Sixty-third General Assembly

Fifth Committee

7^th Meeting (AM)

BUDGET COMMITTEE TAKES UP REPORTS OF BOARD OF AUDITORS,

 

COMMITTEE ON PROGRAMME AND COORDINATION

 

The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) this morning took up 19 reports by the Board of Auditors, the Organization’s independent external oversight body, and began its discussion on programme planning -- a process that allows the United Nations to translate intergovernmental mandates into concrete programmes.

Introducing the reports of the Board of Auditors, Olivier Myard, Chairman of the Audit Operations Committee, pointed out that of 16 audit opinions, 7 were unqualified, but the Board had also issued 9 modified opinions that emphasized various matters.  The modified opinions concerned nine entities:  the International Trade Centre (UNCTAD/WTO), United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS), International Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), UN-Habitat, United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and the United Nations University.

The United States representative expressed concern at the report noting the strong contrast to past years when unqualified opinions were the norm.  The representatives of Antigua and Barbuda (on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China) expressed satisfaction that the administration’s rate of implementation of Board recommendations had improved significantly to 68.3 per cent from 26 per cent in the previous reporting period.

The speakers raised many areas of concern, among them unpaid contributions to the regular budget; inadequacies in recording non-expendable property; deficiencies in property management; implementation of the International Public Sector Accounting Standards; increased cases of fraud; management of trust funds; Capital Master Plan compliance with Board recommendations; and the reduction in the share of successful candidates for Organization posts from underrepresented countries, while overrepresented countries share of successful candidates had increased.

Under programme planning, the Committee considered the Organization’s performance for the biennium 2006-2007 and its proposed strategic framework for 2010-2011, which is going to serve as the basis for the budget proposals for the next biennium.

[Consisting of the plan outline and the biennial programme plan, the strategic framework was first introduced for the 2006-2007 biennium, but for both 2006-2007 and 2008-2009, the Assembly approved only the programme plan, taking no decision on the plan outline.  By its latest resolution on the matter, the Assembly decided to maintain the strategic framework as the principal policy directive and to continue to include the plan outline in it.  However, the Secretary-General was requested to improve the format of part one and the reflection of the longer-term objectives therein.]

Commenting on the report of the Committee for Programme and Coordination -- the Organization’s main planning, programming and coordinating body -- the representative of Antigua and Barbuda, on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, encouraged programme managers to comply with its overarching recommendation to improve the formulation of expected accomplishments to better reflect all intergovernmental mandates.  He also stressed the importance of the plan outline, in that it encompassed the Organization’s longer-term objectives.  He noted that, in the future, it should take into account all relevant Assembly resolutions.

Questions were raised in the discussion regarding the relevance and effectiveness of the Committee for Programme and Coordination itself, however.  While supporting most Committee recommendations, the United States stressed that it needed to make sure that maximum use was made of the resources provided by Member States and suggested that it should seek guidance in the recent Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) report on results-based management, which had discussed such problems as vague indicators and self-serving statements of results.  OIOS had recommended, among other things, revisions to the rules and regulations pertaining to programme planning, budgeting, monitoring and evaluation.  The Committee for Programme and Coordination could address the shortcomings raised by OIOS by making recommendations to correct them, if it wanted to “rehabilitate itself”.

Japan’s representative reiterated his country’s concern about the Committee for Programme and Coordination tendency to deviate from its intended evaluation and coordination role by focusing on issues related to management and resources.  He encouraged the Committee to revert to its given mandate, as it was consuming its energy on repeating the discussions already taking place in other fora, and producing no added value.  During its latest session, the Committee had been unable to manage extensive discussions on improving its working methods.  He, therefore, remained concerned about the ineffectiveness and relevance of the work of the Committee, which had not produced outputs in line with its terms of reference.

Speaking on behalf of the European Union, the representative of France welcomed measures to improve the Committee’s effectiveness and said that it should be strengthened in its work, so that it could fully achieve its mission of providing guidelines for budget planning, in consideration of the priorities set by the Assembly.

The representative of the Russian Federation, however, said the Committee had made significant progress in improving its working methods and enhancing its effectiveness and performance.  Taking those results into account, he hoped it would be able to concentrate more on substantive issues in the future, without being side-tracked into largely politicized discussion on its working methods.

