UN MANAGEMENT REFORM: JUSCANZ CONTINUE

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 000561 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: AORC KUNR UNGA SUBJECT: UN MANAGEMENT REFORM: JUSCANZ CONTINUE CONSULTATIONS ON WAYS FORWARD - MANDATE REVIEW ALSO CONSIDERED REF: A. A. USUN 442 ¶B. B. USUN 461 ¶C. C. USUN 481 ¶D. D. USUN 527 ¶1. SUMMARY: Representatives of Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the U.S. (JUSCANZ) met March 17 to continue their discussions on the Secretary-General's management reform ("rules and regulations") report (A/60/692); except for Canada, the countries were representated at the Deputy Permanent Representative level. While the group's March 14 meeting (reftel D) focused on procedural issues, in this meeting the Ambassadors exhanged views on the measures themselves. Among other things, they sought to clarify which of the nearly 100 recommendations contained in the 23 proposals in the 7 "investing" categories could be implemented under the SYG's current authority and which would require intergovernmantal approval. In recognition of the UN budget spending cap discussions to take place in June, the Ambassadors underlined the importance of early agreement being reached on priority issues. They also emphasized the importance of the upcoming ACABQ report. Canada's ACABQ representative said that the ACABQ report might help to clarify which measures could be implemented without intergovernmental decisions. U.S. Deputy Permanent Representative Wolff said the U.S. could not agree to the proposal for charging interest on arrears (under proposal 17). Japanese Ambassador Ozawa said that Japan too could not accept the interest proposal and also highlighted his country's other "red line": consolidating separate peacekeeping accounts into a single set of accounts and reports (proposals 16.2, 16.3 and 17.1) because of the GOJ's peacekeeping budget process. The group also considered the next steps in the process, including possibly broadening the discussion to include other Geneva Group members and the EU, and the possibility of meeting with the Group of 77 and China to find out whether some early agreements can be arrived at. ¶2. Before concluding, the Canadian representative, who has been assisting Ambassador Rock in co-chairing the GA working group on UN reform, briefed the group on the mandate review. She said that co-chairs Rock and Akram had concluded that early results from the mandate review would not be possible unless there were understandings among member states that: (1) savings derived from the elimination of mandates should be used to fund activities in the same thematic area (e.g., development); and (2) certain politically sensitive mandates were not included in the early consideration. The group agreed to meet again during the week of March 20. END SUMMARY. ¶3. Continuing their consideration of the management reform report, the Ambassadors exchanged preliminary views on which proposals might fall under the purview of the Secretary-General, as follows; SIPDIS -- "Investing in Leadership" - category 2: Proposal 5 - redefine the role of the Deputy SYG; 6 - regroup 25 departments and entites reporting to the SYG; 7 - build a cadre of managers required for modern global operations. Comment: it was generally agreed that the SYG should move forward with these proposals, although Canada said proposal 7 might have financial implications. "Invest in New Ways of Delivering Services" - category 4: Proposal 11 - consider all options for alternative service delivery; 12 - undertake systematic and detailed cost benefit analyses for relocation, outsourcing and/or telecommunicating; 13 - take action against staff members found to have acted inappropriately; 14 - continue review of procurement rules; 15 - incorporate recommendations of current review and reflect conclusions of outstanding investigations and audit. Comments: the group expressed general preliminary agreement. "Invest in Budget and Finance" - category 5: Proposal 16 - implement a strategy-focused budgeting process; 17 - implement new financial management practices. Comments: Japan said that it cannot agree to a consolidation of separate peacekeeping accounts into a single set of accounts and reports (proposals 16.2, 16.3 and 17.1) because of the GOJ's peacekeeping budget process. It also expressed concern at granting the SYG the authority to use savings from vacant posts (of up to ten percent of the overall post budget) for unplanned activities. While being generally supportive of the proposal, Japan had reservations with granting the SYG the full ten per cent authority. "Invest in Governance" - category 6: Proposal 19 - establish an improved, credible reporting mechanism. Comments: Japan is inclined to support the 4 sub-proposals under proposal 19 although more information is needed. Canada cautioned that any report consolidation process would have to monitored closely (sub-proposals 19.1 and 19.2). ¶4. Views were also exchanged on the following other proposals: "Invest in People" - category 1: Proposal 1 - develop a proactive, targeted and speedy recruitment system. Comments: Ambassador Wolff noted that while the 8 sub-proposals might require additional funding, the U.S. is generally inclined to support them with the exception of 1.8 - strictly enforce compliance with gender and geography targets - since this implies the application of quotas. Ambassador Wolff also commented, in general, that any new resource requirements