Sixty-second General Assembly

Fifth Committee

27^th Meeting (AM)

Budget committee takes up report of Joint Inspection Unit

 

as it begins resumed session

 

Stressing the importance of the Joint Inspection Unit as the only independent external oversight body of the United Nations system mandated to conduct system-wide evaluations, inspections and investigations, speakers in the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) today welcomed its focus on system-wide issues and elaborated on the ways to further increase its effectiveness.

According to the Unit’s report -- introduced by its new Chairman, Even Fontaine Ortiz -- in 2007, the Unit published 12 reports, two notes and one management letter, with 140 concrete, action-oriented recommendations.  If approved and implemented, those should result in tangible management improvements through enhanced efficiency.  Six of the reports, one note and one management letter were of a system-wide nature and three covered the entire management and administration of specialized agencies.

Speaking on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China, the representative of Antigua and Barbuda expressed appreciation for the Unit’s action to strengthen follow-up to its recommendations, by monitoring the status of their acceptance and implementation and identifying action required by the participating organizations.  He urged all participating organizations to provide information on the status of the implementation, as requested by the Unit.

With the implementation of recommendations critical to the effectiveness of an oversight body, the United States representative -- while commending the Unit’s efforts in 2007 -- sought an explanation as to why the implementation rates for single-agency and system-wide reports were 26 and 38 per cent, respectively.  He also suggested that the Unit should provide estimates on the savings that had been achieved as a result of its recommendations during the reporting period.

While giving an overall positive assessment of the Unit’s work, the representative of the Russian Federation expressed concern that, compared with the previous reporting period, the proportion of the Unit’s recommendations on which there was no information on their acceptance had increased from 3 to 18 per cent.  Therefore, while the Unit noted with satisfaction that, at present, the implementation rate exceeded the rate for the previous reporting period by 16 points, he believed it was essential to make additional efforts in that area.

Members of the Committee also supported cooperation among the Organization’s external and internal oversight bodies, as well as clear division of labour to avoid duplication.  In that connection, Russia welcomed the Unit’s quarterly meetings with the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) and the Board of Auditors, as well as regular contacts with other oversight bodies.

As it opened its first resumed session today, the Committee also agreed on its programme of work through 28 March, on the understanding that it would be reviewed and adjusted, as necessary, in the course of the session.  Among the issues to be taken up by the Committee are human resources management, procurement, an accountability framework, enterprise risk management and an internal control framework and the Secretary-General’s proposals on strengthening the Secretariat.

Under “other matters”, the representative of Cuba -- supported by Sudan, Egypt, Bangladesh, Iran, Venezuela and Nicaragua -- requested an explanation from the Secretariat on the mandate and resources for the recent appointment of Edward C. Luck as Special Adviser at the Assistant Secretary-General level, with focus on the responsibility to protect.  Speakers pointed out that, in December, the Fifth Committee had not approved a proposal to create a post of Assistant Secretary-General for a special representative on the responsibility to protect.  In that connection, the representative of Bangladesh commented on a trend of bypassing the General Assembly in implementing certain decisions, and the representative of Nicaragua insisted that the Assembly was the only body that had the authority to establish or eliminate posts.

The Committee will take up human resources management at 10 a.m. Tuesday, 4 March.

Background

The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) started its first resumed session today, taking up the 2007 annual report and 2008 programme of work of the Joint Inspection Unit.  Further to General Assembly decision 61/260, the report and programme of work are to be considered by the Committee jointly at the first part of its resumed session.

According to the report of the Joint Inspection Unit (document A/62/34/Add.1), in 2007, the Unit published 12 reports, two notes and one management letter.  These reviews contain 140 concrete, action-oriented recommendations that, if approved and implemented, should result in tangible management improvements through enhanced efficiency.  Six of the reports, one note and one management letter were of a system-wide nature and three covered the entire management and administration of specialized agencies, namely, the World Meteorological Organization, the International Civil Aviation Organization and the International Maritime Organization.