The documents before the Committee were also introduced by the Chief of the Accountability and Oversight Support Service, Nancy Hurtz-Soyka; Vice-Chairman of ACABQ, Collen Kelapile; Chair of the Committee for Programme and Coordination, Ren Yisheng; Director of the Programme Planning and Budget Division, Sharon Van Buerle; and Chief of the Oversight Support Unit, Mario Baez.

The Committee will continue its debate on development-related activities at 10 a.m. Thursday, 16 October.

Background

The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) met this morning to consider programme planning and the findings and conclusions of the Board of Auditors on the accounts of 16 organizations and programmes of the United Nations system for the financial period ended 31 December 2007 (documents A/63/5(Vol.I), III, IV, V, Add.1-12).  The Committee also had before it a concise summary of the Board’s principal findings and conclusions (document A/63/169).  (For background on programme planning, see Press Release GA/AB/3865.)

For the period ended 31 December 2007, the Board issued unqualified opinions for seven entities (the United Nations, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR), United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund).

It issued modified audit reports with various emphases for nine entities (International Trade Centre (UNCTAD/WTO), United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS), International Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), UN-Habitat, United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and the United Nations University).

The reports include the organizations’ replies to the recommendations and observations of the Board, as well as additional information on measures taken to implement those recommendations.  The entities have generally concurred with the recommendations and have proceeded to implement them.  In instances where they do not agree with the recommendations or contend that they are unable to begin implementation, explanations have been provided.

For the first time during the current reporting period, liabilities for after-service health insurance benefits were disclosed in the notes to the financial statements and reflected on the face of the financial statements by certain entities.  In connection with that change of presentation, the Board was concerned about the lack of uniformity and consistency among the United Nations and its funds and programmes in the accounting for those service liabilities, which ranged from full disclosure to partial, or no disclosure in some cases.

On the International Trade Centre, the Board drew attention to a negative amount of about $20.17 million in the reserves and fund balances, due to the initial recognition of end-of-service liabilities in the financial statements.  Despite the negative balance, the International Trade Centre does not face an immediate funding problem, as it meets its current end-of-service obligations through ongoing budgetary allocations.  Nevertheless, this issue should be addressed as early as possible.

At UNOPS, several inter-fund receivables could not be confirmed, as well as balances with other entities.  The Board also reported shortcomings in asset management and noted significant errors in asset registers concerning an amount of $10.3 million for non-expendable property.  Following a comprehensive review of all submissions from its operations centres and regional offices, UNOPS made an adjustment of $2.3 million to the value of non-expendable property disclosed, but the Board was unable to verify the accuracy of those corrections.  Another issue flagged relates to UNOPS transition to Atlas in January 2004, when several balances and transactions relating to projects were not accurately transferred.  As a result, UNOPS under-recorded expenditure.

In connection with two International Tribunals, the Board drew attention to the deficits of $13.47 million and $38.38 million in the respective reserves and fund balances for the Yugoslav Tribunal and the Rwanda Tribunal.  In view of the planned closure of both Tribunals in 2010, it is necessary to identify the funding sources to be used in the payment of separation benefits to employees.  The Board also drew attention to the fact that UNHCR did not provide it with audit certificates in respect of some $287.5 million, which related to its expenditures through national execution modality.

The Board also noted persistent deficient asset management; and the negative balance of reserves and funds at the end of 2007 resulting from the recording of end-of-service liabilities.  The Board was also not provided with the results of the physical inventory count at UNEP and was unable to corroborate the amount of $17.5 million in its financial statements.  At UN-Habitat, the Board was unable to corroborate some $10.4 million, as it was not provided the results of a comprehensive physical inventory count.  At the United Nations Population Fund, it drew attention to some shortcomings in the nationally executed expenditure audit process.  At the United Nations University, the Board was concerned about transfers of cumulative surplus to the income account amounting to $7 million.  Although the transfers did not affect the reserves and fund balances at the end of the biennium, they could distort the results of operations.

On the implementation of its recommendations, the Board notes that, of the total of 788 recommendations from previous biennia, 505 (64 per cent) were fully implemented, 250 (32 per cent) were partially implemented, 19 (2 per cent) were not implemented and 14 (2 per cent) were overtaken by events.  While noting some progress in the implementation, the Board encourages the organizations to fully implement all outstanding recommendations, with emphasis on those dating back to 2000-2001 and earlier.  In individual reports on each organization, the Board has highlighted specific reasons and challenges relating to the delays in implementing certain recommendations.  The Board invites the administrations to allocate specific responsibility for the implementation of all recommendations to individuals or divisions, within a predetermined time frame.

