BlogsEventsFeaturesImage galleriesMediaMFAT speeches200520062007200820092010Media contact informationMinisters releasesPublications
On behalf of Canada, Australia and New Zealand
Mr. Chairman,
I have the honour today to speak on behalf of Australia, New Zealand and Canada. I thank the Secretary-General for introducing the proposed programme budget this morning. I also thank Mr. Saha for introducing the report of the ACABQ, whose analysis and recommendations we value.
Secretary General,
Your tenure as Secretary-General coincides with a marked intensification of the expectations of member states on this critical institution. You can count on our delegations to work closely with you to ensure that the Organization is equipped to discharge its responsibilities in an effective, efficient, and accountable way.
The budget proposal before us today contains few surprises. It puts into effect, for example, earlier decisions of the General Assembly concerning budgetary support for the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights, enhancing the capacity of the Economic Commission for Africa and it sub-regional offices, putting the UN Office in Nairobi on a solid budgetary footing, and establishing continuing capacity for the Peacebuilding Support Office. The forthcoming informal consultations will provide an opportunity for discussion of these and other specific proposals.
In a real sense however, much of the budget “action” is contained not in this budget document, but in a stream of parallel proposals. Regardless the merit of any of these individual proposals, the presentation of the budget in this manner is of great concern to us, and we would like to echo ACABQ reservations about this piecemeal approach to budget formulation and consideration. This approach undermines budget discipline, obscures the full requirements, and makes prioritization of resources more difficult for member states.
The level of growth in UN budgets also remains a serious concern. Even if different accounts are appropriated separately, they are all still paid by the same taxpayer. As we see it, assessed budgets from all UN accounts will be close to $9 billion for 2008, and even in the regular budget, increases are higher than presented. Two biennia ago, the prospect of a $3 billion budget quickened heartbeats. Today, we are starting at $4.2 billion, and significant add-ons loom. We will work closely with others to contain the proposed growth by identifying outdated activities in the budget and examining the scope for absorption of new requirements.
Public support for spending on this scale hinges on confidence that funds are effectively utilized for the intended purposes. While progress has been made in developing policies and structures to support ethical conduct and integrity, independent oversight and personal accountability, more remains to be done. Strengthening the system of internal controls, improving the procurement regime, improving the identification and management of risks, and improving internal oversight, all need early action.
Mr. Chairman, Secretary General:
We realize that effective management improvements can require additional resources, not least because in the United Nations we have sometimes under-invested both in people and in systems. But there must be another side to this equation, the side that brings identifiable efficiency and productivity gains. Absent demonstrable results on these fronts, the appetite for increased expenditure in the name of management reform will diminish.
Secretary General:
As this is your first budget presentation, we would like to share our thoughts on the presentation of the budget itself. Fundamentally, we need to move beyond the practice of incremental budgeting, where only new resources are justified, and these activities are simply added to the base. The budget base itself needs to be reviewed to determine whether programs and activities remain relevant going forward, and the budget document needs to reflect such examination. How else can one be satisfied that the opportunities to respond to new needs through the re-deployment of existing resources have been exhausted?
Transparency and accountability also need further strengthening. Member States should be told the full cost of proposals, as current budget presentation techniques do not make clear what it will cost to sustain new initiatives into the future. Results-based budgeting, a key feature in a system of accountability, seems a paper exercise which is utilized in the Secretariat to meet the needs of the budget process rather than as a managerial tool. Indeed, feedback on the performance of past budgets does not seem in any way to inform the development of future budgets or work plans. We believe this system needs to be strengthened and internalized, and we eagerly await the already delayed proposals on how to develop the results-based approach further.
In the administrative arena, which consumes a large part of the regular budget, we have often expressed concern that administrative efficiency is so rarely measured, either through cost information, or benchmarking. Any good manager should want to know to how his or her efficiency is changing over time, or how it compares with others. In the United Nations, however, progress in the development and use of relevant tools and techniques has been slow.
Secretary-General:
A broad range of organizational and management improvements are in the process of being developed or implemented, partly in response to decisions taken by the General Assembly after the 2005 Summit. Complex projects, such as the Capital Master Plan and the envisaged renewal of information technology require organization wide commitment and unified leadership that transcends the departmental stovepipes that have often impeded unity of purpose. The ACABQ has drawn attention to this issue; we know that the Secretary-General is equipped to provide that unifying leadership.
Mr. Chairman:
In the coming weeks, we expect to receive an array of additional proposals with significant budgetary dimensions. Each will have its specific elements and individual consideration, but to the extent possible, we will need to consider how the sum of them affects the institutional whole. We look forward to working with all member states in this process.