For the year 2008, following the General Assembly invitation to the Unit to duly take into account suggestions made by the participating organizations, 7 of the 12 reviews contained in the Unit’s programme of work were suggested by them.  Three other reviews were proposed by the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) and the Board of Auditors, as a result of closer tripartite collaboration with those oversight services.  In terms of coverage, and also as a response to the Assembly’s directive in resolution 62/226, nine planned reports are of a system-wide nature, against three single-organization reports, two of them being mandated by the legislative organs.  Management and efficiency issues continue to be the main target of the Unit’s programme of work.

Throughout the year 2007, the Unit pursued its efforts to achieve greater efficiency of its working tools and human resources.  Among internal reform initiatives, the report lists introduction of an electronic mail registration system (e-Registry), completion of the electronic Documentation and Information Centre and reorganization of the Intranet and the shared drive, which have resulted in less processing time and paperwork.  The in-house development of an Access-based database will facilitate the follow-up on the implementation and impact of recommendations and the issuance of statistical reports.  A new time tracking system allows report preparation to be monitored and increases accountability.

The Unit also adopted a new organizational structure to enhance coaching and learning of junior and assistant staff, whereas a number of support tasks were consolidated under a Quality Assurance and Documents Management Unit.  Creation of two Professional posts against the abolition of two General Service posts for the biennium 2008-2009 will improve the ratio of inspectors to research staff and the delivery of reports, helping to resolve conflicting priorities.  An investigation capability is being established within the Unit.  Training targets were set up and different learning initiatives developed for both inspectors and staff.

Meetings were organized with participating organizations to exchange views on issues of mutual interest, with a view to greater understanding and cooperation.  The tripartite meetings held periodically with the Board of Auditors and the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) serve to create synergies among oversight services following the exchange of their respective programmes of work.

Organization of Work

As the Committee took up its organization of work for the session, its attention was drawn to a new website service, Quick Fifth, which had been developed in response to the General Assembly’s decision that “supplementary financial information be presented to the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ), including, inter alia, detailed explanations of requirements by component and source of funds and by object or expenditure, should also be made available to Member States, including through the Fifth Committee website”.  Quick Fifth would be a private, password-protected website that could be accessed by delegations.

Speaking on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China, the representative of Antigua and Barbuda, noted the introduction of the report on strengthening the Department of Political Affairs, saying that the Group was working with the Non-Aligned Movement, in the framework of the Joint Coordinating Committee, in order to avoid having the political aspects of the report delay the consideration of its administrative and budgetary aspects.  He hoped that their concerns would be taken into account by the Secretary-General.  He also expressed his deep concern over the fact that some documents had been issued late or unavailable.  That could have a negative effect on the functioning of the Committee.

Speaking on behalf of the European Union and associated States, the representative of Slovenia welcomed forthcoming briefings by the Secretariat and said that the main thrust of the debate during the session would be on reform issues.  It was necessary to continue with what the Committee had started during previous sessions to improve the accountability, efficiency and effectiveness of the Organization.  Human resources management, procurement, an accountability framework, enterprise risk management and internal control framework, and results-based management, as well as the Secretary-General’s proposals on strengthening the Secretariat and its activities were on the table.  The European Union was ready to consider carefully all those proposals, taking into account budgetary constraints and cost-effectiveness.  There were also certain special political missions’ budgets, and the consolidation of peacekeeping accounts, to which the Union gave special importance.

She was convinced that, by 28 March, the Committee could reach a successful outcome by working actively and constructively from the very first day, she said.  She also expressed concern over late issuance of some reports, stressing that timely availability of reports was essential if the Committee was to perform its functions effectively and efficiently.

The representative of the Dominican Republic, speaking on behalf of the Rio Group, said human resources management reform, procurement and new proposals to strengthen the Department of Political Affairs and the entities devoted to development affairs would be among the main issues to be addressed in the current session.  He hoped that progress would be achieved on those issues, some of them postponed several times.  For the Group, strengthening of the United Nations development architecture was a fundamental matter.  A reform was needed in which the United Nations could undertake its responsibility to development, according to the Charter, in coordination with the funds, programmes and specialized agencies.  There would be no durable solution for international peace and security if there was no adequate attention to the eradication of poverty.  He acknowledged the importance of having mechanisms that would enable preventive diplomatic activities.