The report on the implementation of the Board’s recommendations (document A/63/327) provides additional comments from the administration, where required, as well as information on the status of implementation, the office responsible, the estimated completion date and the priority for each recommendation contained in the Board reports.  In addition, the document contains updated information on the status of implementation of the recommendations of the Board relating to prior periods that were reported by the Board as not having been fully implemented.

With regard to the most important recommendations that the Board categorized as the “main” ones, the Secretary-General states that, while all accepted recommendations will be implemented in a timely manner, the main recommendations will be considered of the highest priority.  According to the report, 2 of the 39 main recommendations of the Board fall under the purview of the Assembly and cannot be implemented by the Secretariat without its guidance.  The implementation of 28 recommendations is in progress.  With regard to the seven recommendations for which no target date has been set, one pertains to an ongoing activity, two dates are to be determined and the implementation of four recommendations is dependent on consideration by the Assembly or the implementation of the International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS).

Contained in an addendum to the Secretary-General’s report (document A/63/327/Add.1) are responses of the executive heads of the funds and programmes of the United Nations, as well as International Tribunals for Rwanda and the Former Yugoslavia.

The Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ), in a related report (document A/63/474), welcomes the high quality of the Board’s reports and encourages the Secretary-General to designate focal points in each department/office to facilitate the implementation of the recommendations and ensure accountability.  Further, the Board should strengthen its validation process, and the format of the reports on the implementation of Board’s recommendations could be better structured in order to facilitate cross-referencing with the Board’s reports.  The Advisory Committee appreciates the Board’s coordination and collaboration with other oversight bodies, which add value to the effectiveness of the oversight process and contribute to the optimal use of resources.

The Advisory Committee notes that the financial statements of the United Nations showed a positive net income, assets in excess of liabilities and a positive cash flow balance.  However, despite a significant increase in the Organization’s total cash, the cash-to-liabilities ratio decreased significantly owing to the recording of end-of-service and post-retirement liabilities, which were valued, as at 31 December 2007, at $2.33 billion.  Aggregate liabilities of all the entities audited were estimated to exceed $4.1 billion at the end of 2007.  In fact, that amount had been underestimated, because the United Nations Pension Fund had not yet disclosed its liabilities and other entities had disclosed their liabilities to varying degrees.

The Advisory Committee emphasizes that such liabilities should be disclosed as soon as possible by all entities in preparation for the implementation of IPSAS.  In this connection, it recalls the Board’s view that recording of end-of-service and post-retirement liabilities in the accounts calls for a comprehensive and effective funding strategy.  With United Nations entities now being at different stages in the preparation for IPSAS, the application of the standards will need to be monitored closely to ensure consistency.  The Advisory Committee also advocates careful monitoring of the enterprise resource planning system, which is one of the main drivers to make overall management and administration more modern and uniform.  The Assembly should be kept apprised of developments in that regard, and ACABQ looks forward to future reviews by the Board as regards to the preparatory process for enterprise resource planning, as well as IPSAS.

Further, according to the report, the Advisory Committee:

-- welcomes the procedures followed by the Development Account in respect of technical cooperation activities and concurs with the Board’s recommendation that a results-measurement mechanism comparable to that used by the Development Account be put in place, for all of technical cooperation activities;

-- stresses an urgent need to implement formalized control procedures for non-expendable property -- a recurring theme in audit reports –- particularly in view of the adoption of IPSAS;

-- concurs with the Board’s recommendations that written procedures should be formulated for space management;

-- recommends that any outstanding inter-fund balances must be resolved expeditiously;

-- suggests the development of comprehensive funding strategies to guide fund-raising policies;

-- and shares the Board’s view on the need to diversify funding sources and develop adequate performance indicators.

The Advisory Committee also welcomes the introduction of the nationally executed expenditure risk-based assessment model at UNDP, but concurs with the Board that adequate controls, including a functioning oversight process, must be in place in order to ensure the model’s success.  ACABQ trusts that lessons learned from the introduction of the model will be shared with other funds and programmes.  UNDP should continue to improve its monitoring of the audit process for nationally executed projects and commence regular reviews, especially in view of the large amounts of financial resources linked to nationally executed expenditure.

Noting that a range of common services has been established among United Nations system organizations, the Advisory Committee emphasizes that such arrangements may require periodic review.  It also emphasizes that common services arrangements should avoid duplication, as well as additional costs to the entities concerned.

