Summary: November 10, 2003: Statement on behalf of the European Union by H.E. Ambassador Marcello Spatafora, Permanent Representative of Italy to the U.N. - Fifth Committee-- STRENGTHENING THE U.N. SYSTEM ITEM 59 (New York)
Mr Chairman,
I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union. The acceding countries Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia, the associated countries Bulgaria, Romania, and Turkey, and the EFTA countries, members of the European Economic Area (Iceland and Liechtenstein), declare that they align themselves with this statement.
Mr Chairman,
Allow me, first of all, to thank the Controller of the United Nations, the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) and the Advisory Committee for Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) for their important contributions to this debate.
We have in front of us two reports that are important to the way that the General Assembly will perform its future functions of deciding priorities and allocating resources to meet those priorities.
We are very grateful to the Secretary-General for his follow-up to the initiatives outlined in last year's report on "Strengthening the United Nations." His analysis - on a single-stage approach to the intergovernmental mechanism for agreeing on budgetary and programming issues, and on ways to streamline and rationalise the documentation to better mesh with a new intergovernmental way of working - is exactly what the United Nations membership was seeking.
Let me start with the report on a single-stage review. We believe that the basic structure of the General Assembly's decision-making process is sound. Our long-standing support for resolution 41/213 is the bedrock upon which the existing structure rests. It is essential to maintain a decision-making process that is transparent, fully representative of all the United Nations membership, and reflecting full consideration of budgetary and programmatic issues. This continues to be the position of
the European Union.
But we must also be guided by practice: how productive is the intergovernmental process? How useful is the Secretariat's documentation in its current form? The European Union wishes to respect the principles of democratic decision-making embodied in the General Assembly. But we should organise ourselves so as to ensure that we have a system for the common benefit that is both comprehensive and comprehensible to all member states.
This is why we believe that the time has come for a frank appraisal of how well the existing structures serve our needs. The biennial negotiations to decide the regular budget of the United Nations are not shielded from the same healthy discussion of matching resources to priorities that we practice in our national governments. But we must be open to ways to improve the mechanisms and ensure that we are learning lessons rather than becoming more entrenched in role-playing and historical
differences between the various regions or interests represented within the General Assembly.
The European Union therefore strongly welcomes the Secretary-General's proposals as a constructive contribution to this reappraisal. The efficient functioning of the Committee for Programme and Coordination (CPC), the ACABQ and the Fifth Committee must be guaranteed. We are ready to consider ways to strengthen the role of the CPC to ensure that it advises the General Assembly on evaluation and monitoring, two functions that must play an increasing role in the General Assembly's work. It is not
enough to assign resources to an activity. We need to know the follow-up, whether any problems occurred, and what was or will be done to correct them. This is the logic of a result-oriented culture. We supported Action 20 of the Secretary-General's report in 2002, to improve monitoring and evaluation, which we believe can be further enhanced through a more prominent role for the CPC.
The future of the CPC's involvement in budgetary and programming issues is linked to the Secretary-General's second report, on the respective roles of the medium term plan and the budget outline, and how they would be processed through the intergovernmental mechanisms.
Concerning the Medium Term Plan (MTP) and the Budget Outline (BO), we agree on the need for a systematic planning document to guide the Secretariat's implementation of the membership's agreed mandates. But more could be made of the current format and usage. The current format of the medium Term Plan is clearly set out in the Regulations and Rules Governing Programme Planning, the Programme Aspects of the Budget, the Monitoring of Implementation and the Methods of Evaluation
(PPBME rules). However, such rules may be too prescriptive to allow the Secretariat to link short/medium objectives to the bigger picture. Another problem is that the current four-year timeframe of the medium term plan is an awkward fit, straddling two biennium periods.
Thus, while signalling our willingness to shorten the Medium Term Plan's timeframe to two years, we believe that such a measure makes it is all the more incumbent on the General Assembly to undertake a proper functional linkage with the Organisations' medium- and longer-term objectives.
The handling of programming and budgetary issues must be guided by the same pragmatic, empirical approach. Two possible approaches are to conjoin the MTP with the programme budget, as some have suggested, or to more effectively harmonise the MTP with a rejuvenated budget outline as part of a dual-component Strategic Framework. Either way would better align programming and priority setting with resource implications.
The European Union appreciates the ACABQ's advice, particularly the recommendation that the Secretary-General prepare mock-ups of how a revised budgetary and programme process might look. Such additional information could also help to clarify the Secretary-General's proposals on the future of the budget outline (as suggested in para 11 of A/58/7Add.5) and on ways to improve evaluation and monitoring (para 14).
We hope that the Secretariat can prepare this additional material without delay, so that it can contribute to this Committee's informal discussions and enable the membership to arrive at a well-considered resolution by the end of the current session.
Mr. Chairman,
We are not dogmatic. We are open to discussion about the best road to follow and want to hear the views of others. We suspect that an incremental approach is the way forward. But we are ready to take the first steps already this fall so as not to miss the opportunity to make long-overdue adjustments in the way the General Assembly does its work.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
| Top |
European Union Member States
Alerts by email
Email this page
Print this page