Original Source: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2007/gaab3832.doc.htm http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2007/gaab3832.doc.htm
Date: December 17, 2007

Sixty-second General Assembly 
Fifth Committee 
23rd Meeting (AM)


FIFTH COMMITTEE TAKES UP FINANCING FOR SPECIAL POLITICAL MISSIONS, PROCUREMENT

TASK FORCE; 11 GENERAL ASSEMBLY TEXTS WITH BUDGET IMPLICATIONS

Assembly Drafts Address Human Rights Council,
Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa, Among Other Issues

Numerous speakers in the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) this morning expressed serious concern over late submission of the resource requirements for 26 special political missions authorized by the General Assembly and/or the Security Council, as well as what many called the “phenomenal growth” in their budget proposals, which -- together with the provision of secure Baghdad facilities for the Assistance Mission for Iraq -- amount to some $587.05 million for 2008.

The representative of Pakistan was among the speakers who supported taking a close look at the budgets of those missions and at whether particular guidelines had been followed in their preparation.  He added that the late submission of special political mission budgets had become a tradition, which appeared to be aimed at forcing Member States not to give them full consideration.

The representative of Egypt shared the concern about the late submission of the reports -- just two days before the official date for the closing of the session.  He wanted clarification from the Secretariat on why the Committee had to face such a situation every time.  He added that special political mission budgets were increasing the level of the regular budget in an unbalanced manner, particularly as far as development was concerned.

Japan’s representative agreed that rapid growth of special political mission budgets had been one of the driving forces of budget increases in recent years, suggesting that time had come to consider the possibility of separating their budgeting from the regular budget.

Worried about possible duplication, several speakers also stressed the need to coordinate the work and reporting mechanisms of existing structures.  In that connection, China’s representative noted that, in Lebanon, there were the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), the Office of the Special Coordinator for Lebanon and the Independent International Investigation Commission.  She wondered if coordination and cooperation issues had been considered, in that regard, to avoid duplication and overlapping.

In connection with the Secretary-General’s intention to change the title of the Special Adviser on Genocide to the Special Adviser on Genocide and Mass Atrocities and appoint a Special Adviser on the Responsibility to Protect, representatives of Pakistan, Cuba, India, China and others, stressed that the General Assembly needed to decide on both substance and budgetary and administrative aspects of the matter.

Also this morning, as the Committee took up programme budget implications of about a dozen resolutions awaiting action by the Assembly, Japan’s representative said that the amount of potential charges against the contingency fund exceeded the amount approved by the Assembly, and the provisions set in the resolutions guiding the use of the fund had not been fully exercised.  His delegation was resolved to work intensively on the agenda item before the Committee, in line with resolutions 41/213 and 42/211, in order to identify and eliminate unnecessary and inappropriate charges against the contingency fund.

Supporting resource requirements for the institution building package of the Human Rights Council, the representative of Switzerland expressed regret that the request for funding of the Human Rights Council had been made through three different channels:  the proposed budget; a revised estimate; and a resolution with programme budget implications.  He was concerned that the combination of a piecemeal presentation and time constraints seriously impeded Member States’ ability to effectively manage the budget process.  He was also concerned that, in approving only roughly $3 million of the $12.4 million requested for the Human Rights Council, ACABQ had jeopardized the timely and full implementation of that body’s mandate. 

And finally, the Committee took up the Secretary-General’s report that addressed interim arrangements for the Procurement Task Force, pending completion of proposals to strengthen the Investigations Division of the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS).  According to that document, the continuation of the Task Force’s activities would give rise to additional requirements of some $4.14 million under the peacekeeping budgets and $730,500 under the regular budget for 2008-2009.  Those resources would be accommodated, to the extent possible, within the appropriations for that period and reported in the context of the performance reports.

In the absence of a comprehensive report on the OIOS investigative function that the Assembly had requested during its sixty-first session, several speakers questioned the proposals for the Procurement Task Force’s continued ad hoc existence, and the representative of Pakistan, on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China, proposed giving resources for the Task Force only until 30 June 2008.  That recommendation was supported by the representative of India, who agreed with Pakistan that resources requested for the Procurement Task Force were an example of budgeting by instalment.

Also participating in today’s discussion were representatives of Uganda, Syria, Brazil, Venezuela, Lebanon, Nicaragua, Iran, Argentina, Guatemala, United States, Singapore and India.  Reports before the Committee were introduced by Sharon Van Buerle, Director of the Programme Planning and Budget Division; Chairman of ACABQ, Rajat Saha; and United Nations Controller, Warren Sach.