He said that the Group was aware that, in certain realms of the Department of Political Affairs, there were limitations in the Organization and resources that had a negative impact on its capacity to carry out its functions effectively.  He hoped that the political nature of the report would not delay the purely administrative and budgetary aspects of the proposals.  On the other hand, taking advantage of the synergies between the departments of the secretariat, specialized organs and funds and programmes could contribute significantly to increasing efficiency, and lessen the pressure of demands for additional resources.

On human resources, he emphasized that their efficient management was of the utmost importance and reiterated the need to promote equitable geographic distribution, particularly in senior posts and Professional categories.  He agreed with the Secretary-General’s proposal regarding the simplification of contractual arrangements on the basis of a single set of staff regulations.  Equal treatment of staff was essential, and their conditions of service should be ruled by the same criteria.  That could be accomplished with the creation of a single set of rules.

He also expressed regret that the report on procurement reform was not out yet.  However, the Group expected that the reform would enable the creation of a solid system of proactive application that would lead to an efficient, transparent and inclusive procurement process, sustained by an adequate evaluation and monitoring system.

Regarding the financing of the Peacebuilding Commission, he expressed the Group’s support for the role of the Commission and said that financing field missions was an efficient way to allow it to carry out its work effectively.

The United States representative said that the 2008-2009 budget adopted in December had been recognized as an initial appropriation, not a final budget.  His delegation had expressed its concern over the process by which the budget had been addressed, and had been critical of the piecemeal and ad hoc approach to the budget presentation.  It had expressed concern that the magnitude of the budget had not been adequately reflected and emphasized the need to present a full picture to let Member States prioritize proposals.  The United States had also proposed encouraging the Secretary-General, when submitting proposals for new or expanded programmes, to identify efficiency savings.  The Organization needed to recognize that unrestrained growth of the budget was not sustainable and that it was necessary to exercise fiscal discipline in the face of increasing budgetary demands.

Significant budget items had been deferred and would substantially increase the final budget, he continued.  Expected add-ons could exceed $1 billion, putting the total at some $5.2 billion or higher -- by far the largest ever budget of the United Nations.  The main challenge before the Fifth Committee was how to improve fiscal discipline and deal with unrestrained growth of the budget.  There were limits to how much the Organization could spend.  He also shared the concerns by previous speakers regarding timely submission of reports requested by the Committee.

The Committee then approved its programme of work, on the understanding that it would be reviewed and adjusted, as necessary, in the course of the session.

Joint Inspection Unit

The report before the Committee was introduced by the new Chair of the Joint Inspection Unit, EVEN FONTAINE ORTIZ, who said that Unit was mandated to make recommendations, without any authority for enforcement.  Therefore, the Unit’s effectiveness depended heavily on the intervention and support of Member States and collaboration of participating organizations.  Still, contrary to the pertinent provisions of the approved follow-up system, a number of secretariats continued to recommend to their legislative organs to only take note of the reports and recommendations.

He also stressed that the level of resources provided to the Unit was very far from the amount required to respond to Member States’ expectations.  Since its inception in 1968, the Unit budget staffing table had remained practically static.  This year, the Unit had decided to rationalize the structure of its secretariat by simultaneously eliminating two General Service posts and creating two Professional posts.  The Unit was heavily involved in a continued reform process.  Among other things, it had decided to review its strategic planning for 2010-2011 and present to the Assembly, through the Committee for Programme and Coordination (CPC), a more action-oriented results-based management framework with concrete, verifiable indicators of achievement.

CONROD HUNTE ( Antigua and Barbuda), speaking on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, said that the Group highly valued the work of the Unit as the sole independent oversight body of the United Nations system.  Over the years, the Unit had presented valuable reports on United Nations agencies and systemic issues that were relevant to the entire system.  He was pleased to note the Unit’s commitment to bringing about the necessary internal reforms in response to relevant General Assembly resolutions.  The Group particularly appreciated the improvements in the Unit’s working methods, tools and procedures, such as a harmonized report format that would make the documents more reader-friendly and their presentation in line with the Assembly’s guidelines.  The Group appreciated the quality of the reports and their utility for the work of the United Nations.

