Ad Hoc Informal Meeting of the Commission
Geneva, 14 July 2005
Statement by Mrs Brigita Schmögnerová,
Executive Secretary
-
The UNECE secretariat
welcomed the decision of the 59th Annual
Session in February 2004 to commission
a comprehensive report on the state
of the UNECE. The UNECE secretariat’s
positive and very open attitude towards
the review is based on expectations
and hope that this would result in recommendations
that would further strengthen UNECE,
give it better opportunity to adapt
to the needs and demands of its member
States in the rapidly changing environment
and will renew its legitimacy as in
the 1997 reform.
-
As my reference
to the 1997 reform indicates, this is
not the first reform of the UNECE in
this decade. It also proves that UNECE
is opened to reforms, its secretariat
is flexible enough and willing to cooperate
with the member States. I would like
to commend ambassadors and delegates
recognizing the need for the secretariat’s
productive role in the reform.
-
The 1997 reform was
a major reform reacting to a new political,
economic and social environment after
the collapse of the Soviet bloc in the
ECE region. I will make a reference
to it a few more times in my statement.
But the 1997 Action Plan and its implementation
has not been the only reform effort
in the past decade. Initiated by the
Secretary-General at the beginning of
his second term, the Commission started
a new round of reforming itself. Making
comparison to the 1997 Reform or 2005
Reform, the process had been considered
as a more continuous process and as
a part of the broader UN Reform. The
discussion on the second round of the
UNECE Reform started at the 57th Annual
Session of the Commission in May 2003
on the basis of CRP 2003 on “Strengthening
of the Organization – UNECE secretariat’s
Self Assessment” with the secretariat’s
view on reforming the mandate of the
ECE, programme of work, intergovernmental
structure, technical assistance, cooperation
with other UN organizations and non-UN
organizations – which is almost
the replication of the reform clusters
to be discussed in this reform process.
The reform discussion continued at its
58th Annual Session considering the
document “The UNECE Reform”
(E/ECE/1399) which focused on the reform
of the secretariat, the intergovernmental
structure and the reform of the technical
cooperation followed up by the debate
on the process of implementation and
actions taken in the document in 2003
“The UNECE Reform” (E/ECE/1411)
at its 58th Annual Session in February
2004. This again illustrates UNECE’s
readiness and ability of undergoing
changes, which is a great asset on which
we should build.
-
Due to the concentration
of the reform efforts in less than 10
years, it is therefore not a surprise
that many of the conclusions and general
recommendations made in the “Comprehensive
Report on the State of the UNECE”,
namely part 8 of the report, are not
new and were repeatedly made in the
1997 Reform and also in the process
2002/2004. There are like “the
need to improve cooperation with other
organizations and the private sector”,
“the need to strengthen intersectoral
linkages”, “the need to
raise the political profile of the UNECE”,
etc. It shows that either there is a
need for further improvement in these
areas or the improvement has not been
fully recognized. It also shows that
improvement might be achieved only if
the recommendations are more instrumental.
Understanding of this might help to
move the process of improvement much
faster.
-
The “Comprehensive
Report on the State of the UNECE”
proposes also some very new recommendations
like the need to implement the MDGs
which was not recognized enough in the
2002/2004 discussions. It also recommends
to change the governance structure decided
upon in the 1997 reform. It recognizes
very correctly that the UNECE receives
mandates from the UN General Assembly
and the ECOSOC, and the need to continue
to fulfil the mandates of the two main
governance bodies of the UNECE. How
to reconcile between the mandates of
the global governance bodies and the
regional governance bodies has however
to be addressed.
-
The UNECE secretariat
is in general agreement with many of
the broad conclusions of Part 8. However,
as indicated above, it is indispensable
to make them operational. The secretariat
would like to express its readiness
to be fully cooperative in the embarked
process. I believe very much that building
confidence in the reform process between
the member States and the secretariat
is a pre-condition to success both in
terms of achieving the best decisions
and the best results in the implementation.
Mr. Chairman,
As this is my last opportunity
to speak with member States, allow me to
share with you some immediate reactions
made in good faith to make the reform process
a success.
Mission:
The UNECE primary objective in 1947 was
defined as increasing economic cooperation
among its member States and improving their
economic welfare. This objective is still
valid after 60 years. At the same time,
the region has undergone major changes both
in terms of economic and political development
and in its institutional architecture. UNECE
should therefore be more focused on promoting
economic cooperation on a multilateral
basis, promoting cooperation within
country groupings like CA, SEE, and other
CIS, and among the country groupings. This
is complementary to bilateral cooperation
between the EU and non-EU Member States
like based on agreements concluded between
the EU and non-EU countries with economies
in transition in format of AAs, PCAs or
SAAs.
Until late nineties UNECE
was considered the important bridge between
the East and the West. Its role today is
to prevent from new dividing lines such
as EU/non-EU members, high-income/low-income
countries, digital divide, etc. In 2003-2004
the project on Wider Europe implemented
in the organization provided opportunities
to discuss the impacts of the EU enlargement
on the programme of work. Tens of discussions
in different formats, conferences, workshops,
round-tables, deliberated on the impact
of the new European architecture on the
respective programme of work and the necessary
adjustments have been introduced. All this
work invested should be used. In addition
to that I assume that the mission of the
UNECE should be formulated with the recognition
of a need for regional cooperation to promote
sustainable development in the region which
would respond to new needs and realities
in the 21st century.
Governance:
The secretariat agrees that there is a need
for improving the governance structure in
UNECE. Firstly to improve the priority-setting
mechanism in order to ensure that member
States’ priorities shape the programme
of work. Secondly the UNECE governance structure
is complex and therefore rules and mechanisms
to make it as efficient as possible are
needed. Both these aspects of governance
have been addressed: in 1997 and more recently
in 2002-2004. At its Annual Session in February
2005 the Commission adopted the Recommendation
of the GEPW on the Programme Planning Processes
(E/ECE/1423/Add.1). With respect to the
decision mechanism on governance structure,
the Commission at its Ad Hoc Informal Meeting
of June 2003 adopted the Guidelines for
the Establishment and Functioning of Teams
of Specialists (E/ECE/1407&Add.1).
According to the 1997
reform the PSBs cannot establish WP of a
standing nature without the approval of
the Commission. However, under the principle
of subsidiarity adopted by member States
in 1977, they have authority to set up working
groups and task forces. This was further
regulated by the Guidelines as indicated
above.
Taking into consideration
the above and the fact that many decisions
adopted have been implemented only recently,
I am of the view that the member States
should carefully monitor the existing mechanism
before introducing major changes to it.
The issue is also whether member States
wish to depart from the principle of subsidiarity
adopted in 1997 giving PSBs authority to
establish their work programme. If it is
considered that this authority should henceforth
revert to the Commission, then an in-depth
discussion as to how this could be done
needs to take place. As the 1997 reform
was an effort to correct what was considered
a “rubber-stamping” by the Commissions
of PSB work programmes, it would not appear
to be enough to simply state the PSBs’
work programmes be approved by the Commission.
The report recommends
a merger of the GEPW and the Bureau. This
could be a major improvement provided member
States agree on the TOR of the ExC, achieve
high-level representation, appropriate country
representation, etc. It also recommends
to discontinue the existence of the Steering
Committee. This Committee was never intended
to be a “governing body”. It
was intended to provide an opportunity (1)
to exchange experience among PSBs (2) to
promote cross-programme cooperation (3)
to provide information on the work of PSBs
to member States in an open discussion.
If the Steering Committee is abolished it
would be useful to develop a mechanism of
informal consultations among the PSBs that
would ensure the first 2 functions of the
Steering Committee.
This would be fully in
conformity with the Review that there is
a need to enhance communication between
programmes and set up joint programmes.
Management:
As management was my responsibility I will
be more detailed in this area. I already
made a point on the endorsed Programme Planning
Process involving the PSBs at the initial
stage for the preparation of the strategic
framework, which is going to be implemented
the first time for the preparation of the
2008-2009 strategic framework this year.
The Commission at its Annual
Session in 2004 also endorsed the rule on
evaluation of subsidiary bodies and their
programme of work biannually.