The Committee will hold its next formal meeting at 10 a.m. Tuesday, 18 December.

Background

The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) met this morning to consider the financing of special political missions, the Procurement Task Force and programme budget implications of a series of drafts before the General Assembly.

Special Political Missions

In his report on the estimates in respect of special political missions, good offices and other political initiatives authorized by the Security Council and General Assembly (document A/62/512), the Secretary-General recalls that the Assembly, by its resolution 61/254, endorsed the recommendation of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions for a preliminary estimate of some $4.22 billion for the Organization’s budget for the biennium 2008-2009, including a provision of some $604.06 million for special political missions related to peace and security that are expected to be extended into or approved during the course of the biennium 2008-2009. 

The report contains proposed resource requirements for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2008 for 26 special political missions authorized by the General Assembly and/or the Security Council as well as resource requirements related to the provision of safe and secure facilities, in Baghdad, for the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI).  The total estimated requirements of those missions, including the requirements for the UNAMI facilities, amount to some $587.05 million net and would be charged against the above-mentioned provision for special political missions proposed under section 3, political affairs, of the proposed programme budget for the biennium 2008-2009.

Addendum one to the Secretary-General’s report (document A/62/512/Add.1) contains proposed 2008 resource requirements in the amount of $11.941 million for six special political missions grouped under the thematic cluster of special and personal envoys, special advisers and personal representatives of the Secretary-General and the Office of the Special Coordinator for Lebanon.  In addition to the Lebanon Office, it covers estimates for the Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Myanmar; the Special Adviser on Cyprus; the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide and Mass Atrocities; the Personal Envoy for Western Sahara; and the Special Envoy for the implementation of Security Council resolution 1559 (2004). 

Requirements for the Special Adviser for Africa are not included, owing to the completion of that mandate, according to the report.  In addition, the report notes that the Personal Representative of the Secretary-General for Lebanon has been appointed as the Special Coordinator for Lebanon and that Office renamed the Office of the United Nations Special Coordinator for Lebanon.

Another report (document A/62/512/Add.2) presents an estimate of some $19.66 million for 2008 resource requirements for eight special political missions grouped under the thematic cluster of sanctions monitoring teams, groups and panels, which emanate from the decisions of the Security Council.  The missions included in the cluster are:  Monitoring Group on Somalia; Panel of Experts on Liberia; Group of Experts on Côte d’Ivoire; Group of Experts on the Democratic Republic of the Congo; Panel of Experts on the Sudan; Analytical Support and Sanctions Monitoring Team established pursuant to Security Council resolution 1526 (2004) concerning Al-Qaida and the Taliban and associated individuals and entities; support to the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1540 (2004) on the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; and the Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate (CTED).

Addendum three to the report (document A/62/512/Add.3) contains proposed resource requirements for 2008 for ten special political missions grouped under the thematic cluster of United Nations offices, peacebuilding support offices, integrated offices and commissions, which emanate from the decisions of the Security Council.  Estimated requirements for 2008 for special political missions grouped under this cluster amount to some $143.3 million.

The missions included in the cluster are:  Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for West Africa; United Nations Peacebuilding Support Offices in the Central African Republic and Guinea Bissau; United Nations Political Office for Somalia; United Nations Integrated Office in Sierra Leone; United Nations Support to the Cameroon-Nigeria Mixed Commission; International Independent Investigation Commission; United Nations Regional Centre for Preventive Diplomacy for Central Asia; United Nations Integrated Office in Burundi; and the United Nations Mission in Nepal.

Addendum 4 to the report (document A/62/512/Add.4) contains proposed resource requirements for the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2008, totalling some $88.36 million gross.  In addition to maintaining the Mission’s core functions, the proposal responds to significant developments over the past few years that require modifications to the current structure of UNAMA, the report states.  There has been a major increase of international attention and resources devoted to Afghanistan, and international assistance to the country is likely to reach $6 billion in 2007, compared with $2 billion in 2003.  The number of international military forces has also increased from 25,000 in 2005 to 50,000 in 2007.  Meanwhile, measures to extend the presence and authority of the Government of Afghanistan across the country, to improve the quality of public institutions, to reform the security sector and to continue to monitor and promote human rights have been accelerated.