Introduction of Reports

OLIVIER MYARD, Chairman of the Audit Operations Committee of the Board of Auditors, introduced the Board’s reports, saying that the Board’s modified opinions concerned various issues, which included negative reserves and fund balances, unconfirmed inter-fund balances, inadequate accounting for expendable and non-expendable property, and inaccurate monitoring of nationally executed expenditure.  In all its long-term reports, the Board had mentioned the disclosure on the face of the financial statements of the end-of-service and post-retirement liabilities, mainly the after-service health insurance.  While appreciating that the disclosure had been made, for the first time, in conformity with the Assembly’s resolution, the Board had noted that it was not consistent amongst all the organizations as regards the liabilities themselves, as well as their funding.

On the implementation of IPSAS and the related question of upgraded enterprise resource planning systems, he said that, while noting the important work made by all the entities in the United Nations finance and budget network, the Board had expressed its concern over the delay in the funding of the enterprise resource planning of the Secretariat and about the risk that the implementation of IPSAS would in turn be delayed.  The Board had also raised the question of inconsistencies in the format of various financial statements of the United Nations and its funds and programmes.

The Board’s reports also contained some 500 findings and recommendations about such matters as programme expenditure, properties, cash accounting, management, procurement and information and communications technology.

All the audit reports marked the culmination of a most thorough external independent scrutiny, he said.  They were the only reports on accountability that the General Assembly received from independent external experts, which included commentary on all aspects ranging from the financial statements, human resources, procurement, results based budgeting, internal audit and IPSAS.  The reports provided an opportunity to look at organizations through the lens of auditors and provide a valuable resource for the Committee’s further deliberations on other matters.  Viewing itself as a governance partner of the United Nations, the Board stood ready to render assistance in the furtherance of various reform initiatives, within the limits of its authority and the mandate conferred upon it by the Assembly.

NANCY HURTZ-SOYKA, Chief of the Accountability and Oversight Support Service, introduced the Secretary-General’s report on the implementation of the Board’s recommendations, saying that every effort had been made to ensure compliance with the Assembly’s repeated requests for the setting of time frames, identification of office holders responsible for implementation, priorities for implementation and the provision of explanations for delays from prior periods.  Programme managers were responsible for assigning target dates for implementing recommendations, and the target dates were reflected in the reports before the Committee.  In some cases, however, the target date depended on the implementation of IPSAS or enterprise resource planning.  The Secretary-General had indicated recommendations, which required action by the Assembly in order to be implemented.

In cooperation with the Board of Auditors, the administration had continued its efforts to streamline the report, she continued.  The administration provided the Board with comments on its findings and recommendations, and the Board had taken those comments into account in its report.

COLLEN KELAPILE, of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions, introduced that body’s report, saying that the Advisory Committee had noted that the Board had carried out a gap analysis relating to the implementation of IPSAS, as well as new or upgraded enterprise resource planning systems.  As noted by the Board, United Nations entities were at different stages in their preparations for IPSAS, and a number of challenges remained.  With respect to the United Nations, the delay in funding the enterprise resource planning system would have a direct impact on the implementation of IPSAS and was likely to result in its postponement until 2011, at the earliest, instead of 2010, as originally planned.  ACABQ had been informed that there was a certain amount of flexibility in the interpretation of how IPSAS should be applied.  The Advisory Committee believed that the application of those standards would need to be monitored closely to ensure consistency within the United Nations and that the Chief Executive Board should continue to play a key role in that respect.

He added that the Advisory Committee had been informed that the introduction of IPSAS would not automatically result in the system-wide consolidation of financial statements, owing to the complexity of the United Nations system.  However, IPSAS could serve as a tool for comparison and analysis of activities of various entities.  The Assembly should keep the matter of consolidation of the financial statements under review, as the organizations migrated to IPSAS.

He also pointed out, among other things, that the Advisory Committee noted with concern the Board’s observations that, at Headquarters, there was inadequate understanding of the actual use and configuration of work areas and a lack of an overall strategy for the use of office space.  It, therefore, concurred with the Board’s recommendations that the administration should formulate written procedures for space management and ensure their application.  ACABQ also shared the Board’s view concerning the importance of a robust, long-term maintenance plan.  The Secretariat in New York should play a coordinating role in planning, managing and monitoring construction and major maintenance projects.

