Mr. Chairman,
I have the honour to speak on behalf of the Group of 77 and China on
the issues of accountability and oversight presented in the following
reports: A/60/312, A/60/120, and A/60/418.
The
Group wishes to thank Ms. Inga-Britt Ahlenius, Under-Secretary-General
for the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), Ms. Nancy Hurtz-Soyka
from the Office of the Under-Secretary-General for Management, and Ambassador
Besley Maycock of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary
Questions (ACABQ) for their respective reports on this item.
- We welcome the current efforts to strengthen accountability at the
United Nations. To this end, we recognize that this is the first report
of this nature to be submitted to the General Assembly and provides
a reflection of the various mechanisms that have already been put in
place.
- It is regrettable, however, that such efforts did not commence as
a result of the numerous calls by the membership, but rather as a reaction
to wide spread allegations that negatively reflected on the image and
credibility of the Organization.
- We cannot over-emphasize that any accountability framework or oversight
system has to be founded on the principle that the General Assembly
is the primary oversight body, and that the Secretariat is accountable
to it. This is the paramount consideration in our approach to the entire
issue of accountability and oversight.
- The G77 and China underlined
on numerous occasions, the need to establish an effective system
of accountability that defines clear lines of authority and responsibility,
with the GA at its helm. We are equally convinced that addressing
the problems that arise in the Organization should not be through
merely creating additional structures and providing additional resources.
Resources and new structures must be well thought out and carefully
examined, with a clear vision of their objectives and value added.
The functioning and contribution of these structures towards greater
accountability and improved management will have to be validated.
This validation can only be done within the context of the long-overdue
comprehensive governance review called for by the General Assembly
three years ago.
- Such an approach cannot
be more evident than in the case of accountability and oversight.
The creation of committees, groups and working groups does not by
itself provide the answer unless they are created in accordance with
a vision that sets out the placement, functioning and responsibility
of each component of such a vast network. We fear that such a vision
is not evident. In this context, the Group would like to have further
clarifications on how the new structures would enhance accountability
and transparency in the Secretariat, and whether the oversight bodies
were consulted in the process.
- The Outcome Document of the 60 th Session of the General Assembly
is not the only reference document on Oversight and Accountability.
The General Assembly made numerous requests in this regard, and these
must be met by the Secretariat. One of the most important elements
is the comprehensive review of the governance structures, principles
and accountability throughout the United Nations System. This review
is referred to in paragraphs 36 to 38 in the report of the Secretary-General.
It is, therefore, of much concern that such a comprehensive review
is predicted to be submitted in the 61 st session, and not earlier.
We call on the Secretary-General to undertake the necessary measures
to ensure that such a review be submitted as soon as possible, in order
to expedite our consideration of the whole issue.
- We welcome the report of
the OIOS on the inspection of programme and administrative management
of the subregional offices of the Economic Commission for Africa (A/60/120)
and note its importance in the context of the significant role Member
States assigned to the ECA in support of NEPAD. The key role that
subregional offices should play in that whole process must be emphasized.
It is therefore important that those subregional offices have clearly
stated mandates and understand their responsibilities. It is equally
necessary that they have staff with requisite skills for the job.
Further they need the tools and wherewithal to discharge those functions.
Proper training, adequate infrastructure and coordination between
them and ECA so that synergies could be created. We as Member States
should not only demand excellence but ensure that we make it possible
for excellence to be delivered. We are encouraged with the comments
we heard from the Under-Secretary-General yesterday that ECA is cooperating
fully with her Office towards the implementation of the recommendations
of OIOS. We look forward to receiving details in this regard in the
next report of OIOS.
Turning to specific elements
of the report of the Secretary-General on measures to strengthen
accountability (A/60/312), the Group wishes to make the following
preliminary remarks:
Accountability framework
- We believe that the Organization
has to establish accountability measures that will hold staff accountable
not only for the use of the Organization’s resources in the
most effective and ethical manner, but also to illustrate that their
actions are geared towards attaining the objectives and implementing
the mandates of the Organization in a timely manner. We also expect
that the comprehensive governance review will be able to validate
the processes and measures whereby accountability is being measured
to provide us with reasonable assurances that the mechanisms work
and are not just additional bureaucratic layers.
- The Group notes the establishment of the Management performance Board,
as outlined in paragraphs 5 to 7. The Group is not clear as to the
functioning of such a Board in relation to the functioning of the Oversight
Committee, referred to in paragraphs 24 to 28. Furthermore, while,
the Oversight Committee is supposed to ensure actions by Managers on
recommendations of oversight bodies, the Board is also entrusted to
ensure that managers act on serious managerial issues identified by
oversight bodies. This seems to create a measure of duplication in
functions. We would therefore appreciate a clarification on this matter.