In its resolution 1746 (2007), the Security Council reinforced the dimensions of the Mission’s engagement in Afghanistan.  New responsibilities include promoting a more coherent international engagement, monitoring and engaging in the protection of civilians and developing synergies with the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).  A significant component of the proposed staff increases for 2008 is related to the expansion of UNAMA to the provinces.  In this connection, UNAMA will maintain its current presence of eight fully integrated regional offices and nine provincial offices in 2008.  As part of the strengthening of the Mission’s field presence, the provincial offices will also be staffed by international staff members.

Part one of the fifth addendum to the report (document A/62/512/Add.5) sets out the proposed resource requirements for the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2008, totalling some $151.08 million gross.  Part two includes requirements for the provision of safe and secure facilities in Baghdad for UNAMI during the same period, in the amount of about $180.15 million.  Accordingly, the total provision set out in the report amounts to some $337.91 million gross.

Also before the Committee was the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) report on the estimates in respect of special political missions, good offices and other political initiatives authorized by the General Assembly and/or the Security Council (document A/62/7/Add.29) in which ACABQ noted that its review was hindered by the late submission of some of the documentation, with an advance copy of the overview document (A/62/512) being received only on 29 November 2007.  It, therefore, recommended that, in order to ensure that the General Assembly had sufficient time and information available when considering the subject, future budget reports on special political missions should be submitted in all official languages no later than the first week of November.

ACABQ also noted the improvements in the budget presentation for special political missions, but stated that there was room for further improvement in explaining the role of various departments and offices of the Secretariat, regional partners, peacekeeping operations, as well as the funds and programmes and other entities of the United Nations system, in providing support to special political missions.  In the view of the Committee, the information on the development of a methodology for support arrangements to special political missions contained in the report of the Secretary-General (A/62/512) was unclear.  It was therefore premature to draw any conclusions based on the preliminary aspects of the methodology envisaged, including the reference to 51 additional posts, comprising 25 posts for the Department of Political Affairs and 26 for the Department of Field Support (A/62/512).

The Committee said that it expected that the methodology for support arrangements to special political missions, which was being developed, would take full account of recent measures, such as strengthening the capacity of the United Nations to manage and sustain peace operations and such decisions as might be taken by the General Assembly on proposals for strengthening the Department of Political Affairs, as well as lessons learned in supporting peacekeeping operations.  The Committee said that it intended to revert to that matter in the course of its review of a proposal that would be presented to the Assembly at a later date.

With regard to the support and management of field operations, the Advisory Committee drew attention to the parallel structures that exist in the Department of Peacekeeping Operations and the Department of Political Affairs.  Both Departments could be assigned as lead departments for the political and substantive operations of field missions.  Consequently, there might be duplication and overlap of functions, such as planning for the establishment of new field missions and provision of political and substantive direction.  Furthermore, the basis upon which lead responsibility for a particular mission was assigned to the Department of Peacekeeping Operations or to the Department of Political Affairs was not clear.

It added that reporting lines both within the areas where special political missions conducted their activities and with Headquarters in New York should be more clearly defined.

On the proposals of the Secretary-General to upgrade the position of the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide from the Assistant Secretary-General to the Under-Secretary-General level and to establish an Assistant Secretary-General-level position for the Special Adviser on the Responsibility to Protect, the Committee considered such a decision to be a policy matter that should be decided by the General Assembly.  In that connection, the Committee recommended that fuller information be provided to the Assembly and stated that consideration of the related resources would depend on the decision by the Assembly.

On specific recommendations on resource requirements, the Committee noted that expenditures for the biennium 2006-2007 were estimated at $624,621,400 (net), compared with the appropriation of $684,728,200 (net), which would result in an unencumbered balance of $60,106,800 (net) at the end of 2007.  The largest amounts of the unencumbered balance are projected under operational costs ($28.4 million), civilian personnel costs ($21.9 million) and military and police personnel ($9.7 million).  Notwithstanding the overall projected unencumbered balances, the Committee noted with concern that travel budgets showed cost overruns for almost all missions.

The Advisory Committee also noted that the proposed staffing for special political missions included a number of additional positions in the category of local staff, both National Professional Officers and General Service staff, and that some of the additional positions were proposed in conjunction with the proposed abolition of international positions.  It said that, having reviewed the proposed additional local positions, and in view of its long-standing position on building national capacity, the Committee recommended their acceptance, subject to specific recommendations on individual missions.  At the same time, the Committee drew the attention of the Secretariat to the high level of vacancies in the category of national staff in a number of missions and said that it expected that increased efforts would be made to expedite recruitment of staff for special political missions. 

Programme Budget Implications

The Committee had before it the Secretary-General’s statement on the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa:  Programme budget implications of draft resolution A/C.1/62/L.24/Rev.1 (document A/C.1/62/10).

