|
|
Mr. Chairman,
We wish to thank Budget Controller, USG OIOS, JIU Chairperson, CBB
Representative for their respective reports under this agenda item.. We also
wish to thank the ACABQ Chairman for introducing the committee’s report document
A/60/909, A/61/605.
2. The Pakistan delegation endorses the statement made by the Chairman of the
G-77 & China.
3. The United Nations is an intergovernmental and international organization
with a unique governance structure as defined in the Charter. The authority and
role of the member states and the Secretary General as the chief administrative
officer are defined in the Charter. The UN is essentially a public sector
organization, but has a unique feature of the sovereign equality of its members,
irrespective of their financial contribution.
4. We thank the Steering Committee appointed by the Secretary General for its
comprehensive review of governance and oversight arrangements in the United
Nations. These reports despite some deficiencies can provide a basis for further
discussions for necessary reform of governance and oversight in the United
Nations, in defining division of role between member states and the management
and for enhanced efficiency and accountability in the organization.
5. The UN's existing institutional arrangement for planning, evaluation, and
overall direction setting of the United Nations is not ideal, but with necessary
and gradual reform it can be made efficient and effective. The Member States,
through the General Assembly and its main committees and with the assistance of
the expert advice from the advisory committees perform the role of both policy
setting and the accountability of management. In our view the system does not
need a major overhaul as proposed in these reports but perhaps calibrated fine
tuning.
6. The Steering Committee's analysis of gaps in the United Nations governance
and oversight arrangement is indeed useful and identifies areas which must be
reformed. However, some other observations of the Steering Committee on the
current practice of deliberations of the General Assembly on administrative and
financial matters are politicized. The General Assembly had rejected the
creation of smaller and more representative groups and committees for decision
making on administrative and budgetary aspects in its resolution 60/260 after
acrimonious debate. We should avoid repeating the same mistake.
7. We believe that the recommendations of the Steering Committee on greater
executive management accountability, defining concrete qualifications based
criteria for the membership of expert and advisory committees, a clear system of
declaration and disclosures of financial interests for executive management
procurement officers independent advisors, creation of in-house ethics
functions, the strengthening of result based management, transparency and merit
in the appointment of senior management positions and improved coordination
between the CPC, ACABQ and Fifth Committee are certainly useful and would
receive our due attention and support.
8. Concerning the specific recommendations of the Committee, we believe that the
recommendation on strengthening the result based management in budgets and
reporting is well placed. The United Nations should adopt and expand the result
based management.
9. Strengthening the overall accountability of executive management of the
United Nations Secretariat has been a matter of long standing concern for our
delegation. The Committee's recommendation to this effect is indeed welcomed and
given the Assembly’s consistent emphasis on this aspect should be expeditiously
implemented.
10. The Steering Committee’s recommendation on strengthening the term limits and
qualifications of expert committees and ensuring independence of their members
especially the ACABQ and ICSC deserve our careful consideration. Improvement in
the working methods of these committees is essential but redefining their role
and functions may not practically be possible Any major change at the cost of
undermining the specific role of the advisory committees and the Fifth Committee
will be difficult to implement.
11. We also thank the Steering Committee for its review of the oversight
arrangements in the organization with a specific focus on the role of the OIOS,
JIU and the terms of reference of the Independent Audit Advisory Committee.
12. We agree that the United Nations management should set its own risk
framework, risk tolerance and internal controls. The OIOS should assist the
organization in evaluation of these measures. The OIOS has done an excellent job
on its basic mandate, of monitoring, internal audit, inspection and evaluation
and investigation functions in the organization. Limiting its role only as a
management tool for the Secretary General is not well founded. We do not agree
with the Steering Committee that the OIOS’s budget should be presented to the
Member States after a review by the independent audit advisory committee. We
support the financial and operational independence of the OIOS. The mistrust
between the management and the OIOS as observed by the ACABQ must be addressed.
13. The Steering Committee’s recommendation on discontinuation of JIU has been
adequately responded by the Unit itself. The JIU with its system wide external
oversight mandate has provided useful insight into the management and efficiency
of the United Nations System. The Steering Committee surprisingly provides no
definitive answers to fill the void that would be created with the
discontinuation of JIU in the context of external evaluation of the United
Nations system.
14. The terms of references identified by the Steering Committee for Independent
Audit Advisory Committee would need careful review. We agree with ACABQ that its
role should be advisory to the General Assembly. The terms of reference proposed
by Secretary General accord it a significant operational role which exceeds the
scope of an advisory body. The Independent Audit Advisory Committee of five
members should be elected by the Member States and not be a nominated body. It
should facilitate the Member States and the management to ensure the
implementation of the recommendations of the OIOS, JIU and Board of Auditors. It
may provide advice to the Member States and management to improve the role of
oversight bodies and make them more objective. The independent advisory
committee should not have any discretion over the budgetary requirements of the
oversight bodies, which the Secretary General can present keeping in mind the
past pattern of the budgetary requirements of the OISO. We support the
operationalization of IAAC after due deliberations of its terms of reference,
and its role in the existing hierarchy of the oversight bodies in the
organization.
15. We regret that given the heavy agenda of the Committee and the limited time
available to conclude our work, comprehensive discussion on the governance and
oversight review may not be possible. However, a short and focused resolution
along the ACABQ recommendations could initiate the reviewed process. We agree
with the need for further reports on accountability, budgetary implementation,
and revised terms of reference of IAAC, which may be considered in the resumed
61st session. We assure you Mr. Chairman of our constructive engagement to
achieve these modest results.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.