In the week of 10-14 March 2008, the Fifth Committee continued its work on key reform proposals related to Human Resources Management and Procurement as well as efforts to strengthen investigations, development related activities, and the Department of Political Affairs’ capacity in regard to conflict prevention.

HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

Informal Q&A sessions on Human Resources Management (HRM) continued and a draft resolution is being formulated and negotiated. Officials from the Office of Human Resources Management and Department of Peacekeeping Operations provided oral and written responses to questions from Member States on important issues such as the number of staff and costs involved in streamlining contracts and harmonizing conditions of service. Specific questions in addition to those posed last week included, but were not limited to:

• Job applicants – when are these considered internal or external candidates? For instance, in the case of Junior Professional Officers (JPOs), are they automatically internal candidates when they apply for a job? If contracts are streamlined, will staff in field missions be considered internal candidates for Secretariat vacancies – both at Headquarters and in the field? And what about other organizations in the common UN system? Who decides whether candidates are internal or external candidates – what triggers the decision to consider somebody internal? Should Member States include specific language in the resolution on this issue or would the streamlining of contracts take care of this automatically?
• Will the streamlining of contracts apply equally to Funds and Programmes, or will these have some flexibility to create exceptions?
• How will the Secretariat follow up on a number of recommendations from the ACABQ? The recommendations relate to conversion from fixed-term to continuing contracts (with the SG to provide more information on performance reviews and the determination of whether there is a continuing need for functions); a ceiling for continuing appointments; and the type of procedures in place under Administration of Justice in case staff seeks recourse when contracts are terminated. The ACABQ has suggested that the Secretary-General reports on these questions at its 63rd session.
• Can you provide examples of decisions by the internal system of justice in regard to permanent appointments?
• How many staff members have been on fixed-term contracts for more than 5-6 years or for more than 10 years? How many people would be eligible for a continuing contract if we implemented it today?
• What kind of problems do staff members face by having fixed-term rather than continuing appointments? This question was addressed in the 61st session and the answer remains: Problems with obtaining mortgages, leases for homes, travel documents with an expiration date that airlines may not accept, schools may not provide scarce slots to parents with short term appointments.
• As to the freeze of permanent positions, apparently exceptions were made in regard to language staff when they went through competitive examinations – how many staff members did get permanent positions, what was the process exactly, and will these exceptions similarly apply in the future? And those hired through the National Competition Recruitment Examinations (NCEs) – why were they exempted also? Were these NCEs provided with some kind of permanency from the onset - though with a two-year probation period? What are the backlogs for permanent positions?
• Will exceptions remain in regard to probationary periods – for what categories?
• Will everybody benefit from the streamlining of contracts – for instance, will it apply to those whose missions will close soon or are expected to be phased out?
• What would be the required changes in rules and regulations when the proposals would be implemented?

The drafting and negotiation of the resolution will likely take longer than expected. The G77, which in its opening statement on HRM reform indicated that it was ready to move on the streamlining of contracts and harmonization of conditions of service (see DPI report of 4 March 2008) appears to have backtracked somewhat, possibly because they feel that one of their key HRM concerns – equitable geographical representation among staff – has to date not been sufficiently addressed. Other Member States feel that recruitment is not under discussion at this time and that the Fifth Committee should just concentrate on the HRM reform issues at hand.

PROCUREMENT

Report on procurement reform efforts by the Secretariat

On 11 March 2008, Paul Buedas, Chief of the UN Procurement Division, presented the report of the Secretary General – “Comprehensive Report on UN Procurement Activities” (A/62/525) – which provides an update on the implementation of various procurement reforms. In particular, he referred to the following ongoing efforts:

• Establishment of the Procurement Reform Implementation Team (PRIT) which oversees the procurement training programme on the principle Best Value for Money, ethics and integrity in procurement. Training is also provided for relevant staff at duty stations outside UN Headquarters. By May 2008, over 1,000 procurement staff will have received such training.
• PRIT contributed to updating the Procurement Manual and the preparation of a proposal to streamline the vendor registration system – the latter’s implementation will start with a pilot programme at UN Headquarters.
• Development of ethics guidelines for procurement staff – to be finalized by the summer of 2008.
• Development of an independent contract award protest system before the summer of 2008
• Establishment of a senior vendor review committee by the summer of 2008.

Buedas explained that in 2007, the Procurement Division established the Planning, Compliance and Monitoring Section (PCMS) “for the coordination of acquisition plans and monitoring of compliance with procurement policies, guidelines, and procedures.” PCMS has visited peacekeeping missions to advise peacekeeping personnel on the latest policies and best practices.

Buedas also informed Member States on the establishment of the Vendor Registration and Management Team (VRMT) which will make efforts to increase procurement opportunities for developing countries and countries with economies in transition.

