UNGA 61 Fifth Committee
18 October 2006
Statement by Ms Apeksha Kumar, Adviser, Canadian Mission to the United Nations on Programme Planning
(Check against delivery)
I have the honour to speak on behalf of the delegations of Australia, New Zealand and Canada. We thank the Chair of the Committee on Programme and Coordination (CPC) and the representative(s) of the Secretary-General for their introductions.
The Secretary-General has submitted the proposed biennial programme plan for 2008-09, which the CPC has considered. This is the second presentation of a biennial programme since the adoption by the General Assembly of resolution 58/269 which changed the planning and budget process. While the budget and planning process stands in need of further improvement, we believe that the biennial approach for programme planning has been a practical and effective reform.
It is not our intention to redo the work of the CPC. Still we need to discharge our responsibility to ensure that both the programme plan and the changes proposed by the CPC rest on a sound foundation. In that connection, we hope to clarify in the informals the policy basis for and ramifications of changes proposed for some programmes, including programme 10 on trade and development, programme 13 on international drug control, crime and terrorism prevention, and criminal justice, and programme 24 on management and support services.
With respect to the Department of Management, we were surprised and disappointed that the Secretariat had deleted reference to improved business processes as an expected accomplishment for 2008-09. Concern about this issue is why the CPC in 2004, and then the General Assembly, asked the Secretary-General to develop a time-bound plan for the reduction of duplication, complexity and bureaucracy in UN administrative procedures and processes. Having seen little specific response, we were encouraged that Secretary-General at last stressed the importance of tackling this issue in his proposal on information technology renewal (A/60/846 addendum 1), so that new systems do not merely automate poor processes. The General Assembly has provided resources for this effort. We seek clarification from the Secretariat of the timetable and method for business process review.
We were equally disappointed that the Secretariat proposal sought to delete the provision mandated by the General Assembly to develop ways of assessing efficiency and productivity in management and service functions. The absence of performance management tools in these areas has long been a concern of our delegations, given the large share of administrative functions in the regular budget. They had been requested in the last biennial programme plan, but we see few concrete signs of this having been implemented. We therefore appreciate that the CPC has proposed to reintroduce these requirements into the programme plan.
It was in order to facilitate performance management that the CPC asked the Secretary-General more than two years ago to develop improved tools for identifying the cost of activities and outputs, and to report to the 60th General Assembly on options for applying cost-accounting techniques. The General Assembly attached sufficient importance to this issue to approve a $500,000 PBI to support this work. But what has happened to this request? Where is the report? It is imperative to have a view on how to proceed with this issue in conjunction with the planning of a new information technology system.
Mr. Chairman:
The CPC may have added some useful elements to the programme plan, but others are retrograde. We mention just three of the most critical concerns. First, the change proposed in paragraph 24.3 would have the effect of limiting management reform to those measures approved by the General Assembly, a step which seems to curtail action by the Secretary-General based on his authority under Article 97 of the Charter. Second, in its desire to avoid using the term “best practice”, the CPC has deleted the important reference in programme 24 to improving the internal controls. Finally, our delegations are deeply concerned by the proposal of the CPC, under human resources management, to express an objective regarding geographic representation which is at variance with the provisions of Article 101 of the Charter.
Mr. Chairman:
In concluding these remarks, we observe that the CPC has again failed to act on the repeated requests of the General Assembly to improve its working methods. Even the few, practical proposals that had been on the table were not adopted. The lack of progress on this limited front illuminates the broader challenge confronting the CPC – adding real value through its work.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.