need for continuous review and follow-up to restructure the work of the Commission and its subregional offices, with the objective of system-wide coherence in mind.  She concluded by saying that the ECA needed to continue to define the role of the subregional offices, and she expected some of the issues to be considered next year in the context of the budget for 2008-2009.

NONYE UDO ( Nigeria), speaking on behalf of the African Group, said that the ECA could only promote economic and social development throughout the African continent if it had well-equipped, effective and functioning subregional offices to deliver on General Assembly expectations and mandates.  But, the OIOS audit had revealed, to the consternation of all Member States, a myriad of problems and shortfalls within those offices, such as a paucity of regular budget funds and inadequate information and communication technology, as well as matters requiring administrative reorganization.  She said that the responsibility conferred on ECA was not matched by corresponding resources.

She was constrained to say that the ECA’s report did not fully address the General Assembly’s directives, as it only asked the General Assembly to take note of the measures carried out to implement the OIOS’ recommendation.  It did not provide the comprehensive action plan, nor was there an effort to ensure that adequate resources were provided to ECA and its subregional offices to continue their support for NEPAD and regional economics communities for Africa, as well as implementation of the OIOS recommendation.  She, therefore, sought clarification on when the additional information missing from the report would be received.  She acknowledged that ECA had taken steps to implement the OIOS recommendations, and took care to note that the Conference of African Ministers of Finance, Planning and Economic Development at its thirty-ninth session expressed explicit support for strengthening ECA’s subregional offices, and invited the Secretary-General to provide the ECA with adequate resources.

She welcomed the first steps taken by ECA to develop strategic directions for the subregional offices, which emphasized playing an active role in supporting the regional integration aspirations of member States of the ECA.  She was concerned that, in spite of the interim measures taken, actual actions to address the very serious issues faced by ECA were deferred to 2008-2009, contrary to the explicitly stated wishes of the General Assembly.  She sought clarification on the exact situation of vacancies at ECA and how it was working with the Office of Human Resources Management to facilitate recruitment.  She wanted to know how the new strategies lined up for 2006-2007 would be implemented in the absence of any request for resources before the General Assembly for approval, although she did agree with the European Union that these matters could also be discussed in the 2008-2009 budget request.

She concluded by saying that, while the Secretary-General’s proposals on ECA were detailed and deserving of support, they were just proposals, and that was not how the Fifth Committee had worked in the past.  She said the Committee would take the needed steps to ensure implementation of its own directives, and believed the OIOS should remain seized of the issue to evaluate full implementation of its recommendations that had been endorsed by the General Assembly.

FERNANDO DE OLIVEIRA SENA ( Brazil) was concerned that the additional resources required for the strengthening of the subregional offices during the current biennium were to be funded through redeployment of staff and non-post resources from ECA, while he understood that the mandated core functions of subregional offices were currently not adequately supported, as the OIOS found.  The Secretary-General’s proposal for reform of the subregional offices had to be carried out “within existing resources”, or even postponed to the next budget negotiations for 2008-2009.  He expected concrete proposals for post and non-post resources, and said the proposal for reform of ECA was not in line with existing reforms, such as the areas of strengthening OIOS and procurement.

He said adequate budgetary resources were needed for information and communication technology, as the size of the continent required a robust, integrated, and efficient information technology system to connect all subregional offices with ECA and each other.  He also understood that mandated activities could not be financed primarily via extrabudgetary funds, as the mandates should rely on stable and predictable funding in the regular budget.  He stressed the need for the Secretary-General to share the lessons learned and experiences gained from reforms undertaken by ECA with other regional commissions, such as the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).  He fully supported providing the necessary post and non-post resources to strengthen ECA’s subregional offices, as they played an important role in promoting regional integration, assisting African countries in meeting economic and social development challenges, and in implementing the programmes of NEPAD at the subregional level.

