EU Presidency Statement - Programme Planning

Thank you, Mr. Chairman,

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the EU. The Candidate Countries Bulgaria, Romania and Croatia , the Countries of the Stabilisation and Association Process and potential candidates Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Serbia and Montenegro, and EFTA country Iceland, member of the European Economic Area, align themselves with this declaration.

1. The issue of Programme Planning is of key importance to the EU. It is here that this Committee, with advice from specialist bodies such as the CPC, takes important decisions on programmatic structure and priorities, evaluation and the application of Results-Based Budgeting. This year, we have for the first time to consider the Strategic Framework, which replaced the Medium-Term Plan and to look at some of the Biennial Programme Plans and other reports for which the CPC was unable to conclude its consideration. I shall also be commenting on the performance of the CPC itself.

Strategic Framework

2. The EU welcomes the new format of the strategic framework, consisting of the plan outline which, together with the objectives laid out for the programmes in their respective biennial plans, gives a helpful medium to long-term description of the challenges facing the UN. We think the plan outline provides a balanced perspective when taken in conjunction with the greater precision of the 2-year programmes in Part II. We note that the CPC recommended that the General Assembly consider the plan outline. For the EU's part, we stand ready to take note of the outline representing, as it does, the Secretary-General's own perspective on key issues. We recommend therefore, that in discussion of this item, the Committee confine itself to reaffirming the priorities identified in previous Medium-Term plans.

3. For the Biennial Programme Plans, the EU is satisfied with the first results. We believe the majority of the programmes are constructed to a level of detail, which is appropriate for a 2-year plan, especially considering that these plans will not become operational until 2006. We shall be looking for some more specific and quantifiable indicators, targets and baselines when these are added to the fascicles next year during the preparation of the programme budget proposals for 2006-07. The EU was also pleased to note that a number of senior programme managers commented favourably on the new 2-year timeframe as being more logical and workable than a 4-year one. We believe that the planning process will be enhanced as a result.

4. There are a few specific programmes for us to finalise, such as disarmament, human rights and public information in this session. We look forward to receiving the benefit of expert input from the relevant committees and we understand that the First and Fourth Committees have already achieved some success in this respect.

CPC

Mr. Chairman,

5. Our delegations have studied closely the report of the CPC at its 44th session. In this respect we should like to express our appreciation to our distinguished colleague from Nigeria for having chaired the Committee this year and we stand ready to endorse the report. However, despite the best efforts of the Chair and the bureau, we must confess to feeling, once again, let down by the Committee's final product. General Assembly resolution 58/269 should, we feel, have marked a new beginning for the CPC in terms of establishing itself as a vital and constructive body in the budgetary process. Instead, we see the report contains familiar and repetitive language for modifying objectives, accomplishments and indicators of achievement, in many cases simply churning out previously-used text. We should have expected to see some helpful, creative analysis or guidance to programme managers for how to go about structuring their programmes rather than referring all the more difficult issues to the General Assembly for action.

6. More disturbing is the fact that the Committee ignored the General Assembly's instruction in 58/269 to improve its own working methods. The Committee simply concludes that it should take this up this subject again next year as a matter of priority. But we have seen year after year that the CPC is oblivious to these sorts of exhortations to change. Urgent corrective action is now required if we are interested in achieving a consensus that the CPC can be a worthwhile body and actively contribute to efficient programme planning. The EU will therefore propose some ideas for reform of the CPC's working practices during the informals. These will not be radical, indeed they are deliberately restrained so as to be a modest few first steps on which the Committee itself can build in its 45th session. Our aim is to free up the Committee from the restrictive interpretations of its mandate and to encourage more open, substantive debate on programmatic issues and evaluation. We hope that we can count on colleagues to work with us on this in a co-operative spirit.

Priority Setting

7. Finally Mr Chairman, I should like to refer to the report of the Secretary-General on priority setting, which the CPC recommends we defer until the 60th session. We have studied this report, which we find helpful in highlighting the difficulties of designating priorities other than those which reflect general trends of a broad sectoral nature. The report also brings out clearly the fact that resource allocation is a very crude instrument with which to measure relative priorities devoted to particular programmes.

8. We think that we must recognise the limitations on the inter-governmental bodies to order priorities at the level of programmes and sub-programmes. We also do not believe that we serve much useful purpose by revisiting this issue year after year. We propose, therefore, that the General Assembly conclude consideration of this issue by taking note of the Secretary-General's report.

| Top |