The 2007 report referred to the Unit’s reports on many critical areas, he continued, stressing the need for full implementation of the recommendations by concerned agencies and entities.  The Group appreciated the action taken by the Unit to strengthen its follow-up system to its recommendations, by monitoring the status of their acceptance and implementation and identification of action required by the participating organizations, as stated in the report.  He urged all participating organizations to provide the information on the status of the implementation of the recommendations, as requested by the Unit.  He also stressed the need to strengthen ongoing cooperation and coordination between the Unit, OIOS and Board of Auditors, in order to avoid overlap and duplication and promote efficient use of resources.  The idea of a dialogue among all oversight bodies was useful, and he commended the Unit for promoting that interaction, as well as dialogue with oversight bodies at other organizations of the United Nations system.

He also noted that, in the past, the Unit had reported to the General Assembly on the difficulties and delays in obtaining visas for the official travel of some of the inspectors and members of its secretariat.  As pointed out in the report, there had been some improvements regarding that issue.  He hoped that trend would continue and whatever difficulties remained would be rectified urgently.  He encouraged the Unit to keep the Assembly informed, if necessary, on that issue.  He commended the Unit’s programme of work and reiterated the Group’s support to the continued relevance of the Unit and its mandate, as well as its important role in the system.

YURIY P. SPIRIN ( Russian Federation) said that his delegation attached great importance to improvement of the activities of the Joint Inspection Unit and welcomed such initiatives as the introduction of an e-Registry, creation of an electronic documentation and information centre, and reorganization of the Intranet and shared drive.  He hoped that those innovations would help increase the effectiveness of the Unit.  He also wanted to receive more information on the creation of an investigative capability within the Unit.

The Russian Federation attached great importance to the Unit’s contribution to enhancing the administrative and financial effectiveness of the United Nations.  That was particularly important, considering the continued reforms of the United Nations and efforts to increase productivity.  The daily functioning of the United Nations, its systems and continuing reforms required the coordinated work of its oversight and audit bodies.  His delegation consistently supported strengthening of both internal and external oversight within the United Nations, as well as clear division of labour to avoid duplication.  In that connection, he welcomed the Unit’s quarterly meetings with OIOS and the Board of Auditors, as well as regular contacts with other oversight bodies.

At the same time, he was concerned by the fact that, compared with the previous reporting period, the proportion of the Unit’s recommendations on which there was no information on their acceptance had increased from 3 to 18 per cent. That related not only to single-agency reports, but also to system-wide documents, where the situation was even worse -- the information on the acceptance of the Unit’s recommendations had been presented on only some 50 per cent of those reports.  Therefore, while the Unit noted with satisfaction that, at present, the implementation rate exceeded the rate for the previous reporting period by 16 points, he believed it was essential to make additional efforts in that area.

While noting a positive overall picture in the Unit’s work in 2007, he also drew attention to the time factor in the preparation and submission of its reports, stressing that delegations needed sufficient time to study and analyse them.  Those documents should not appear on the delegates’ tables after the end of the discussion.  It was also inadmissible to distribute reports just a few days before the beginning of the Committee’s session.

ANDREW S. HILLMAN ( United States) commended Even Fontaine Ortiz and Gerard Biraud on their respective elections as Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Joint Inspection Unit and encouraged them to build upon the progress made by their predecessors in transforming the Unit into a more effective oversight body.  He commended the Unit’s efforts in 2007, as reflected in the Unit’s issuance of 12 reports, two notes and one management letter.  In particular, the United States welcomed and encouraged the Unit’s increased focus on preparing reports of a system-wide nature, in keeping with requests previously made by the General Assembly.  It also welcomed the steps taken by the Unit to strengthen its follow-up system regarding the implementation of its recommendations by each participating organization.

The United States considered the implementation of recommendations critical to the effectiveness of an oversight body and, in that regard, would welcome an explanation as to the reasons why the implementation rates for single agency and system-wide reports were 26 and 38 per cent, respectively, he continued.  While some delays were inevitably linked to the infrequency with which the governing bodies of certain participating organizations met, there might be other factors that delayed the prompt implementation of Unit recommendations.  The United States would, therefore, welcome further clarification from Mr. Ortiz on that point.

The Unit’s report also showed that 40 per cent of the reports issued in 2006 contained recommendations for action by the General Assembly, he noted, and pointed out that it would be helpful for Member States to receive a summary list of those recommendations for further consideration and discussion by the Committee.

