Summary: EU Presidency Statement - 5th Committee: Review of Efficiency (12 October 2005: New York)
EU Presidency Statement by the Permanent Mission of the United Kingdom to the United Nations, on behalf of the European Union on Item 122: Review of Efficiency, Fifth Committee, New York
Thank you Mr Chairman.
I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union. The Acceding Countries Bulgaria and Romania, the Candidate Countries Turkey and Croatia*, the Countries of the Stabilisation and Association Process and potential candidates Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro, EFTA countries Iceland and Liechtenstein, members of the European Economic Area, as well as Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova align themselves with this
declaration.
The EU is grateful to the Controller, Mr Warren Sach for presenting reports A/60/312 and A/60/342 and to USG Mrs. Inga-Britt Ahlenius for presenting report A/60/120. On behalf of the European Union, I would like to congratulate Ms Ahlenius on her appointment as USG for Internal Oversight and to assure her that she can count on the full support of the European Union in the years ahead. We also thank the Acting Chairman of ACABQ for presenting the Committee's report in A/60/418.
A/60/312
We are grateful for the information on measures that have been taken within the Secretariat so far to strengthen accountability, transparency, ethical conduct, and oversight. This is an issue of great concern to the European Union and one where effective action is overdue, and we are pleased with the positive efforts that have been made so far to bring attention to these matters at the highest levels of both the Secretariat and among Member States. It is important to have measures embedded in
the organisation as soon as possible, and we would request further information on the specific timelines for all the measures described to be in place, with effective mechanisms to ensure enforcement in the Secretariat, as well as throughout the UN system.
Senior level engagement in the assessment and monitoring of programme delivery and management performance is fundamental to ensuring accountability at the appropriate level so the European Union welcomes the establishment within the Secretariat of the Management Performance Board, the Policy Committee, and the Oversight Committee.
We also welcome the emphasis placed on the appropriate training for senior mission leaders which in our view should be extended to all senior officials in the Secretariat and should encompass guidance on the role of leaders in ensuring efficient management of financial and human resources. With respect to the section on transparency of the selection and appointment of senior officials, the European Union would be interested to know whether the process described in paragraphs 53 and 54, which,
it seems, was used recently for the selection of two high ranking officials, also applies de jure to the selection of all USGs and ASGs, as well as SRSGs and Mission leaders.
With regard to ethical conduct, an issue that the European Union considers of the utmost importance, we believe that the more stringent rules on financial disclosure should also apply to all staff in OIOS, the Procurement Service and those staff in the DM and in missions who deal with financial decisions, including staff members below the level of D1. We are also anxious that the anti fraud and corruption policy should be effected speedily. This was highlighted by the Board of Auditors last
year and it is time for concrete measures to be applied.
As for the strengthening of oversight, I would refer first to section 3 of report A/60/312. We would have welcomed a more thorough analysis of the different types of committees that exist in other organisations. Specifically we are interested in what range of responsibilities are assigned to the different models of committees. We will set out at a later date our position on the need for an independent oversight committee external to the Secretariat which can act as a source of advice to the
General Assembly. We would see this as supplementary to the internal oversight committee as described in section 4, part A. The EU believes that this internal committee will assist the SG to ensure implementation by his programme managers of recommendations by the oversight bodies. This process of implementation needs to be speeded up and the internal committee will be a valuable tool to help achieve this.
In this context, we agree with the ACABQ that it is not appropriate for an internal committee to be charged with setting the priorities or work plan of the oversight bodies since this could lead to a potential conflict of interest. Nevertheless it could provide useful advice to the SG and through him to the GA. As to the ACABQ's concerns regarding the independence of the members of the Oversight Committee, we would welcome a further reaction from the Secretariat on this point.
The EU does believe it would be helpful to distinguish more clearly between this internal oversight committee which advises the SG and the proposed external committee which would serve as an interface between the Secretariat and the Member States. The similarity of name alone is enough to cause confusion and should be clarified.
A/60/342
AS the ACABQ point out, this report is the first of its kind. We welcome this and hope that such reports will become a standard requirement of this Committee. Nevertheless we share the views of ACABQ that there is no assessment of impact and that such management practices as are described appear to relate almost entirely to automation of certain processes. We believe that there are other ways to improve management, including through redeployment of under-utilised resources to areas of increased
work load, through virtual networking of expertise and sharing of best practices, and through identifying areas for improved working methods in the UN system as a whole. In this regard, we would be interested to hear the views of the Secretary General and his staff on the potential role of the CEB.
A/60/120
It was with mounting concern that the European Union read the report of OIOS on the sub-regional offices of the ECA. It is a catalogue of deficiencies and failings. The sub-regional offices account for 25% of the RB funding of the ECA. They are supposed to be key to delivering ECA objectives at the sub-regional and national level. Yet there appears to be a serious lack of strategic direction from ECA Headquarters on how the sub-regional offices should be integrated into programme delivery. This
is not only a serious problem for the membership as regards value for money. More importantly, a key part of the Organisation's programme for African development is failing to deliver any benefits to African countries.
The lack of specialist skills and operational experience among the staff of the sub-regional offices is alarming. According to what criteria were staff recruited and what training programmes have been set up to develop their capacity? The OIOS notes that the sub-regional offices have almost no access to extra budgetary resources and yet, how could they deploy such resources without operationally experienced staff?
We will wish to pursue our concerns in more detail with the ECA during our informal consultations. We trust that a representative will be available to inform us what steps are being taken to get this programme back on track. Given that this particular report does not deal with administrative practices or efficiency but in our view is more of an assessment of programme management, we think that it is better considered under a different agenda item. It could perhaps be discussed together with the
SG's report A/60/378, on 'Actions taken by regional commissions regarding recommendations of OIOS'. The EU would welcome the guidance of the bureau on this issue.
* Croatia continues to be part of the Stabilisation and Association Process.
| Top |
European Union Member States
Alerts by email
Email this page
Print this page