THE SECRETARY-GENERAL -- INFORMAL CONSULTATIONS WITH MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY ON PROPOSALS TO STRENGTHEN THE WORK OF THE SECRETARIAT IN THE PIELD OF PEACE AND SECURITY New York, 16 February 2007 Madam President, Excellencies, I am grateful for this opportunity to meet with you once again. Madam President, I thank you for arranging this informal meeting, and for your own efforts to advance the consultative process. Excellencies, over the past few days, I have been privileged to engage in extensive consultations with many of you about my proposals for restructuring parts of the Secretar~at to strengthen our work in the area of peace and security. Today, I am here to continue my d~alogue with all of you. I want to make clear to every one of you that my proposals stem from a genuine desire to improve the functioning of the Secretariat: c > in the first instance, to bridge a structural gap between demands and capacity in planning, managing and supporting all peace operations; > and in the second instance, to fill a political gap by re-energizing a disarmament agenda blocked by political stalemate. When I spoke to all of you 10 days ago, I outlined the rationale and thrust of my proposals, and sought to make clear that there is no hidden agenda behind them. sincethen, in consultations with many of you in regional groups, cross-regional goups and other fora, I have provided you with further details. I have taken account of your, concerns and refined my proposals in light of them. This process has resulted in the letter and Annexes that have been circulated to you in advance of this meeting. : Excellencies, You have before you Annex I, "Strengthening the capacity of the Organization to manage and sustain peace operations". It seeks to provide you with all the clarifications and details you have sought on my proposal to realign the structures of today's Department of Peacekeeping Operations by creating two Departments -- a Department of Peace Operations and a Department of Field Support -- each headed by an Under-Secretary-General, where today there is only one. Many of you asked me to explain more fully the rationale behind this proposal, and why I believe that it needed to be pursued as a matter of urgency. On this, I would draw your attention to paragraphs 3 through 12 of Annex I. Today's DPKO is led by an outstanding management team, which has done an admirable job in handling a dramatic surge in peacekeeping activity over the past six years in. But despite valiant efforts and exceptional dedication, this team is severely over-stretched. Over the past 10 years, the field presence of our peace operations has increased five-fold; our peacekeeping budget has increased five-fold; but the staff we have at headquarters to manage these operations has increased only slightly over two-fold. Back in 2000, the ratio of Headquarters Support Account posts to field personnel was 1 to 89. This was a ratio the Brahimi Panel and Member States concluded was disproportionate and unworkable. And yet, as of the end of last year, that same headquarters to field ratio stood at 1 to 123 -- an increase of almost 40 per cent. And this does not even take account of the likely major increase in field activity in the coming year. We now plan and mount an average of three new peace operations per year, the majority of which are multidimensional. We are at an unprecedented high of 100,000 personnel in the field. And over the coming year, the number of personnel deployed in UN peace operations could rise by more than 30 per cent. Under these conditions, we can no longer expect one Under-Secretary-General to shoulder the entire burden -- overseeing all sensitive political, operational, policy and support aspects of dozens of peace operations, with personnel drawn from over 100 countries, deployed in the world's most insecure and austere environments. Nor can we continue with the current scattering of field support functions across the Secretariat, whereby today's DPKO does not have all the authorities and resources required to ensure speed of delivery, while maintaining proper oversight and accountability. By proposing two Departments, I am concurrently proposing measures to both strengthen management by creating more posts, and to better align responsibilities with commensurate authority and resources. Only then can we legitimately demand greater accountability of senior managers, staff and peacekeepers. Excellencies, Let me be clear: I recognize the challenges that would arise in creating two Departments where one presently exists. I have heard your concerns on this issue, and I share them. Operational and support aspects of peacekeeping are inextricably intertwined, and those working on them need to do so in an integrated manner, at all levels. That is why I propose a series of measures to ensure integration of effort between the two Departments, as outlined in paragraphs 21 through 28 of Annex I. These include assigning clear authority to the Under-Secretary-General of the Department of Peace Operations to direct the Under-Secretary-General of the Department of Field Support, so as to ensure that the efforts of DFS correspond fully to operational priorities and needs. The reporting line from the field to Headquarters will be centralized through the SRSG to the Under-Secretary-General for Department of Peace Operations. This will ensure unity of command at the hlghest level. To ensure unity of effort at lower levels as well, I also propose creating, within the Department of Peace Operations, integrated operational teams with representation from the Department of Field Support. And I propose designating a series of shared capacities between the two Departments. There are many further measures that will be pursued to ensure integration of effort. Several Member States, particularly troop contributing countries, have asked how this proposed realignment would affect the military chain of command, as well as general unity of command at field and headquarters levels. Let me therefore draw your attention to paragraphs 22 and 23 of Annex I. Because of the particular importance of this subject, I will take the liberty of reading these paragraphs aloud [and I quote]: "I intend to maintain unity of command and integration of effort at the field level by preserving the existing overall authority of my Special Representatives and Heads of Missions over all mission components, including the military, police and admuustrative components. Directors and Chiefs of Administration will report directly and exclusively to the Special Representative of the Secretary-General or Head of Mission. (This is a change in current arrangements, where Directors and Chiefs of Administration have a second reporting line to the Assistant Secretary-General for Mission Support on matters pertaining to the staff and financial regulations and rules). It must be understood