Mr. Hillman expressed his country’s disappointment that the Unit had not provided a quantitative assessment of its impact on improving effectiveness and efficiency throughout the United Nations system as, for example, the OIOS did in its own annual report.  The Unit should provide any estimates it had on the savings that had been achieved as a result of its recommendations during the reporting period.  The United States also encouraged the Unit to continue close coordination and cooperation with the United Nations Board of Auditors and with the OIOS in order to avoid duplication in the work of the United Nations’ principal oversight bodies.

EVEN FONTAINE ORTIZ, Chairman of the Joint Inspection Unit, in response to comments by the representatives of the Russian Federation and the United States, agreed with United States in welcoming the work by the former head of Unit and the former Vice-Chairman.  The former bureau had done excellent work in giving greater potency to the Unit.  The challenge was to continue that work, and to further strengthen the Unit.

The representative of the Russian Federation had raised two points, he stated.  The first had to do with the Unit’s investigation capabilities.  In that regard, the Unit statute contained the function of investigation, but since investigation was a specialized area, it could not be carried out unless the necessary expertise was available.  The Unit had been building that expertise and had announced a new post to be filled over the next few months.  Only last Friday, a package of policies on how the Unit planned to carry out its investigations had been approved.  There were two types of investigation:  classic investigations, which had to do with the best use of resources and investigations that had to do with individuals with regard to mismanagement and so forth.  Those two were dealt with separately.  The Unit was building the necessary capabilities for those investigations and more details would be provided to the Committee at a later stage.

The representative of the Russian Federation had also referred to the distribution of the reports of the Unit, he went on.  In that regard, the Unit prepared its reports on time, but those reports had to be commented on by the Secretariat.  In a few cases, getting those comments had delayed things so much that the reports could not be considered by Member States in time.  For example, two years ago, the Russian Federation had asked why a report on mobility had not been available for discussion.  That report had been prepared on time, but the comments and translation took about five months and, as such, the report could not be considered in a timely way.

Regarding the comments by the United States representative, the first related to why the acceptance rate for proposals had been low, he said.  The acceptance rate had gone down in the present report, but the reason was a problem of time.  There was a little bit of mismatch between the periods covered.  Given the schedule of legislative bodies, reports were not always taken up in the period when they were prepared.  Thus, the acceptance rate needed to cover previous years.  For example, since many reports were directed to Member States, the acceptance rate could not be reported until the Member States had reported on the implementation.

The other question relates to whether the Unit could talk about saving as a result of recommendations, he noted.  That depended on approval of the recommendations by the Member States.  For example, two years ago, the Unit had proposed a common payroll, which would have led to savings of $4 million.  That was not approved and, as such, no cost savings could be reported.  More information on that subject would be made available to the Committee during informal consultations.  The Unit was also looking at how comments on its reports could be made at an earlier stage, to facilitate speedy availability of the reports.

Other Matters

Under Other Matters, PABLO BERTI OLIVA ( Cuba) requested that the Committee’s informal consultations be postponed pending receipt of information he was going to request.  In recent days, the Secretariat had nominated Edward C. Luck as Special Adviser at the Assistant Secretary-General level, with focus on the responsibility to protect.  However, in December, the Fifth Committee had considered a report on special political missions, where the proposal had been made to create a post at the Assistant Secretary-General level for a special representative on the responsibility to protect.  That proposal had not been approved by the Fifth Committee.  Therefore, he had not expected the Secretary-General to directly appoint a Special Adviser on the responsibility to protect.

Clearly, there was no consensus on that issue in the General Assembly, he added.  Therefore, there was no mandate for the appointment.  He requested that members of Secretariat provide an explanation, at a formal meeting, of the reasons for that appointment and the mandate on which it had been based.  Why had the appointment been made at the Assistant Secretary-General level?  What financial and human resources had been used to make the appointment?