must be funded through savings on other programs. Australia also could not support sub-proposal 1.8 because of the inference of quotas. "Invest in People" - category 1: Proposal 2 - develop a more integrated approach to mobility; 3 - nurture talent and foster career development; 4 - modify contractual arrangements and harmonize conditions of service. Comment: Canada expressed the view that this report does not supercede other studies already underway and that with other reports still pending, human resources-related measures were not ripe for action since several related reports would be considered at the 61st GA in the fall. "Invest in Information and Communications Technology (ICT)" - category 3: Proposal 8 - give a Chief Information Technology Officer sufficient resources and rank to implement a comprehensive information management strategy; 9 - initiate an effort to align ICT priorities with performance objectives; 10 - implement an integrated global information system. Comment: all agreed that these measures were important and that more information is required. The U.S. cautioned that IT systems sometimes end up costing more than anticipated and suggested that it might be advisable to approve the Chief Information Technology Officer post as a first step; thus enabling him/her to steer the process. Japan emphasized the importance of IT managers fully explaining their proposals and being held accountable for their implementation. Canada said that the Secretariat clearly was planning to move forward with the new information system even before a chief information technology officer is appointed. "Invest in Change" - category 7: Proposal 22 - appropriate dedicated resources to ensure complete implementation of detailed proposals, including 22.1 which would provide resources for a change management office that would report to the Deputy SYG and would hold heads of department accountable for the implementation of reforms. Comment: it was generally agreed that such an office, if at all necessary, should be formed from within existing management. Ambassador Wolff said that change management respoinsibility should fall under the Deputy Secretary-General. SIPDIS ¶5. Next steps - as at the March 14 meeting, participants underlined the importance of having the General Assembly Plenary control the process, including through establishment of strict time-lines for other committees to report back. The Ambassadors discussed the need for the group to first agree on which proposals should be pursued for early adoption, after which the group could begin discussions with others, including possibly the Geneva Group and the EU. The group also discussed the possibility of meeting with members of the Group of 77 and China to find out whether some early agreements could be arrived at. The ACABQ will complete consideration of its report by March 24. It was not clear whether the ACABQ report would be issued prior to the expected formal introduction of the management reform report on March 27. While the Group of 77 and China has made clear its position that the Secretary-General's report and the ACABQ report should be introduced in the Fifth Committee, Ambassador Wolff said the reports should be introduced in Plenary, with Plenary allocating items to the Fifth Committee as necessary. The Ambassadors also discussed the fact that the management reform report and the mandate review report would be considered on parallel tracks, pretty much simultaneously. Another report fromt he Secretary-General describing implementation plans for the management reform measures is expected to be issued in May. Japan reminded the group that the Fifth Committee would take up the large and complicated issue of peacekeeping financing also during the month of May. The U.S. shared with the group that Secretariat planned to issue a report on the spending cap in SIPDIS May; the report would probably be considered by the Fifth Committee as part of the agenda item covering the 2006-2007 regular budget. ¶6. Mandate review - Canada reported that the SYG will introduce the mandate review report in a formal Plenary meeting on the afternoon of March 28 and again emphasized that in order for the review process to yield early results, it would be necessary for countries to agree that savings derived from the elimination of mandates would be used to fund activities in the same thematic area (e.g., development). Canada also again emphasized the importance of excluding politically sensitive issues (e.g., Palestinian mandates) from early consideration. It was expected that for a two-week period following March 28, Member States would receive instructions on how to use the mandate review database that the Secretariat will make available. Decisions will have to be taken on which mandates would be allocated to which bodies for consideration, with each body (GA, SC, ECOSOC) deciding on its mandate review process. Following the review process, each body will then submit its report. Agreement will then have to be reached on the process for consideration of mandates which involve more than one body. Japan emphasized that when allocating mandates to ECOSOC for review, it would be important for the GA to establish specific time-frames for consideration and reporting. On the question of "encroachment", Japan said that the Security Council should simply proceed with a review of relevant mandates without being asked by the GA, noting that the Council could set up a subsidiary body for this purpose. BOLTON