JOHN J. NG’ONGOLO (United Republic of Tanzania) was pleased that the strategy to reposition the subregional offices was geared towards the priorities defined by the African Union and the adoption of NEPAD and its peer review mechanism.  He emphasized the importance of ECA being a more action-oriented institution by ensuring a markedly stronger presence in the regional economic communities through its subregional offices.  He took note with keen interest that ECA intended to sign partnership agreements with regional economic communities, but was surprised to note that the East African Community, which he described as one of the most viable regional integration schemes in Africa, was not included.  He believed that the success of the East African Community was crucial for the realization of political and economic objectives in East Africa and the Great Lakes Region, and urged the ECA to support the East African Community integration process.

Other Matters

Under other matters, ANDREI KOVALENKO ( Russian Federation) addressed the issue of the procedures of waving immunity for elected United Nations officials.  As he had not received clear-cut information in informals following his inquiries about the procedures followed when the immunity of an Inspector of the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) and Chair of ACABQ had been waived in 2005, his delegation wanted to receive a written reply in the formal meeting of the Fifth Committee.  In particular, he wanted to know what basic documents governed the procedure of waiving the immunity of the officials who were not members of the Secretariat; what was the procedure for waiving immunity of elected officials; and what was the basis for waiving the immunity of the JIU Inspector and Chairman of the ACABQ.

During the course of previous informal consultations, the representative of the Secretary-General had informed the Committee that, in the case of waiving immunity of the Inspector in 2005, the Secretary-General had not consulted with the General Assembly, as provided for by the rules and regulations governing the status of elected officials, since he had received a special request from Swiss authorities on the confidential nature of the case.  He had also wanted to preserve the good name and reputation of the Inspector involved.

In that context, he also wondered about the specific reasons for not consulting the Assembly in the case of the Chairman of the ACABQ before the decision on the waiving of immunity was taken.  On what basis did the Secretary-General take a decision that not waiving immunity of the Chair of the ACABQ, Vladimir Kuznetsov, would impede the course of justice?  Also, what was the basis for his decision that it would not prejudice the interests of the United Nations?

In accordance with existing procedures, did the United Nations provide support to United Nations officials and should it make sure that people whose immunity has been waived receive assistance of a legal counsel?  Had there been cases when the Organization had denied national authorities a request to waive immunity of Secretariat officials, or was it done incrementally?  In those cases, what were the reasons for such decisions?  And, regarding the Chair of the ACABQ, did the Secretariat transfer any information or materials on the Chair to the United States legal authorities before immunity was waived on 1 September 2005?

Responding to a query from Nigeria, Mr. ZADI said that a significant effort was being made to fill vacant posts at ECA, and they were receiving significant support from the Office of Human Resources Management at Headquarters.  He added that ECA had been able to recruit a new head of personnel to reform the recruitment process.

Ms. LOCK next asked why the resource requirements of ECA had been deferred to the next programme budget, which was not consistent with the General Assembly’s intentions in its resolution on reforming ECA.  She stated that, if such a discussion could not be completed in a formal meeting, a representative of the Budget Office must at least be present at the next informal meeting, but added that a response must come in a formal meeting at another time.  She was satisfied with what had been said by ECA about its efforts, but noted that the matter of budget requirements was not up to regional commissions to address, and that it was the Budget Office’s role to respond to the General Assembly’s mandates.

JOHN MOFFAT, of the Office of Programme Planning, Budget and Accounts, said that the request from the Assembly had been received at a time when his Office was entering into its preparation of budget instructions for 2008-2009.  It had been decided that, because the situation emerged between budgets, and in light of ECA’s available resources, it could move towards strengthening subregional offices with redeployments in the current budget for 2006-2007, and then move to acquire the identified post and non-post resources in 2008-2009.

Ms. LOCK followed up that she sought to understand why a similar approach of deferring the request to 2008-2009 had not been followed with regard to other matters before the Assembly, such as recently seeking $5 million for a matter not in the 2006-2007 budget, or the revised estimates in such areas as procurement reform.  It was not clear why a different approach was being followed when it came to the development of Africa.  She said it was not the intention of the Assembly when the resolution was adopted to wait until December 2007.  She, therefore, requested the presence of the Budget Office in informal consultations, because more information was needed.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record