As to the governance issues related to procurement, the Secretary General will provide a report for the second resumed session of the Fifth Committee which will be held in May 2008. This report will focus on accountability issues and delegation of authority in order to define who (department of management vs department of field services) is exactly responsible for what.

As to new initiatives, Buedas explained efforts to promote the concept of sustainable procurement which includes incorporating environmental concerns in procurement. He explained that there will be a need for Secretariat expertise in this area, as well as training. He ended his presentation with a call for the need for the implementation of the planned new IT system (Enterprise Resource Management) and other resource requirements.

Report on OIOS’ audit on the application of Best Value for Money

At the same briefing, Inga-Britt Ahlenius, Under-Secretary-General for Internal Oversight Services presented the Office of Internal Oversight Services’ (OIOS) report (A/61/846) on the application and possible misuse of the principle of Best Value for Money. This principle is part of the financial regulations and was approved by the General Assembly. It provides that the lowest price should not be the only factor in determining which bid to accept; certain technical requirements or considerations such as environmental impact, disposal costs, and risk assessment can be taken into account as well. Best Value for Money involves deciding how much weight to attach to non-cost aspects as well as pricing.
Ahlenius explained that the principle has not been sufficiently explained to both Member States and vendors. OIOS concluded that this lack of common understanding and insufficient documentation on how it has been applied precludes it from making an assessment. The OIOS has recommended further clarification of the Best Value for Money principle and the strengthening of management controls of the Procurement Division.

ACABQ report

Susan McLurg, Chair of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ), presented report A/62/721 on procurement reform. McLurg expressed regret that the governance aspects would not be presented until May 2008 but noted that significant progress had been made thus far. The scope of activities should be broadened, however, and more evidence and analysis could be provided on the impact of various reform efforts.

Responses from Member States

Slovenia, on behalf of the EU and a number of neighboring countries, welcomed the update from the Secretariat and reiterated that procurement reform is crucial especially in light of the steep increase in procurement for the field resulting in new risks and challenges. Transparency and efficiency are key aspects of procurement reform and the EU will carefully study the upcoming report on procurement governance issues.

The G77 too stressed the importance of proposals to increase efficiency, transparency and cost-effectiveness in regard to UN procurement. The Secretary General should be held accountable for the legislative mandates approved by Member States on procurement reform. The G77 reiterated the need for “equal, fair and non-discriminatory access” for vendors from developing countries and that procurement reform would not be “complete or effective with a significant increase in the procurement for vendors from developing countries.” Though progress has been made on various reform proposals, many issues are outstanding in regard to governance issues, especially accountability, delegation of authority and coordination between the Department of Field Support and the Department of Management. That a single-source contract had been awarded in the context of the Darfur Mission (UNAMID) instead of competitive bidding is of great concern to the G77.

As to efforts from the Procurement Division to improve procurement opportunities for vendors from developing countries, the G77 wondered why more business seminars had been organized in industrialized countries rather than in developing countries. And what were the criteria used when estimating that 53% of UN procurement comes from developing countries and countries in transition?

The G77 requested more information on the concept of sustainable (environmental) procurement and expressed concern that vendors from certain regions might be “arbitrarily denied for not being ‘green’ enough.” Such procurement conditionalities could – like Best value for Money - disadvantage vendors from developing countries.

The Rio-Group concurred with the main points made by the G77 and the Russian Federation stressed that more than a dozen resolutions from Member States on procurement reform require strict implementation by the Secretary-General, adding that the report does not inspire optimism in this regard. The Russian Federation agreed that major issues still need to be addressed, including delegation of authority. Training on issues such as ethics and conflict of interest should be combined with technical training as these issues are interlinked. The Russian Federation too asked about the $250 million awarded for UNAMID without competitive bidding, adding that such problems in the 1990s started the procurement reform process in the first place. The Russian Federation suggested that Member States could take some initiatives themselves, for instance by getting together with experienced vendors to analyze the procurement process. The reports from the Procurement Division should provide an objective picture on how things have changed in the last 10 years – what was done, and when.

The United States noted that many reform proposals seem to be on track, though the Independent Bid Protest System should have been launched a year ago. The Secretary-General should indicate the specific steps taken to ensure personal accountability as well as transparency. As leadership is necessary, the US wondered when the new director of the procurement decision would be hired.

Note: The Procurement Division provided a factsheet for Member States on the contractual arrangements for UNAMID.

11 March 2008 DPI report on the procurement reform briefing.

STRENGTHENING DEVELOPMENT-RELATED ACTIVITIES OF THE UN SECRETARIAT

On 12 March 2008, Deputy Secretary-General Asha-Rose Migiro briefed members of the Fifth Committee on the report of the Secretary General to strengthen development-related activities of the United Nations Secretariat (A/62/708). The report was mandated by resolution A/RES/62/236, which provided strict guidelines.

