IS THE FIFTH COMMITTEE SUFFERING FROM A GOVERNANCE CRISIS?

After meeting for almost a month on important UN reform proposals, the Fifth Committee was unable to make substantive decisions on human resources, procurement, and strengthening the Department of Political Affairs (DPA), suggesting a growing governance crisis.

In regard to Human Resources Management (HRM) reforms, for instance, Japan and the US were insisting that they will need more information before they can agree to any of the proposals. Requesting more information hardly disguises their key concern - obvious to anyone attending the Fifth Committee - which involves the cost implications which amount to roughly 90 million for both streamlining contracts and harmonizing conditions of service for this budget cycle.

Suggesting that there is lack of information on HRM reforms is not very persuasive as the proposals began to be discussed in late 2006 and reports from the Secretariat, the Advisory Committee on Budgetary and Administrative Questions (ACABQ), and the International Civil Service Commission have been available for quite some time now. And for the Q&A sessions during the last month, the Secretariat had worked tirelessly – often throughout the night – to provide Member States with written answers to their questions. Not reaching agreement on any HRM reform proposals will likely undermine the faith of the Secretariat in the Fifth Committee’s working methods.

According to one source, some countries within the EU and the Group of 77 also expressed reservations about certain aspects of the HRM reform proposals but that, all in all, they remained willing to be part of a consensus agreement on this topic.

The Secretary-General’s proposal to strengthen DPA in respect to conflict prevention was deferred to the 63rd session in an informal meeting last evening. Again, concerns about resource implications from some of the biggest donors were underlying this deferral. Divisions within the G77 on this issue were rather apparent and arguably the G77 was saved from having to reach a common position because of the concerns about resources.

Part of the governance failure in the Fifth Committee is caused by the fact that the ACABQ is not able to provide the Fifth Committee with timely advice due to its heavy workload and the often late issuance of documentation by the Secretariat. Some suspect that the ACABQ itself is at times as politicized as the Fifth Committee. During the last few weeks, the ACABQ was unable to finish their reports on the proposed accountability architecture or the strenghtening of the development pillar at the UN.

In a few weeks, the Center hopes to provide a more in-depth analysis on the work of the Fifth Committee during its first resumed session. At this time, however, it seems clear to many insiders that Member States will have to address decision-making in the Fifth Committee soon, in particular in regard to:

• the amount of information Member States should reasonably seek from the Secretariat after they have already received detailed advice from advisory bodies (which probably asked to a large degree the same questions) - it is noteworthy that of the 15,000 pages of reports the Secretariat produces for Member States each year, more than half are for the Fifth Committee;
• the understanding that new activities or reform proposals will inevitably result in additional resource requirements;
• the establishment of reasonable and fixed timelines for the Secretariat and ACABQ for the submission of reports;
• the recognition that submitting many additional paragraphs for draft resolutions at the eleventh hour - thereby scuttling the negotiations - is disrespectful to the chair and other delegates. For reasons of transparency, it would be good practice for Member States to relay their strongest concerns on specific issues at the beginning of the drafting process of resolutions so that there will be enough time to reach consensus.

An ineffective Fifth Committee can do much harm to the credibility of Member States' governance role, in particular in regard to their duty to provide the Secretariat with timely guidance and adequate resources. It is more than ironic that some of the countries that are calling the loudest for management reform appear to be the least willing to pay for the costs involved.

For an account of the Fifth Committee's concluding meeting on 28 March, click on this DPI Report