Statements

GREGORY CAZALET (France), speaking on behalf of the European Union, praised the quality of its reports, but voiced concern at the doubling of comments in the Board’s reports over the preceding reporting period, as well as deficiencies relating to management of properties, also raised as a concern by the Independent Audit Advisory Committee.  He said that the Secretary-General should give the latter high priority.  He further noted that the implementation of IPSAS remained a challenge for the Organization.  The General Assembly should be kept regularly informed on progress and the Board of Auditors should continue to follow up on the matter.  He also noted other subjects raised by the Board deserving of special attention, such as health insurance contributions and enterprise resource planning.

CONROD HUNTE (Antigua and Barbuda), speaking on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China, reiterated the importance the Group attached to the Board, together with other internal and external oversight bodies.  He joined ACABQ in welcoming continued high quality of the Board’s reports.  The Group especially appreciated the Board’s efforts in refining the presentation of its reports and noted with satisfaction that the Board had continued to coordinate and collaborate with other oversight bodies, including the Office of Internal Oversight Services and the Joint Inspection Unit.  The Group concurred with the findings and recommendations of the Board.

Stressing the crucial importance of timely implementation of the Board’s recommendations, he noted with satisfaction that the administration’s implementation rate had improved significantly to 68.3 per cent from previous 26 per cent.  Meanwhile, the Group was concerned with the ageing of the implementation of some recommendations, some of which dated back to 2000-2001 and even 1998-1999.  The Group continued to hold that the responsibility to implement the recommendations fell on the administration.  In order to do that, the administration needed to ensure that accountability was assigned to specific office holders.  He concurred with the recommendation of ACABQ that the Secretary-General needed to designate focal points in each department/office to facilitate the implementation process and ensure accountability for the requisite action.  He also concurred with the Advisory Committee on the view that the Board should strengthen its validation process, in order to better evaluate the results and impact of the administration’s efforts to implement the recommendations.

He also noted with concern that, owing to the failure of Member States to pay their assessments in full and on time, as at 31 December 2007, unpaid contributions to the regular budget had totalled $439.7 million.  All Member States had the obligation to bear the expenses of the United Nations and were urged to pay their assessments in full, on time and without conditions.  The Group also noted with concern the discovery by the Board of the sharp deterioration during the past few years in the share of successful candidates from unrepresented and under-represented countries.  It had fallen from 43 per cent to 34 per cent from 2001 to 2005, while the share of staff from over-represented countries had nearly doubled, from 17 per cent in 2001 to 31 per cent in 2007.  Achieving equitable geographic distribution and gender balance of staff should be a priority for the United Nations and its agencies, funds and programmes.  He called for effective measures of transparency and accountability at all levels for the selection, recruitment and placement processes.

The Capital Master Plan was another area of concern, he continued.  Timely and effective implementation of the Board’s recommendations was important to the implementation of the Plan.  The Group requested the administration to take effective measures concerning the two recommendations of the Board, namely the creation of an advisory board and the separation of current and investment expenditure, which had not been implemented and were reiterated in the Board’s present report.

He noted with satisfaction that, for the biennium ended 31 December 2007, UNOPS income from all sources had exceeded administrative expenditure, compared with the previous biennium.  He noted the modified opinion of the Board with three emphases of matter paragraphs on the financial statement, as well as several dozen recommendations in that regard.  He trusted that UNOPS would take effective measures in implementing those recommendations to further improve its work.  He also wished to get more information on the issues above and would engage in the discussion of other issues during informals.

LEROY POTTS ( United States) noted that the reports of the Board of Auditors were essential to Member States in the exercise of their fiduciary responsibilities and expressed concern that 9 of the 16 reports presented included matters of emphasis.  This contrasted unfavourably with past years where unqualified opinions were the norm.  He urged all entities audited to expeditiously address the issues highlighted in the reports.

He called attention to continued inadequacies in the recording of non-expendable property as a serious lapse in internal controls, noting that the auditors have estimated that the aggregate value of non-expendable property totalled approximately $1.2 billion, as of the end of 2007.  Among deficiencies regarding such property, he mentioned inventory reports that could no longer be accounted for; inconsistencies in the valuation of items; an absence of physical counts; a lack of property records; failure to always issue property receipts; and incomplete and inaccurate information in the inventory reports of UNEP, United Nations-HABITAT, UNOPS, UNHCR and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC).  He also raised the issue of tightening up practices for the use of contractors.  Overall, he called for the provision of better, more consistent documentation.