In her introductory remarks, Migiro reiterated the major themes which the Secretary-General had presented to Ambassadors a day earlier. Among other things highlighted in the 202-pages report is the critical gap between mandate responsibilities and available resources. Thus, the report focuses on ways to strengthen the capacity to implement the many mandates of the work of a number of departments and offices in the economic and social areas, including the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), the regional commissions – OHRLLS, OSAA – and the Development Account; in a more coherent and consistent manner. The report outlines a number of proposals on how to improve the analytical and research capacity of all development-related entities, thereby enabling them to deliver more effectively and efficiently on mandates by identifying and addressing cross-cutting policy challenges. According to Migiro, “…great care was taken to prevent duplication with others, both inside and outside the UN system….” To this end Migiro pointed out that much emphasis had been placed on achieving internationally agreed goals – including the MDGs – in regard to the three most vulnerable and marginalized groups of countries as classified by the UN as Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States.

Among the specific proposals for DESA, UNCTAD, OHRLLS and the OSAA is the aim to strengthen their normative and policy support for intergovernmental processes, so as to enable them to deliver more effectively on their considerably expanded obligations. At the regional level, Migiro stated that emphasis had been placed on “…a development approach that would strengthen the UN’s analytical and normative work while supporting better planning and implementation at the country level.”

According to Migiro, the agenda of the UN continues to expand, yet, there has been no commensurate increase in the level of resources for the Secretariat. As a result this “…has led to resources being spread too thinly over a broad range of activities, with shortfalls in important areas.” However, she remarked that the Secretariat had made efforts to cope with the increased workload as mandated by the legislative bodies, through dedicated actions to make efficient use of resources, and through improved intra-secretariat coordination and collaboration. She pointed out that “…a modest increase in resource level of $25.57 million is proposed to provide 150 additional posts, under 12 sections of the programme budget for the biennium 2008 – 2009,” which should address the mandate and resources mismatch.

In response, some members of the Fifth Committee welcomed the Deputy Secretary-General’s remarks and stated their support for strengthening the development pillar in the Secretariat and elsewhere. Slovenia, speaking on behalf of the European Union made comments to this effect. On the other hand, other Member States not only had comments but also asked questions and made suggestions/recommendations.

Cape Verde, speaking on behalf of the African Group stated that in order for States to be on the same page as the Secretary-General once he had formally presented his report to the Fifth Committee, and to have a report that was objective and met the interests of all Member States, in which the most fundamental issues were emphasized, “…instructions needs to be given to our experts so that they can implement their work consistently” to avoid possible misunderstandings during discussions.

Antigua and Barbuda, speaking on behalf of the G77 and China, highlighted that even though the Secretary-General was convinced that the proposed level - $25.5 million – provided “…the appropriate balance in addressing the mismatch between mandate and resources,” – given the numerous mandates being put forward , the G77 and China were not convinced that “at this moment, that amount indicated is an appropriate balance” and looked forward to further discussions.

Japan underlined that their delegation understood the importance of the development pillar but had some recommendations and questions. Japan recommended that prioritization should be pursued among the different aspects of the “…past and present conflicting development agenda.” In doing so, the representative pointed out that the international community would feel the visible impact of the initiative “…which should be duly followed up in the established procedures of the biennial report.” Further, the representative recommended that efficiency should always be pursued to find the savings to the allocations in the prioritized areas. Furthermore, Japan wanted clarifications on some of the figures and statistics in the report and also wanted to know the division of labor between the different departments and offices with regards to development and gender related issues. Finally, he wanted to know how effective the proposals were in addressing the challenges of the bottom billion people – the expected results, and Migiro’s strategy in resolving the issue.

Mexico, speaking on behalf of the RIO Group underscored that the group was prepared to take a pragmatic approach advocating a guarantee of the programmes and activities and “…ensuring that they have adequate resources for implementation.” “Obviously, that does not rule out the possibility of necessary measures being taken for the efficient use of the existing resources now or in the future,” the representative said.

New Zealand, speaking on behalf of CANZ (Canada, Australia and New Zealand) pointed out areas of the report that CANZ wanted to examine carefully. Specifically, CANZ will look at the intended impact and how they will lead to “…bettering outcomes in terms of the achievement of the internationally agreed development goals including the MDGs.” In addition, they would like clarification as to how the role of the Secretariat is differentiated from the roles of other UN development agencies in delivering on development mandates; and also wanted to get a full picture of the total financial cost of the proposal in terms of human resources and the programming funds necessary to fulfill the development mandates both for this biennium and for the next.