- With regard to the creation of the Policy and Management Committees,
qthe Group would appreciate an elaboration on the differences between
the two Committees and the Senior Management Group, a part from the
size of their composition. Furthermore, we would like to seek more
information on the relationship between both Committees and the issues
discussed at the level of the Chief Executive Board for Coordination
and the High-Level Committee. We further wish to obtain an explanation
of the benefits of separating policy setting and management functions,
especially in light of the need to ensure coherence and coordination
between the various entities of the United Nations system on these
matters.
- On measures to evaluate programme delivery, we emphasize the need
for an transparent process to assess and validate the achievements
of managers regarding programme delivery. This assessment should also
address the effectiveness of the established monitoring system and
reasonableness of the self-evaluation exercise. In this context, it
is important to develop a clear understanding of the roles and responsibilities
of managers and that of the oversight bodies with regard to monitoring
and evaluation.
Assessment of experience with audit and oversight committees within
the United Nations system and other international organizations
- We note that no clear distinction
has been made between audit committees and oversight committees.
It is seems from the report that there is no standard model that could
be applied across the system and that many organizations have established
a hybrid of the two types of committees.
- The information contained in the report does not provide a clear
assessment of the data collected. We look forward to an extensive expose
of the experiences of the entities in the United Nations system and
other international organizations during the informal consultations.
Strengthening the oversight mechanisms
- We share the concerns of
the ACABQ that it may not be appropriate for the Oversight Committee,
on behalf of the Secretary-General, to provide advice and suggestions
on the priorities, long-term strategy and annual audit workplans
of the oversight bodies. We believe that the independence of the
oversight bodies should remain paramount.
- We
therefore believe that the Fifth Committee should reflect on the
terms of reference of the Oversight Committee to ascertain whether
or not its establishment and terms of reference fully addresses the
request of the General Assembly in its resolution 59/272. In this
context, we would also appreciate receiving an indication of the
qualifications of the external expert, as well as an elaboration
of how the Oversight Committee fits in with the Management Performance
Board.
- We further believe that
there should be a clear understanding of the roles and responsibilities
of management vis-à-vis that
of the oversight bodies. We maintain that management is responsible
for assigning responsibilities for the implementation of recommendations,
setting time-frames, prioritizing implementation and assessing the
impact of its measures. The oversight bodies have to assess the reasonableness
of management’s response.
- In addition to our earlier
comments, we maintain that the governance review should consider
the structures, mechanisms and processes of the Organization, as
well as its funds and programmes, in a comprehensive manner. It should
meet international best practice whilst taking the unique international
character and purpose of the United Nations into account. We are
concerned that the Secretariat has take nearly three years to reach
the stage of developing the terms of reference. This may be due to
different understandings with regard to the objective and the scope
of the review. We therefore believe that it is imperative to provide
the Fifth Committee with an explanation of the terms of reference
for the review. We will further require an assurance that the Working
Group will not only focus on financial aspects but also on the non-financial
aspects that should be subjected to the review. The composition of
the Working Group seems to suggest that the focus will be on financial
and human resources management aspects.
Ensuring ethical conduct
- With regard to the proposed establishment of the UN Office of Ethics,
we look forward to receiving, through the established channels, the
proposals for the establishment of the Office, as well as its terms
of reference that are currently under preparations.
- We find the information on the codes of conduct and conflict-of-interest
rules confusing. We would appreciate a detailed explanation thereof
during the informal consultations.
Sexual exploitation and abuse
- The Group wishes to stress that the General Assembly has not approved
the establishment of a Conduct and Discipline Unit at Headquarters
or in the field. We would appreciate a clarification of paragraph 48
(c).
Enhancing transparency
- We believe that transparency is an important aspect of the system
of accountability and decision-making. We therefore expect that the
comprehensive governance review should validate whether or not information
is managed in a transparent manner, can the accuracy of the information
be verified, and is the information used properly by management when
taking decisions.
- The Group welcomes any effort to make the recruitment, selection
and appointment of senior officials more transparent and reflective
of the international character of the Organization, as well as based
on the principle of equitable geographical distribution. We would like
to have a serious exchange on the details of the process, as outlined
in paragraphs 53 to 55 of the report of the Secretary-General.
- The Group welcomes any effort to make procurement practices more
transparent, efficient and effective. We also encourage measures to
ensure that procurement policies and practices within the United Nations
system effectively incorporate suppliers from all regions, especially
from developing countries. We note that the Secretary-General commissioned
an external validation of the procurement system. We would appreciate
an elaboration of the terms of reference of the external review, as
well as the status of the review and the timing of the submission of
the findings to the General Assembly.
Mr. Chairman,
The Group of 77 and China will be following up on all these points
in the informal consultations with a view to formulating with our partners,
an agreed approach to the entire issue of strengthening oversight and
accountability within the Organization.
I thank you.
|