Under the terms of the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) draft resolution A/C.1/62/L.24/Rev.1, it is recommended that three posts (one Professional at the P-3 level and two General Service (Other level)) be added to the structure of the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa, to be funded from the regular budget, as recommended by the Consultative Mechanism.  The draft also recommends that the operating costs of the Centre be funded from the regular budget.

In his programme budget implication statement, the Secretary-General notes that, should the Assembly adopt the draft, an additional provision amounting to $360,200 (before recosting) would be required over and above the level of resources proposed in the 2008-2009 budget.  That would represent a charge against the contingency fund. 

According to a related ACABQ report (document A/62/7/Add.17), the Advisory Committee has no objection to the Secretary-General’s proposal.

Another programme budget implication statement before the Committee (document A/C.5/62/12) relates to the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) draft resolution A/C.3/62/L.84 on the Report of the Human Rights Council, by which the Assembly would endorse the decision of the Council to adopt resolutions 5/1 and 5/2, including their annexes and appendices.  Under the terms of the text entitled “United Nations Human Rights Council:  institution-building”, contained in the annex and appendices to Human Rights Council resolution 5/1, the Council established the modalities for a universal periodic review mechanism, special procedures, the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee and a complaint procedure.

The programme budget implication statement notes that additional resource requirements in respect of a number of the proposals in the text of the resolution had been addressed separately in the report of the Secretary-General on revised estimates relating to the implementation of Human Rights Council decision 3/104 (A/62/125), namely, for additional regular sessions, special sessions, high-level segments and organizational meetings of the Council.  Therefore, the present statement only details resource requirements relating to resolution 5/1 that would constitute requirements over and above those submitted in the proposed programme budget for the biennium 2008-2009 and the referenced report of the Secretary-General.

According to the statement, should the Assembly adopt draft resolution A/C.3/62/L.84, additional resource requirements amounting to some $8.15 million (before recosting) would be required over and above the level of resources already proposed in the 2008-2009 budget, representing a charge against the contingency fund.  The Assembly would also be requested to approve proposed modifications to the programme narratives and outputs to be incorporated into the programme of work of section 23, human rights, of the proposed programme budget for the biennium 2008-2009.

By another report (document A/62/7/Add.26), the Advisory Committee recommends that the Fifth Committee inform the Assembly that, should it adopt draft resolution A/C.3/62/L.84, an additional appropriation of $2.42 million would be required in the proposed 2008-2009 budget, representing a charge against the contingency fund.

In connection with the estimates for the newly mandated universal review mechanism, the Advisory Committee recognizes that support for the process is a significant new function for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.  While it appreciates the workload analysis that has been done, the precise determination of requirements can only be known in light of experience.  The universal periodic review team should be substantially assisted by the geographic and other units of the High Commissioner’s Office.  Furthermore, existing staff of the Office involved in supporting the current special mandate process may become available for the universal periodic review, once the process of reviewing existing special mandates is complete.  With these considerations in mind, ACABQ recommends, at this time, the establishment of 12 P-4 posts.

The Advisory Committee considers that the additional tasks provided for in Human Rights Council resolution 5/1 to handle the development, maintenance and periodic updating of a public list of candidates for positions of special procedures mandate holders, as well as the establishment of a selection procedure for them, should be accommodated within the current capacity of the High Commissioner’s Office and recommends against approval of the proposed P-3 post.

Also before the Committee was the programme budget implication statement on draft resolution A/C.3/62/L.41/Rev.1 on the situation of human rights in Myanmar (document A/C.5/62/13), which indicates that, should the Assembly adopt that draft, additional requirements amounting to $865,100 gross would be required in 2008 for the continuation of the efforts of the good offices of the Secretary-General relating to the situation in Myanmar.  Those requirements would be charged against the provision of $604.06 million for special political missions under section 3, political affairs, of the proposed programme budget for the biennium 2008-2009.  Approval for those requirements would be sought in the context of the report of the Secretary-General on estimates in respect of special political missions, good offices and other political initiatives authorized by the Assembly and/or the Security Council (A/62/512/Add.1).

Those resources would cover the salaries of the Special Envoy and two support staff (one P-4 and one General Service (Other level)); the official travel of the Special Envoy; the services of a consultant; and miscellaneous services in support of his mission.

In connection with this statement, the Advisory Committee, in its report (document A/62/7/Add.18) states that it has no objection to the course of action proposed by the Secretary-General.