The representative from Guinea Bissau concurred with the views of the African Group emphasizing the need to follow the report with some action. Guinea Bissau also noted that even though the ambitions of Member States are multifold, resources made available to the Secretariat were “…no longer sufficient to take stock of all the needs of the hour.” Thus, in addressing States present, the representative appealed to them to “swiftly” ensure that they contributed to the global partnership which the DSG talked about. Because by ensuring this, collective responsibilities towards development matters would be assumed. He added that, States were the first to complain that mandates had not been carried out and because of this they need to ensure that the UN become a modern and an efficient organization. “We are in the 21st century and we cannot work with old methods.” However, Guinea Bissau pointed out, that new methods will require new visions on the parts of Member States.

Agreeing with the G77 and China, the African Group, and the RIO Group, Brazil indicated that his delegation wished to secure the resources proposed in the report. He appealed to Member States not to link the report to all reform proposals that are yet to be approved by the GA, and also not to look at the statistics and figures presented in the report now but, to act pragmatically and endorse the proposals in the report.

Bangladesh shared similar views with the G77 and China. The representative asserted that the current development architecture of the UN falls short of producing optimal results apart from other areas that the other speakers touched on. This, he said was a consistent source of concern for his delegation. “We strongly maintain that the Development account; OHRLLS and the LDC – which has unfortunately been starving for resources since its inception – should be adequately resourced and the financing mechanisms improved [to ensure continued] supply of resources. This is the reason for its failure to deliver its mandates effectively,” the representative indicated. Against this backdrop, he noted with concern that the “eccentric configuration of the OHRLLS and OSAA was seen as a breach of procedure” – more specifically to GA resolution A/RES/56/227 by which the OHRLLS was established to perform specific mandates.

The United States acknowledged that the UN development pillar needed to be strengthened in order to increase the effectiveness of programs on the ground, including the lives of the needy. However, according to the US “…though it is stated that the proposal does not constitute a review of the overall structures,” the US still believes that the proposal should be evaluated by the following criteria: its vision of development and the appropriate role of the UN – whether current operations and practices have been evaluated for their effectiveness – and overlaps eliminated – whether gaps exists and if so, how best to address those gaps.

The UK also acknowledged that the report covered very important and complex areas of work, but, wanted further elaboration by the DSG on efforts made, in terms of consultations with all these other parts of the UN family – UNDP, UNICEF, UFPA, the World Bank, etc. Were these organizations invited to join meetings or contribute to the report in anyway?

In her response to the various comments and queries from Member States, Migiro reiterated the Secretary-General’s comments of a day earlier. Addressing the issue of prioritization, she stated that the development vision of the UN “…has been shaped over time.” However, at this point in time, particular attention was being focused on the 2005 World Summit outcome document, which touched on issues as to how the work was apportioned in order to avoid duplication. In particular, she mentioned the query of division of labor between development entities. DESA she highlighted, has basically been occupying itself with the overall coordination of policies, providing analytical support and following up on the various decisions /guidelines arising from the intergovernmental work. As to OHRLLS, Migiro stated that their work has been mainly to support the work of advocacy and mobilization in support of the relevant states’ specific needs. On the other hand, UNCTAD has been supporting these countries in trade related matters.

As far as gender related entities were concerned, Migiro highlighted the division for advancement of women (DAW) “…which has basically been doing policy analysis including issues related to gender equality,” giving substantive services to intergovernmental processes and also helping member states on the issues of capacity building. She stated that OSAGI on the other hand has been “…doing facilitating work, monitoring and advising on policy work goals of the organization,” and as far as gender was concerned, supported the analytical work of gender issues, and the mainstreaming of issues related to women’s empowerment. UNIFEM she said, “…has been operational, but its resources have not been that much.” And, it has assisted Member States in capacity building and was presently working to ensure greater coordination and coherence in gender issues to mitigate the fragmented nature of work in that area.

With the Secretariat-based development entities, Migiro noted that a consultative meeting had been held with all of them and therefore the reports reflect the” inputs and concurrence” of these entities.

Responding to the statistics question, Migiro instructed the Under-Secretary-General for Management, Alicia Barcena, to provide details on budgetary and staff issues in writing, in particular as to the resources relevant bodies have been receiving and the proposed number of postings being merged, as well as an overview of activities that had been coming in the Secretariat’s way as far as development was concerned.

In light of the ongoing discussions on system-wide coherence, she pointed out that “…steps have been taken to strengthen regional commissions as they are the ones providing a regional perspective to development. She added, “…our work has been forced to act in a more coordinated way, given the nature of cross-cutting issues which has no borders.” In conclusion, she assured delegates present that in preparing the report, the authors had been mindful of the constraints of their work and necessary budgetary discipline.

The ACABQ is working on its response to the Secretary General's report.