He noted that, in several reports, the indicators related to results-based budgeting were not clearly measurable.  Goals and outcomes lacked specificity.  He expected that the Board’s recommendations on the matter would be implemented without delay.  He further said that all entities reviewed by the Board should prepare their financial statements on a common basis, to enable comparative analysis.  On other matters, he noted the Board’s recommendation that new entrants at the professional level, not fluent in both working languages, undergo language tutoring and wondered how that related to a financial audit.

He was pleased at the increase in implementation of recommendations by the administration from 26 to 68 per cent since the past biennium.  However, he was disappointed that OIOS was behind in completing its planned assignments and wanted to know what was being done to correct that.  He also encouraged the change recommended by ACABQ that the Internal Audit Division complete the risk-based methodological framework.  Further, he was concerned at the doubling of fraud cases within the Organization.  He wanted to know the reason for that, what was being done to combat fraud and how violators were being punished.

He welcomed progress made by the Office of the Capital Master Plan in renovation of the Headquarters compound, but noted that the Plan lacked a summary scoreboard that could be used to monitor essential elements of the project.  He also noted the need for an updated global cost estimate for the project that reflected the accelerated construction strategy and design changes.

He raised the inadequacies in procurement planning found at the Organization’s Geneva Office and noted that the senior appointment at the Headquarters Procurement Division had not taken place.  He wanted to know what improvements had been made since the Board’s findings had been disclosed.  Further, he noted that there were no adequate controls at UNDP for monitoring prospective vendors against the Security Council’s list of prohibited suppliers.  He also noted that there were multiple instances at UNODC of non-compliance with United Nations system accounting standards and the Financial Regulations and Rules of the Organization.

REINA TOMITA ( Japan) said that her delegation appreciated continuing efforts of the Secretariat to appropriately manage the trust funds, but had some questions and comments regarding inactive trust funds.  She noted that information regarding inactive trust funds had been contained in the Board’s report for 2004-2005, but not all the information had been provided in the report for 2006-2007.  A list of inactive funds should be included in future reports.  Regarding inactive trust funds considered for closure, she believed the remaining balances should be communicated to respective donors and procedures for closing should be initiated in a timely manner.

She said that, in the previous Board report, 35 United Nations trust funds were reported as inactive, but in paragraph 17 of this year’s report, it was indicated that during 2006-2007 only 13 had been closed.  Steps should be taken to close the remaining inactive trust funds.  For the biennium 2006-2007, 39 trust funds had not shown any expenditure.  She would like to know if they were to be closed and how that should be managed.

Programme Planning

REN YISHENG ( China), Chairman of the forty-eighth session of the Committee for Programme and Coordination, presented its report (A/63/16).

With regard to the United Nations programme performance for 2006-2007, the Committee’s recommendations included that the General Assembly request the Secretary-General to propose modifications to the regulations and rules governing programme planning, the programme aspects of the budget, the monitoring of implementation and methods of evaluation, so as to move the Organization beyond results-based budgeting and towards genuine results-based management.

Regarding the plan outline of the strategic framework for 2010-2011, he said that the Committee had recommended that the Assembly approve the priorities for the biennium and made a number of other recommendations, including that the Assembly review further the plan outline, so it more accurately reflected the longer-term objectives of the Organization, based on all the mandates approved by Member States.  With regard to evaluations, the Committee had made recommendations on the OIOS reports it had before it.  Some of its recommendations related to the need for the General Assembly to request the Secretary-General to continue to implement the remaining recommendations from the thematic evaluation.  On the in-depth evaluation of special political missions, led by the Department of Political Affairs but administered by the Department of Field Support, the Committee recommended that the Assembly endorse the recommendations contained in the report, subject to a number of modifications.

On the question of coordination, the Committee had made a number of recommendations relating to the annual overview report of the Chief Executive Board for 2007/08, recommending, among other things, that the General Assembly request the Secretary-General, as Chairman of the Board, to provide, in his future annual overview report, specific information on the main difficulties encountered in the implementation of the coordination activities in different sectors, as well as on relevant solutions adopted and the impact of Chief Executive Board activities.

SHARON VAN BUERLE, Director of the Programme Planning and Budget Division, said that the proposed strategic framework, contained in document A/63/6, was one of the fundamental instruments that guided the work of the Organization as a whole.  Part one highlighted the longer-term objectives and the priorities to be designated, and part two, the programme plan, covered 27 programmes.  The proposed framework was a translation of legislative mandates and would serve as the framework for the biennial budget proposals for 2010-2011.  A summary listing of key legislative mandates was included at the end of each programme in part two.