Another programme budget implication statement before the Committee was on draft resolution A/C.4/62/L.9 on Implementation of the United Nations Platform for Space-Based Information for Disaster Management and Emergency Response (SPIDER) (document A/C.5/62/14).  Under the terms of the draft, the Assembly would endorse the SPIDER plan of work for 2007, the platform programme for the period 2007-2009 and the plan of work for the period 2008-2009, and would request the Secretary-General to implement those activities that are contained in the plan of work for the period 2008-2009.

The statement indicates that, should the Assembly adopt that draft, additional resources totalling $604,000 would be required over the level of resources proposed in the 2008-2009 budget under section 6, peaceful uses of outer space, together with an increase of $78,000 under section 35, staff assessment, to be offset by an equivalent amount under income section 1, income from staff assessment.  The Assembly would also be requested to approve proposed modifications to related programme narratives and outputs.

ACABQ, in a related report (document A/62/7/Add.22) makes recommendations in line with the Secretary-General’s estimates, stating that the required appropriations would represent a charge against the contingency fund.

According to the programme budget implication statement on draft resolution A/C.3/62/L.20/Rev.1 on the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (document A/C.5/62/15), the adoption of the text would result in changes in the programme of work and the resource requirements of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, resulting in additional requirements of $10.81 million.  The Committee would be authorized, for the biennium 2008-2009, to meet in a total of five sessions, three of them in parallel chambers, to consider reports of States parties.  Effective from January 2010, pending an amendment to article 20 of the Convention, the Committee would be authorized to hold three annual three-week sessions, with a one-week pre-session working group for each session, as well as three annual sessions of the Working Group on Communications under the Optional Protocol. 

The required amount would represent a charge against the contingency fund.  The present programme budget implication statement replaces the related statement on the implications of the Economic and Social Council decision 2007/279 contained in the report of the Secretary-General on the revised estimates resulting from resolutions and decisions adopted by the Council at its substantive and resumed substantive sessions in 2007 (A/62/515). 

The Advisory Committee, in a related report (document A/62/7/Add.21) states that it has no objection to the approach proposed by the Secretary-General.  As $35,100 of the additional resource requirements could be absorbed within the proposed 2008-2009 budget, should the draft be approved, an additional appropriation of some $10.77 million would be required, representing a charge against the contingency fund.

According to the statement on programme budget implications of draft resolution A/62/L.27 on the Law of the Sea (document A/C.5/62/16) the adoption of the text would entail additional requirements amounting to some $1.96 million, representing a charge against the contingency fund.  By the draft, the Assembly would decide, among other things, to convene a special Meeting of States Parties to the Convention in New York on 30 January 2008 and convene the eighteenth Meeting of States Parties to the Convention in New York from 13 to 20 June 2008.  It would also decide to strengthen the capacity of the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea to service the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf through the reinforcement of the Geographic Information System laboratory services.

Also before the Committee was a programme budget implication statement on draft resolution A/C.3/62/L.44 on the Subregional Centre for Human Rights and Democracy in Central Africa (document A/C.5/62/17).

Under the terms of operative paragraph 5 of draft resolution A/C.3/62/L.44, the General Assembly would reiterate its request to the Secretary-General and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to provide additional funds and human resources, within existing resources of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), to enable the Subregional Centre for Human Rights and Democracy in Central Africa to respond positively and effectively to the growing needs in the promotion and protection of human rights and in developing a culture of democracy and the rule of law in the Central African subregion.

According to the programme budget implication statement, should the Assembly adopt the draft, additional resources totalling $573,600 would be required over and above the level of resources proposed for 2008-2009, as follows:  $520,100 under section 23, human rights, and $53,500 under section 35, staff assessment, to be offset by an equivalent amount under income section 1, income from staff assessment.  That would represent a charge against the contingency fund. 

The Advisory Committee, in a related report (document A/62/7/Add.20) recommends that the Fifth Committee inform the Assembly that the adoption of draft resolution A/C.3/62/L.44 would lead to an additional requirement of $573,600.  However, ACABQ also recommends that the Secretary-General be requested to accommodate that amount from within the resources provided for in section 23 of the proposed 2008-2009 budget and report on the implementation of this mandate in the context of the performance report for the biennium.

