Statement by Minister-Counsellor Mr. Fumito Miyake under Item 3: Policy directives to the drug programme of the UNODC and strengthening the drug programme and the role of the CND as its governing body, including administrative, budgetary and strategic management questions
2016/3/21
Japan recognizes the UNODC as an important strategic partner for countering drugs, terrorism, transnational organized crime and corruption, and highly values its unique operational capacity to deliver technical assistance through its high expertise and strong network of field offices.
Japan has been supporting the extension of the provisional implementation of the full cost recovery over this biennium. Prior to its full implementation, Japan believes a thorough assessment of its provisional implementation is essential. In this regard, we would like to raise two key issues.
The first pertains to the evaluation of its provisional implementation. An assessment of the provisional implementation, in particular, its impact on program delivery as well as field offices should be made. For identified problems, solutions should be sought and reflected before full implementation. We continue to believe that a compelling case can be made for using the PSC to fund some field office costs.
Japan also believes that a consistent application of the FCR is key. In this regard, Japan expresses its concern over the current application of the FCR in cases where a project is implemented by a program office under its regional “hub” office. We note that, in such cases, UNODC charges a flat rate of the FCR to the regional “hub” office on top of the direct-support cost of the program office. That leads to the situation of overcharge or “dual taxation”. Japan believes this practice is not in line with the fundamental principle of the FCR funding model. The FCR rates in these cases should be smaller than those in the case of projects implemented directly and solely by a regional “hub” office. This is an example of an issue that should be properly addressed and solved before the FCR’s full implementation.
The second observation refers to the timing of the evaluation. Both the evaluation and solutions for the provisional implementation of the FCR must be conducted well in advance of its full implementation. Delaying discussions until the latter half of 2017 would be too late. Japan believes it would be most desireable to begin discussions this year through FinGov. Timely disclosure of crucial information by the UNODC is necessary in this regard.
Umoja is another initiative recently introduced. Japan is very concerned that Umoja has, in some istances, negatively affected our work. Hence, we request UNODC to stabilize Umoja as soon as possible. Japan expects to see positive outcomes from the use of Umoja very soon.
Although we understand that the benefit realization plan will be discussed in NY, it is crucial to keep the Vienna community informed and updated.
Another difficulty caused by Umoja is the discontinuation of the ProFi system. The system was a critical tool to obtain up-to-date information. As we know the UNODC is currently working on its sucessor. We would appreciate the delivery of this new system.
Despite our observations over the implementation of FCR and Umoja, Japan would like to thank the UNODC for its formidable efforts to improve the management, delivery and transparency of their programmes. Japan will continue to contribute to future discussions on these important issues in a constructive manner.
Thank you for your attention.
Japan has been supporting the extension of the provisional implementation of the full cost recovery over this biennium. Prior to its full implementation, Japan believes a thorough assessment of its provisional implementation is essential. In this regard, we would like to raise two key issues.
The first pertains to the evaluation of its provisional implementation. An assessment of the provisional implementation, in particular, its impact on program delivery as well as field offices should be made. For identified problems, solutions should be sought and reflected before full implementation. We continue to believe that a compelling case can be made for using the PSC to fund some field office costs.
Japan also believes that a consistent application of the FCR is key. In this regard, Japan expresses its concern over the current application of the FCR in cases where a project is implemented by a program office under its regional “hub” office. We note that, in such cases, UNODC charges a flat rate of the FCR to the regional “hub” office on top of the direct-support cost of the program office. That leads to the situation of overcharge or “dual taxation”. Japan believes this practice is not in line with the fundamental principle of the FCR funding model. The FCR rates in these cases should be smaller than those in the case of projects implemented directly and solely by a regional “hub” office. This is an example of an issue that should be properly addressed and solved before the FCR’s full implementation.
The second observation refers to the timing of the evaluation. Both the evaluation and solutions for the provisional implementation of the FCR must be conducted well in advance of its full implementation. Delaying discussions until the latter half of 2017 would be too late. Japan believes it would be most desireable to begin discussions this year through FinGov. Timely disclosure of crucial information by the UNODC is necessary in this regard.
Umoja is another initiative recently introduced. Japan is very concerned that Umoja has, in some istances, negatively affected our work. Hence, we request UNODC to stabilize Umoja as soon as possible. Japan expects to see positive outcomes from the use of Umoja very soon.
Although we understand that the benefit realization plan will be discussed in NY, it is crucial to keep the Vienna community informed and updated.
Another difficulty caused by Umoja is the discontinuation of the ProFi system. The system was a critical tool to obtain up-to-date information. As we know the UNODC is currently working on its sucessor. We would appreciate the delivery of this new system.
Despite our observations over the implementation of FCR and Umoja, Japan would like to thank the UNODC for its formidable efforts to improve the management, delivery and transparency of their programmes. Japan will continue to contribute to future discussions on these important issues in a constructive manner.
Thank you for your attention.
The Practical Export Control Workshop was hosted by the Wassenaar Arrangement as part of its 20th Anniversary programs and held at the Permanent Mission of Japan to the International Organizations in Vienna on 27 and 28 June 2016. More than 100 government representatives from 46 countries participated in the technically focused Practical Workshop.
Workshop speakers included the 2016 WA Plenary Chair Ambassador Anu Laamanen (Finland), 2016 WA General Working Group Chair Ambassador Paul Beijer (Sweden), 2015-2016 WA Experts Group Chair Robertas Rosinas (Lithuania), 2016 WA Licensing and Enforcement Officers Meeting Chair Jon Erik Strömö (Norway), as well as the Head of the WA Secretariat, Ambassador Philip Griffiths. The WA control lists as well as export licensing and enforcement topics were covered during the two days.
The following link from WA’s webpage contains more details:
http://www.wassenaar.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/June-2016-Workshop-media-release.pdf
Workshop speakers included the 2016 WA Plenary Chair Ambassador Anu Laamanen (Finland), 2016 WA General Working Group Chair Ambassador Paul Beijer (Sweden), 2015-2016 WA Experts Group Chair Robertas Rosinas (Lithuania), 2016 WA Licensing and Enforcement Officers Meeting Chair Jon Erik Strömö (Norway), as well as the Head of the WA Secretariat, Ambassador Philip Griffiths. The WA control lists as well as export licensing and enforcement topics were covered during the two days.
The following link from WA’s webpage contains more details:
http://www.wassenaar.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/June-2016-Workshop-media-release.pdf