Thematic Debate on Management Reform: Towards a Common Understanding of Management Reform

8-9 April 2008
UN General Assembly

At the 2005 World Summit, Member States agreed to a number of specific management reform proposals. Some of these have been implemented while others continue to be negotiated in the Fifth Committee (budget and administrative) of the General Assembly. Only the Mandate Review is taking place in a working group rather than the Fifth Committee.

Thematic Debates aim to "establish broad international understanding on current substantive issues of importance to Member States." [GA resolution 59/313]. This debate concentrated on management reform and in particular on three questions:

How should mandates be formulated, implemented, and evaluated?
How can we improve the planning and budgetary process?
How can we reform the management of human resources?

On 8 April, Member States had the chance to make short statements on the issue (see summary below) while on 9 April, an interactive debate took place. The latter was not open to observers. The President of the General Assembly had proposed two days of open meetings, but based on consultations with Member States, attendance at the interactive debate was strictly reserved for Member States, relevant officials from the Secretariat and oversight bodies.

According to some sources, the interactive debate did not reveal significantly new contributions from Member States. The mood was apparently positive, with many Member States welcoming this opportunity to vent their strongest concerns, including dissatisfaction with the budget process and the late issuance of reports. (See the interview with the Under-Secretary-General below for the Seretariat's perspective on this issue.)

Representatives from oversight bodies like the Joint Inspection Unit and the Office of Internal Oversight Services were invited to provide
input on issues concerning accountability and the budget process, noting the "dysfunctional budget dialogue between Member States and the Secretariat," which tends to focus too much on details on posts and activity levels rather than on strategy and priorities. Furthermore, an evaluation of those management reform measures adopted thus far would be advisable, one of them noted.

The Deputy-Secretary-General apparently explained the work of the Management Performance Board; efforts to improve transparency when hiring for top positions; the development of a recruitment manual; and the work of the task-force on Human Resources.

The Under-Secretary-General for Management made remarks, noting among others,

Member States add responsibilities to the Secretariat without providing corresponding funds up front, nor guidance on how to reallocate existing resources.
Member States request a large amount of reports from the Secretariat, burdening the Secretariat and overwhelming delegates in the Fifth Committee.
Member States adopt new mandates which often interrelate with existing mandates, at times leading to confusion, redundancy, and wastefulness.

It was also noted that expected outcomes are typically not clearly defined by Member States. Furthermore, timeframes are rarely attached, responsible entities rarely identified.[/]

Efforts by the Four Nations Initiative to formulate concrete proposals to improve the generation, implementation, and evaluation (including feedback) of mandates are apparently much appreciated by the Secretariat as well as Member States. Efforts from the current Co-Chairs on the Mandate Review to define criteria to establish whether a mandate can be considered redundant, overlapping, or completed are similarly welcomed.

That there is a need for a genuine dialogue between the Secretariat and Member States on resources, mandates, and accountability is obvious to insiders. Though the President of the General Assembly noted the need to continue the dialogue in his closing statement, it seems that there is disagreement between Member States as to how and where. For instance, the Group of 77 and China - a bloc of 130 Member States from the South - indicated in its statement of 8 April that:

"The Group trusts that outcome of this meeting will be similar to other previous Thematic debates in the form of a factual Chair's summary, that will have no bearing on the work and the role of the Fifth Committee ... The Group will not accept parallel tracks to negotiate issues that are already on the agenda of the Fifth Committee."

The informal Chair's Summary was made available in mid-May.

As insiders have noted with concern, the Fifth Committee appears to be suffering from a growing governance crisis. At its latest session, for instance, it was unable to make substantive decisions on a number of management reform proposals. Differences among Member States about resources and priorities will likely - according to one expert - make progress on management reform in the Fifth Committee's upcoming sessions far from easy.

Having a fundamental discussion on how mandates are formulated, implemented, and evaluated probably does fall outside the purview of the Fifth Committee. It will be interesting to see if Member States will consider another format than thematic debates for discussing the mandate generation cycle further, such as informal consultations or a working group. In this regard it will be especially important to see whether the ongoing mandate review succeeds.

Agenda/statements/remarks/meeting summary

Relevant analyses and interviews from the Center: