CLOSING STATEMENT BY MR. SEYED MORTEZA MIRMOHAMMAD
(ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN), CHAIRMAN OF THE
COMMITTEE FOR PROGRAMME AND COORDINATION
FORTY-THIRD SESSION
9 July, 2003

Distinguished delegates,

I appreciate your cooperation for enabling the Committee to conclude its programme of work and to adopt the report of its forty-third session. Of course, it is for the parent bodies to consider the report and to evaluate the outcome of our work. Nevertheless, we can have a look at what we did and how we did it.

I heard from various corners that this session was an undeniable progress in terms of the efficiency not only in comparison with the previous sessions, but also in comparison with other expert and advisory bodies. Under the pressure of time, the Committee tried its utmost to deliver a heavy programme of work. We made the best utilization of conference services provided to the session. Remember that for the consideration of the previous biennial budget, the Committee was provided with extra meetings in the afternoons and evenings.

We made an effort to use technology to make the proceedings more efficient. With the help of the Secretariat, a CPC-web site was established, making readily available relevant documents, the programme of work and the mandate. Also, video-conferencing was used for presentations with managers from duty stations.

To make optimal use of the time, the formal meetings managed to be concise. We observed a time limit for the statements. As a result, the delegates and representatives of the Secretariat introduced their inputs in brief. This was a step forward for both parties to be organized, focused, concrete and productive. The Committee established the provision for rollover of items within a day's schedule, which was also effective.

I have said earlier that the formal meeting provides a unique opportunity of direct interaction with programme managers. It has an impact. They take into account the views of the Committee. Particularly, if the Committee focuses on its mandate, they shall be serious about the discussions. Then the informal consultations should focus on the practical outcome of the Committees work. But a major problem lies here. To follow the format of the intergovernmental negotiations, for example, the Fifth Committee here somehow dilutes the work of the Committee.

We tried to get the focus of the informal consultations on drafting. But some of the proposals given to the Rapporteur were beyond the focused interaction of the Committee in the formal meeting. This is an area that needs the second thought. Mainly, we have been either correcting the reflection of the mandates in the fascicles or taking note of a General Assembly resolution in a previous session and recommending the General Assembly to follow the resolution in the future. If programme managers reflect the mandates and the recent decisions in the fascicles, of course not exactly word by word, maybe the Committee is left with little excuse to spend a lot of time for deleting, adding or replacing phrases and instead, focusing on its mandate established by the parent bodies.

In addition to that, the spirit of participation in the informal consultations is somehow similar to the Fifth Committee. Because of the subsidiary nature of the Committee and its technical role for the parent bodies, delegations should participate with a spirit of technical contribution rather than typical negotiating stands. But frankly speaking, you observed that we tried the good spirit somehow in this session. When the Committee made a progress in not spending time for formalities in the informal consultations, it provided a good opportunity for the chair and coordinators to be straightforward with delegations and soon the room found out what were the genuine concerns of delegations and how many proposals could be withdrawn or merged or simplified. This was an achievement. And, again, I heard that although there is much room for recovery and progress, these informals could be an example for other intergovernmental bodies, where sometimes delegations get into several three hour meetings one after another.

For the participation of the Observers in the informal consultations, the Committee managed to take the sound practice that when the members are in agreement to arrive at a decision, they can proceed with that action. This helped us avoid complication and save time we really needed. I appreciate the understanding and cooperation of the observers.

Lets briefly review the substantive outcome of the Committee:

The Committee reaffirmed the importance of a proper review and evaluation of the programmatic issues in the proposed programme budget (PPB) to ensure conformity to, and respect for the medium-term plan (MTP) and Regulations and Rules Governing Programme Planning, the Programme Aspects of the Budget, the Monitoring of Implementation and the Methods of Evaluation (PPBME).? It recognized that results-based budgeting (RBB) remains a valuable tool for both programme managers and the inter-governmental process in helping evaluation and monitoring of programme quality and implementation.

The Committee emphasized on the compliance of all programme managers with the PPBME and requested that obsolete outputs be further identified for possible discontinuation in the consideration of the budget in fall. The message of the Committee was effective and some programme managers expressed their readiness for identifying outputs and some explained the difficulties for their identification. Even for the biennium 2006-2007, such request was established as an indicator of achievement.

For the first time, the Committee recommended that the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) reviews its statute, working methods and proceedings and present concrete proposals on how best the actual weaknesses of the unit can be addressed.

We made useful recommendations for indicators of achievement on some sections, in particular, conference services, some regional commissions, New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD), public information and management. We should not forget recommendations made on progress and impact assessment of management improvement measures.

But is that satisfactory? I'm not sure. We have to engage in a serious review of the extent we are fulfilling our real mandate and the way we conduct our work. I cannot share my ideas on how to improve and reform these two aspects now, since at this final stage none of us is ready to get into a substantive debate. But I think, having worked very hard, we are now in a position to understand the areas of problem. I think that the delegates in the Committee for Programme and Coordination (CPC) are convinced that the Committee is yet to add adequate value in mandated areas of work as requested in resolution 2008(LX) of ECOSOC. Because of the pressure of time, maybe one did not have a chance to see what is expected from us in the mandate. Now that you are free, I want you to look at the terms of reference once again and see which one are we doing and which ones are ignored.

Since there are other bodies involved in the budgetary process, the Committee tried to examine the programmatic aspect of the budget only and to refrain from addressing budgetary issues. But, it was not satisfactory. In some occasions, we repeated the discussions that took place in the Fifth Committee right before the session of Committee for Programme and Coordination.

But whatever we do, we can reflect it better in the report. I referred to not much attractive exercise of deleting, adding and replacing. It is essential that the CPC report have greater credibility. We can improve the value of the report. The report should reflect the outcome of the work on strategic issues, policy direction of the medium-term plan or the budget proposal as well as on achieved results and assessment of programme performance and evaluation. We can have an introduction at the beginning of the report, reflecting Committee's strategic observations on crosscutting issues. On the other hand, the CPC should not be afraid to criticize - constructively - reports, which we believe to be inadequate and not sufficient to allow the Committee to do its work properly.

Since we were explicitly called by the General Assembly resolutions to further improve our working methods with a view to further enhancing the effectiveness and continued relevance of the Committee, I tried to have your contribution in this area so that the Committee can regain the focus of its work as much as possible. I believed this internal practical review could help the smooth running of the discussions on the reform of the Committee in the General Assembly. That's why I tried to explore some possible changes both in bureau meetings and in the floor of the Committee. And I will be available in the upcoming debate to fulfill my responsibility and to provide any contribution I can offer. Fortunately, we have received good practical ideas from the floor. But, still there is a need to reshape our mentalities for being positive on the merits of some measures for enhancing the effectiveness and continued relevance of the Committee.

At the end, once again, I appreciate your contribution to the work of the Committee. I should commend the Secretariat officials and representatives, especially those of the Office of the Programme Planning and the Budget for their useful participation in the debates and their advice. My thanks and appreciation are also extended to the distinguished Secretary of the Committee, Mr. Abelian, and Deputy Secretary, Ms. Benary, and other members of the Secretariat of the Committee for their tireless efforts and valuable support, indeed, day and night. I should also thank conference room and document officers, interpreters, and sound engineers for their hard work during the session.