Sumario: EU Presidency Statement - OIOS report (13 October 2005: New York)
EU Presidency Statement on Item 132: Report of the Secretary General on the activities of OIOS, by the Permanent Mission of the United Kingdom to the United Nations, on behalf of the European Union, Fifth Committee, United Nations, New York
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, as well as Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova align themselves with this declaration.
The EU is grateful to USG Ahlenius for her presentation of the OIOS Annual Report for 2004-2005. This Report contains a substantial amount of information presented in a clear fashion. In a year when oversight has assumed an enhanced and more visible significance for the management of the United Nations, we welcome the attention that OIOS has paid to areas of high risk and vulnerability such as procurement. We are grateful too for the considerable effort that the Investigations Division has put
into investigating incidents of sexual exploitation and abuse in peacekeeping missions which was instrumental in the development of recommendations to tackle what had become a serious problem.
The Report covers a number of issues that merit our detailed attention. I would like to highlight some which are of particular concern for the European Union.
First, we remain concerned at the level and rate of implementation of OIOS recommendations. We note that the Secretary General has now established the senior management oversight mechanism within the Secretariat that we requested in Resolution 59/ 272 and trust that this will become operational in the very near future. We have already commented on this in the context of our statement on the SG's report on Measures to Strengthen Accountability at the United Nations in A/60/312.
Second, we have taken note of the problems between OIOS and the Funds and Programmes with regard to availability of funds. We share the concern of OIOS that the requirement for audit or investigation should not be determined by the willingness of the audited or investigated body to pay for such services. The requirement exists. It is for the Funds and Programmes to ensure that audit needs are met and appropriately financed. Restricting the scope of audits or investigations, or refusing to pay
for services rendered are not options.
Third, we remain concerned at the scope and quantity of problems that have arisen in peacekeeping missions. The many cases of alleged corruption concerning Pristina airport and with other issues at UNMIK are of particular concern and should be drawn to the attention of the Security Council. We understand that the rapid increase in the number and size of missions has been a significant cause and that DPKO and mission managers have been under considerable pressure. Nevertheless, we hope to see a
decrease of such incidents as a result of expanded coverage by OIOS auditors and investigators. More than ever, full co-operation between DPKO and OIOS is essential for the appropriate controls to be introduced and enforced.
Fourth, close co-ordination between the OIOS and JIU is important to avoid potential duplication of activity and ensure mutual reinforcement. In this context, we welcome the joint report by OIOS and JIU on the strengthening and monitoring of programme performance and evaluation (A/60/73). We believe such a report could set a standard and would welcome, as appropriate, other joint reports in the near future. We will pursue in our informal sessions questions concerning consultation between OIOS
and JIU with regard, for example, to coverage of disaster relief co-ordination and implementation of RBM throughout the UN system.
Fifth, we welcome OIOS' efforts to strengthen the results-based management culture within the UN as a means to make the work and use of resources within the organisation more effective.
We will comment on the OIOS reports related to safety and security when we consider this issue under agenda item 124
Finally, we would like to offer a few thoughts on the future strategic direction of the OIOS and how it can best ensure its operational independence. We share OIOS concerns about the potential conflict of interest arising from the processing of OIOS budget requests through the Department of Management. The European Union favours the establishment of an external oversight committee to advise the GA, and as a means to ensure budgetary independence of the OIOS. We look forward to the Secretary
General's proposals in this context, as requested by the World Summit.
We have taken note of USG Ahlenius's remarks in her preface to the Annual Report concerning a review of OIOS. The report was of course prepared in advance of the conclusion of the World Summit which decided that the SG should submit an external evaluation of audit and investigation in the UN and the Specialised Agencies. The European Union will comment further during Plenary consultations on follow-up to the Summit but it is important that such an evaluation be objective, independent and
comprehensive. We as Member States fully support such an evaluation.
External evaluation of the oversight structure of the UN system will undoubtedly take some time. The European Union believes that the strengthening of capacity, expertise and resources for the OIOS called for by the World Summit should be addressed during this session and should not await the outcome of this evaluation. We have noted the comments about the shortage of specialist expertise, for example in forensic or IT auditing. And we are concerned that there has been insufficient
capacity to date to deal with the full range of procurement contracts. We want these deficiencies to be addressed as a matter of urgency. So we see merit in an internal needs assessment that would be conducted over the next few weeks by USG Ahlenius to determine what would be required for OIOS to cover gaps or the need for special skills. The European Union believes that such an assessment should be validated through a review by a peer body external to the United Nations, in the absence as yet
of an independent advisory committee, before proposals are submitted by the OIOS to the ACABQ and the General Assembly.
To conclude, we thank USG Ahlenius for her Report and her staff for their work over the past year and look forward to a detailed discussion with OIOS and 5th Committee colleagues during our informal consultations.
* Croatia continues to be part of the Stabilisation and Association Process.
| Arriba |
Estados Miembros de la Union Europea
Alertas por e-mail
Enviar por e-mail
Imprimir esta página