She said that the plan outline had been prepared with full involvement of the Secretary-General and senior managers, drawing from the guidance received from Member States, notably through the Committee for Programme and Coordination and the General Assembly.  Insofar as the priorities for 2010-2011 were concerned, the Secretary-General proposed to rely closely on the eight priorities previously identified by the Assembly for the periods from 1998 through 2007, as reflected in part three of the report before the Committee.  Promoting economic growth and sustainable development, responding to unprecedented challenges to international peace and security and enhancing respect for human rights represented the abiding long-term objectives of the Organization and the three pillars of its work.  In seeking to achieve those objectives, the Organization would be guided by three key principles of action:  delivering results for people most in need; creating a stronger United Nations through full accountability; and securing global goods for a peaceful and better world in the twenty-first century.

Work would continue to ensure that programmes were updated as appropriate, to reflect the impact of intergovernmental decisions taken subsequent to the preparation of the strategic framework, she continued.  Each programme would be subject to detailed review in the context of budget preparation for 2010-2011, to take into account relevant legislative mandates and programmatic adjustments not reflected at the time of the Assembly’s adoption of the strategic framework later this year.  At the same time, it was important to note that the document before the Committee had already been subject to intergovernmental review by relevant sectoral, functional and regional bodies.  In a number of cases, those reviews took place prior to finalization of the strategic framework and the outcomes had been incorporated in the proposals.

The strategic framework for 2010-2011 had benefited from the experience gained since the introduction of the framework had been first applied in the 2006-2007 period.  Reporting on results achieved had also contributed to a better understanding of the framework, management of the work programme towards achieving results, and the crucial role of feedback in the cycle of planning, programme design and implementation, monitoring and evaluation.

MARIO BAEZ, Chief of the Oversight Support Unit, introduced the Secretary-General’s report on programme performance for 2006-2007.  He said that the Assembly, in its resolution 61/245, had decided that the responsibility for the programme performance be transferred from OIOS to the Department of Management.  As a transitional arrangement, the current report had been produced as a joint endeavour between respective programme managers and two Headquarters departments.  The report showed that, of the 32 sections and subsections listed in the report, 23 had achieved total implementation rates of 90 per cent or higher in regards to output delivery, compared to 25 in the previous biennium.  Five had implementation rates between 80 and 89 per cent, compared to four in the previous biennium, and only two budget sections had implementation rates lower than 80 per cent, namely disarmament (65 per cent) and safety and security (50 per cent).

CONRAD HUNTE (Antigua and Barbuda), speaking on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, said that programme planning went to the heart of the work of the United Nations and provided the fundamental link between the decisions of intergovernmental bodies and their execution.  The Committee for Programme and Coordination’s work in recommending programme design based on legislative intent and developing evaluation procedures for use in that process served as the starting point for intergovernmental consideration of the strategic framework plan.  He endorsed the Committee’s recommendations.

He encouraged programme managers to comply with the overarching recommendation of the report to improve the formulation of expected accomplishments to better reflect all intergovernmental mandates.  He also stressed the importance of the plan outline, in that it encompassed the Organization’s longer-term objectives.  He noted that future programme outlines should take account of all relevant General Assembly resolutions to more accurately reflect the longer term objectives of the Organization.

The Group of 77 and China recognized the improvement in the quality of the formulation of expected accomplishments and performance indicators and trusted that the results set out in the report on programme performance for 2006-2007 would be used to formulate future strategic frameworks.  He agreed with the Committee for Programme and Coordination recommendation that programme managers be held accountable for achieving results and said that more detailed information on how lessons learned were shared should be provided.

Regarding the Chief Executive Board, he welcomed the cooperation of that body with the International Civil Service Commission and the Joint Inspection Unit and encouraged the Board to strengthen that cooperation.  He further welcomed the Board’s efforts to coordinate action within the United Nations system in the fight against hunger and poverty.  Continuing, he agreed with the Committee for Programme and Coordination that future Chief Executive Board reports should include information on measures taken to improve transparency and accountability, as well as specific information on difficulties encountered when implementing coordination activities.  He also stressed the importance of the Chief Executive Board’s continued effective coordination with the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD).

GREGORY CAZALET (France), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that the Committee for Programme and Coordination had succeeded in creating conditions to discuss the role it could play with the United Nations system in an open and pragmatic manner.  He welcomed the measures approved at the forty-seventh session to improve the Committee’s effectiveness, such as briefing delegations on pertinent issues to the agenda of the given session; more consultations with both the Secretariat and experts; and more informal discussions.