that the Special Representative of the Secretary- General or Head of Mission will be the ultimate authority at the mission level for all aspects of United Nations operations and support. In strengthening the authority of the heads of mission, I also intend to hold them accountable for proper resource management in accordance with established policies and procedures. "The Special Representative of the Secretary-General or Head of Mission will have a single, clear reporting line to the Secretary-General, through the Under-Secretary-General for Peace Operations. Existing command and control arrangements applicable to Force Commanders in the field will not change." Excellencies, You have asked for more details on what the structures of the two Departments would look like as a result of the proposed realignment. I have therefore attached organizational charts for both departments, as Annex 1A and IB. As you will see, the principle of a reasonable managerial span of control has been applied to both Departments. The vast majority of senior managers would have no more than five direct reports to hlm or her. You have also asked for details about the authorities and resources to be transferred from other Departments, to align them with the responsibilities I intend to vest in the Undersecretaries- General of the DPO and DFS. These are described in paragraphs 30 through 46 of Annex I. They pertain primarily to the transfers of authorities and resources from the Department of Management to the new Department of Field Support, in the areas of field personnel, field budget and finance, field communications and IT and field procurement. Let me assure you that the resources I propose to transfer are those which are already specifically designated for support to peacekeeping and related activities. They are not those allocated to programmes in the economic and social fields, for example. Finally, you have sought clarity on the process in the months and weeks ahead. Let me assure you that in proposing these major changes to our structures for support of peace operations, I do not intend, nor have I ever intended, to bypass the normal processes and procedures of legislative review. As I say in the letter before you, I will present, within a matter of weeks, a report further elaborating the proposals contained in Annex I, including their full financial implications, for the consideration of the General Assembly during its sixty-first session, in accordance with established procedures. I also say in my letter that I intend for these proposals to be resource-neutral with respect to the programme budget for the biennium 2006-2007. Any additional resources required for the new Department of Peace Operations and Departn~eni of Field Support will be reflected in the forthcoming submission on the support account for peacekeeping operations, together with such requirements as may arise with the latest wave of growth in peacekeeping activity in the field mandated by the Security Council. What I am asking for now, having provided the clarifications and details sought during informal deliberations, is the General Assembly's broad support, in principle, for what I have outlined in my letter and its Annexes. I hope you will be able to give such a political signal in the form of a resolution at the earliest possible date. I am sure that such a decision can prov~de broad guidance and parameters to the detailed deliberations that will take place in the relevant legislative bodies this Spnng. This would give me the poIitical guidance needed to direct the Secretariat in the preparation of the detailed reports, to be submitted for formal review thereafter. Excellencies, Let me now turn to our efforts in disarmament and non-proliferation. No one could seriously argue against the need for more determined leadership and more decisive international efforts to revitalize the disarmament agenda. This need was evident in the failure to even mention the subject in the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document, and in the absence of meaningful outcomes in the 2005 NPT Review Conferel~ce, the Conference on Disarmament, and the outcome of the UN Conference to Review the Implementation of the Programme of Action on Small Arms and Light IA'eapons. Nor has there been any progress on entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Given this need for renewed leadership, I am convinced that the Secretary-General should take on a greater personal role. Therefore, as iou will see in Annex I1 before you, I propose a managerialreorganization of the Department for Disarmament Affairs, so as to create a new Office in the UN Secretariat, headed by a High Representative. It would have a separate budget section, but a direct line to me. Such an arrangement would maximize flexibility, agility and proximity to the Secretary-General -- all of which are needed to facilitate ongoing and new disarmament and non-proliferation efforts. It would also allow for more systematic interaction between the Secretary-General and , the High Representative. The functions of the High Representative would, be focused in four core areas: 9 policy development and coordination functions in the area of disarmament and nonproliferation in support of the Secretary-General; 9 advocacy of disarmament and non-proliferation issues with Member States and civil society; 9 promotion and support of multilateral efforts on disarmament and the nonproliferation of weapons of mass destmct~on, in particular nuclear weapons; > promotion and support of disarmament efforts in the field of conventional disarmament, especially with regard to major weapons systems, small arms and light weapons and landmines. Many of you have expressed concern at the perception that the current disarmament structure would be downgraded as a result of this change. Let me dispel that perception. The opposite is the case. Having heard strong views from Member States, I am ready to propose that the High Representative would be appointed at the rank of Under-Secretary-General. He or she would report directly to me, and would be part of the top policy decision-making process in the Secretariat. Again, in this vital area, I ask for the General Assembly's broad support for what I have outlined in my letter and its Annex. I hope you would be able to provide such support in the form of a framework resolution before the end of the month. Madam President, Excellencies, I am profoundly grateful for the expressions of support many of you have offered during our consuliations over the past few days. I am equally grateful for this opportunity to interact with all of you today. Madam President, I thank you again for making it possible, and for your personal contribution and leadership in carrying forward the dialogue with Member States on these crucial issues. Excellencies, once again, I look forward to hearing your views. Thank you very much.