Some recommendations of
the Report on Strategic Framework and Budget
Process and the role of ExC in budget process,
including the recommendation that all changes
or new resources would be discussed with
ExC ignore that the secretariat must confirm
with the existing UN rules. Here I see clear
linkages to the UN Reform, particularly
the part dealing with the Management Reform.
At the same time there is now much more
transparency on resource issues than at
the time when I joined the Organization
– the use of resources for Technical
Cooperation is available, the budget of
the UNECE including extra-budgetary funding
is reported in the UNECE Annual Report,
etc. The secretariat welcomes the recommendations
on improved mobility of staff within the
UNECE secretariat and UN Secretariat. They
are fully in conformity with the UN Human
Resources Management Reform and the internal
UNECE Human Resources Policy and recently
approved UNECE Internal Voluntary Reassignment
Programme.
The Report states
that improvement in horizontal communication
is needed. But it should be recognized that
in recent years communication has improved
considerably within the secretariat, using
Intranet as a modern communication instrument,
between the secretariat and member States
(UNECE Weekly, UNECE Annual Report, recently
completed CD-rom, knowledge-sharing initiative,
etc.). In the secretariat we introduced
regular Staff meetings, Staff brainstormings,
etc. Therefore your recommendations should
be more concrete how to further proceed.
The UNECE secretariat
has adopted clear internal rules and policies
in the form of UNECE Directives which provide
guidance in the areas of human resources,
budget resources, etc., and which aimed
at the improved efficiency of the work of
the secretariat. A strengthened cooperation
on cross-cutting issues setting-up internal
task forces like on OSCE Task Force, Group
on Technical Cooperation, MDGs Task Force,
etc. has been introduced. I regret that
these efforts are ignored in the Report.
If further progress has to be made your
recommendations will have to be instrumental.
Cooperation
with other organizations: The
Report emphasizes the importance of cooperation
with other organizations. The secretariat
agrees that this cooperation, also emphasized
in the 1997 reform, is important. In this
connection, I would like to note the very
strong cooperation that it has already developed
with many organizations – which should
be recognized.
I would like to note that
from 2002 to 2004 we concluded 5 important
MoUs with ICC, UIC, IRU, ECO and OSCE. The
negotiation of the MoU with the OSCE was
particularly long due to the need to reconcile
different views in Geneva and Vienna.
However, the cooperation
with OSCE, CEI, Stability Pact and other
international organizations within the existing
resources is very hard, so that staff has
to face very high workload on a permanent
basis. This needs to be taken into consideration.
On UN Reform
and its implications for UNECE Reform:
It is up to the member States to decide
on the road map including the time framework
of the process. However, it would not be
appropriate to ignore that there is an ongoing
process of the UN Reform. It is not a parallel
process without implications on UNECE. The
decisions on new UN Governance, including
a new mandate for ECOSOC, on Management
Reform as already noted, will have an impact
on the UNECE Reform. Therefore it would
be premature to agree upon recommendations
that would have to be reversed later due
to the progress in the UN Reform. I would
like to thank and commend those delegates
and ambassadors who referred to this.
Mr. Chairman, let me conclude
with one important message:
The UNECE is not just
another regional organization in the region.
It is the United Nations organization with
mandates coming from the General Assembly,
ECOSOC and United Nations Summits and Global
Conferences. When the mandates are explicitly
addressed to the Regional Commissions, it
is mandatory to comply with them. The regional
dimension of many important global processes
is increasingly recognized, like in sustainable
development, financing for development,
etc. As the regional arm of the United Nations,
the UNECE plays a double role: (1) in implementing
the global decisions at regional level (2)
in providing inputs from the regional to
the global level. It also has some global
responsibilities as mandated by the global
United Nations Bodies.
I would like to express
my hope that all obligations, linkages,
etc. will be considered in your negotiation
process.
Mr. Chairman,
If we achieve a much needed
atmosphere of mutual trust and confidence
between the member States and the secretariat,
the reform process will be smoother and
effective. I very much believe this is needed
and would like to reassure you that the
secretariat is committed to do its best.
____________