MOHAMED YOUSIF IBRAHIM ABDELMANNAN ( Sudan) said that the Committee did look into a note from the Secretary-General proposing a special representative on the responsibility to protect, but that post was not approved.  The Secretary-General had now appointed a Special Representative without approval.  Procedurally, that was a breach of the prerogative of the body concerned.  In previous specific resolutions, the Committee had pointed out the shortcomings in the Secretariat’s implementation of General Assembly mandates.  The appointment was a matter of the Secretariat overstepping its authority.  The Sudan would want the Secretariat to provide clarification for its actions, as well as the resource implications of the appointment.  That clarification should be provided orally and, thereafter, in writing.

HESHAM MOHAMED EMAN AFIFI ( Egypt) said that his delegation was also concerned about the issue, because it had been pushing in different arenas and forums for the revitalization of the General Assembly and for ways to make resolutions from the Assembly have binding force.  It had been agreed that the mandates were binding by their nature, but that was not the way the Secretariat saw it.  It was not up to the Secretariat to take decisions and to go on implementing them.   Egypt was looking forward to the clarifications that had been requested by Cuba.  Even if the Secretariat said that it had held consultations with some concerned States, it did not mean that procedures could be circumvented.

MUHAMMAD A. MUHITH ( Bangladesh) also expressed serious concern over the procedure of establishing the post of Assistant Secretary-General for the responsibility to protect.  The General Assembly had not approved the post.  There was a trend of bypassing the General Assembly in implementing certain decisions, and he joined others who had asked for clarifications on the appointment.

JAVAD SAFAEI ( Iran) also sought clarifications on the appointment -- a matter that had been specifically discussed during the General Assembly, which had given specific instructions to the Secretariat.

SAMER S. ALOUAN KANAFANI ( Venezuela) agreed with others, expressing concern about the actions of the Secretariat in nominating the Special Adviser on responsibility to protect without consulting the General Assembly.  His delegation was waiting for the Secretariat to provide more oral and written information on how exactly the person had been appointed, using what resources and based on what mandate.

Ms. SIMKIC ( Slovenia) suggested that the Committee should adhere to the programme of work as adopted this morning and continue the discussion on other matters at a later point.

DANILO ROSALES DIAZ ( Nicaragua) expressed surprise at the procedure that, he said, was becoming customary now with the Secretariat -- not respecting the mandate of the General assembly.  The Assembly was the only universal legislative body of the Organization.  Nicaragua could not understand how, after long hours of discussion during which the Assembly decided to reject the proposal for the creation of an Assistant Secretary-General post on the responsibility to protect, there was suddenly an appointment despite a clear decision to the contrary.   Nicaragua requested a postponement of the Committee’s consultations, so that the Secretariat could explain the background to that appointment.  The Secretariat should explain that violation of a mandate.  The issue was not a matter of discussing the pros and cons of the post, but a matter of safeguarding the mandates of each body within the Organization.  It was a matter of respecting everyone’s respective role.

Following consultations by members of the Committee’s Bureau, the Committee Chairman announced that the Secretariat had given a commitment to provide clarifications on the issue tomorrow both orally and in writing.  He, therefore, proposed that the Committee continue with its informals on the Joint Inspection Unit and on other aspects of its other work plan as originally planned for this afternoon.

Mr. BERTI OLIVA ( Cuba) said that his delegation never planned to delay the work of Committee and that he did not raise the problem of the appointment during the discussion on the work plan because he wanted the Committee to finish its work as planned.   Cuba was not asking that the Joint Inspection Unit issue remain open and felt that that subject should be dealt with once and for all.  The delegation had taken note of the announcement by the Chairman and hoped that tomorrow morning, following the discussion on human resources, there would be a concrete reply from the Secretariat on the issues raised.  That reply should not just be a brief piece of paper, but should be a detailed report.  In order to show flexibility, his country would agree to the Chairman’s proposal to proceed to informals on the Joint Inspection Unit.

Mr. DIAZ ( Nicaragua) said that he was astounded at the procedure being followed by Secretariat.  The Secretariat had been informed that the matter would be dealt with by the Committee today, but it did not have the courtesy to prepare or have a senior official available to address the Committee.  The Secretariat was not a legislative body and had the duty to render account to the General Assembly.  The Assembly would continue to ask that it be accountable.   Nicaragua had decided to support the Chairman’s proposal, but would like to stress that the present situation meant that the Assembly had taken a decision and that decision had been violated.  A person had been appointed to a post that did not exist.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record