The Committee for Programme and Coordination should be strengthened in its work, he continued, so that it could fully achieve its mission to provide guidelines for budget planning, in consideration of the priorities set by the General Assembly, and in the implementation and coordination required to prevent the risk of duplication and lost effectiveness.  He further noted that the Secretariat’s assistance was indispensable to the implementation of the Committee’s work and to enabling closer dialogue between the Committee and the other entities involved.

CHERITH NORMAN ( United States) said that the United States had vigorously supported the establishment of the Committee for Programme and Coordination.  However, the Committee had to do more to make sure that maximum use was made of resources provided by Member States.  Noting that United States concerns regarding the Committee were well known, she would not raise them today.  She did support most recommendations in the Committee’s report.

On longer term prospects for the Committee for Programme and Coordination, she suggested that it seek guidance in the recent Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) report on results-based management.  That report discussed such problems as vague indicators and self-serving statements of results.  It recommended, among other things, revisions to the rules and regulations pertaining to programme planning, budgeting, monitoring and evaluation.  The Committee for Programme and Coordination could address the shortcomings raised by OIOS by making recommendations to correct them, if it wanted to rehabilitate itself.

JUN YAMADA (Japan) said that his delegation had previously expressed concern about the tendency of the Committee for Programme and Coordination to deviate from its intended role on evaluation and coordination by focusing its attention on issues related to management and resources, rather than evaluating whether efficient implementation of programmes and activities was achieved and whether they were producing useful results.   Japan had also been concerned that the Committee had not really engaged in expert discussion on programmatic aspects in the area of programme planning.  His delegation was of the view that the Committee was consuming its energy on repeating the discussions already taking place in other fora, and was not producing added value.  Having participated in the forty-eighth session of the Committee as an observer, Japan had noted that it had been unable to manage extensive discussions on improving its working methods.  He, therefore, remained concerned about the ineffectiveness and relevance of its work, which had not produced outputs in line with its terms of reference.

Continuing, he recalled that the Assembly’s recent resolution on mandate review (62/278) had called upon relevant bodies of the United Nations to continue improving the implementation of mandates in accordance with established regulations and rules and addressing the continuing validity of legislative decisions and effective coordination.  In that connection, he requested the Committee for Programme and Coordination to enhance its efforts to fulfil its original mandates.

YURIY P. SPIRIN ( Russian Federation) noted the great amount of work accomplished by the Committee for Programme and Coordination during its forty-eighth session on such issues as programme performance, the proposed strategic framework for 2010-2011, inter-agency coordination and evaluation of programme activities.  The fundamental principles that should guide the work of the Committee for Programme and Coordination when considering programmes could be summed up as follows:  expected accomplishments and strategy must fully conform to the intergovernmental mandates, and indicators of achievement must be clearly linked to relevant expected accomplishments.  They should also be subjected to quantitative and qualitative evaluation.  The planning system must help Member States to evaluate how effectively targets were achieved and whether allocated resources were fully helping to meet those targets.

When preparing the next plan outline, he urged the Secretariat to avoid including terms not agreed on at the intergovernmental level, which gave rise to different interpretation, as had happened with document A/63/6 (part one).  He meant the mention in paragraphs 18 and 20 of such terms as “humanitarian reform” and “cluster approach”.  The Russian Federation regretted that the Committee had been unable to reach consensus on the human rights programme.

He added that, starting at its thirty-eighth session, the Committee for Programme and Coordination had, on an ongoing basis, been considering improving its working methods.  Some heated discussions had taken place on the future of the Committee and enhancing its effectiveness.  He believed the Committee had made significant progress in improving its working methods and enhancing effectiveness and performance.  He hoped that, taking those results into account, the Committee would be able to concentrate more on substantive issues in the future, without being side-tracked into largely politicized discussion on its working methods.

REN YISHENG, Chairman of the Committee for Programme and Coordination, responded to questions raised.  The Committee’s role was stated in its name, he said; it was a committee for programme and coordination.  Any change in its role could only be decided by the General Assembly.  He further said that the Committee had been considering the reports from OIOS.

MOVSES ABELIAN, Secretary of the Committee, said the General Assembly has allocated the item “programme planning” to the Third Committee.  Also, item 19, human rights, had been allocated to the Third Committee, which had already commenced consideration of that item.  The Third Committee would report directly to the General Assembly, so that agenda item 19 would not be coming before the Fifth Committee.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record