According to the statement contained in document A/C.5/62/18 on the programme budget implications of draft resolution A/C.3/62/L.49 on the right to development, the implementation of operative paragraphs 1 and 39 of that Third Committee draft would give rise to additional requirements amounting to $47,000 under the regular budget for 2008-2009 to provide for travel and daily subsistence allowance for two experts and one staff member to undertake two technical missions of five days each ($36,600); and travel of the Chairperson of the working group to present a verbal update to the Assembly ($10,400).  Although provisions for those activities have not been included in the budget proposal, it is proposed that additional requirements would be accommodated within the 2008-2009 budget proposal.  Provisions for several other activities envisioned in the draft have already been included in the 2008-2009 budget proposal or would be accommodated under relevant sections of the budget.

The Advisory Committee, in a related report (document A/62/7/Add.19), recommends that the Assembly note that the adoption of draft resolution A/C.3/62/L.49 would not entail additional resource requirements under the regular budget for the biennium 2008-2009.  Thus, resort to use of the contingency fund would not be required.

According to a programme budget implication statement on draft resolution A/62/L.25 (Global Forum on Migration and Development) (document A/C.5/62/19), by the draft, the Assembly would request the Secretary-General to present, at the Second Meeting of the Global Forum on Migration and Development, to be held in Manila in 2008, an evaluation of the existing cooperation mechanisms on migration and development, in order to promote a coherent discussion of the migration phenomenon. 

The Secretary-General states that the adoption of the text would give rise to an additional provision amounting to $110,000 (before recosting) over and above the level of resources proposed under section 9, economic and social affairs, of the proposed budget for 2008-2009.  This would represent a charge against the contingency fund.  The Assembly would also be required to approve the proposed modification of related outputs, to be incorporated into the 2008-2009 programme budget.

In that connection, the Advisory Committee (document A/62/7/Add.23) agrees that the adoption of the draft on the Global Forum on Migration and Development would give rise to additional resources in the amount of $110,000 ($70,000 for consultancy services and $40,000 for translation, printing and shipping), but recommends that the Secretary-General be requested to accommodate that amount from within the overall appropriation under section 9, economic and social affairs, of the proposed 2008-2009 budget and to report thereon in the context of the United Nations performance report for the biennium.

According to a programme budget implication statement on draft resolution A/62/L.29, entitled “New Partnership for Africa’s Development:  modalities, format and organization of the high-level meeting on Africa’s development needs” (document A/C.5/62/20), the adoption of the text would give rise to additional requirements amounting to $86,000, representing a charge against the contingency fund. 

The draft envisions holding a high-level meeting on the topic “ Africa’s development needs:  state of implementation of various commitments, challenges and the way forward” on 22 September 2008, as well as the preparation of a comprehensive report on the subject.  While no additional conference-servicing resources would be required, estimated costs for the development of the comprehensive report with recommendations would amount to $86,000, which would cover consultancy services ($54,000), travel ($32,000) for consultations with relevant stakeholders and for collecting necessary information.

The Advisory Committee, in a related report (document A/62/7/Add.24), recommends approval of the additional requirements of $86,000 under section 11 for the biennium 2008-2009, as a charge against the contingency fund.

Another report before the Committee outlines the programmatic and financial consequences of Human Rights Council decision 3/104 (document A/62/125), by which the Secretary-General was requested to report to the General Assembly at its sixty-first session on ways and means to guarantee to the Council the provision of:  (a) conference services; (b) webcast transmission; (c) translation of documentation; and (d) adequate funding for unforeseen and extraordinary expenses arising from the implementation of the Council’s decisions.

The report estimates overall additional requirements arising from the request made by the Human Rights Council at some $8.06 million, relating to:  (a) additional requirements in the amount of $4.35 million under the 2006-2007 budget for non-post resources, offset by an amount of $77,100 in income from staff assessment; and (b) additional requirements in the amount of $3.71 million under the proposed programme budget for the biennium 2008-2009, relating to an increase of (i) $3.13 million for posts and (ii) $603,200 in non-post resources, offset by $376,900 in income from staff assessment. 

The Committee also had before it the Secretary-General’s report on resource requirements for procurement investigations (document A/62/520), which addresses interim arrangements for the Procurement Task Force pending finalization of proposals to strengthen the Investigations Division of the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS). 

According to the document, the continuation of the Task Force’s activities would give rise to additional requirements of some $4.14 million under the peacekeeping budgets and $730,500 under the regular budget for 2008-2009.  Those resources would be accommodated, to the extent possible, within the appropriations for that period and reported in the context of the performance reports.

ACABQ, in a related report (document A/62/7/Add.15) recalls the Secretary-General’s statement that, “while the Task Force was intended as an interim ad hoc entity established to address a particular problem, it is unlikely that the pending investigations being handled by the Task Force will be completed by the end of 2007”.  In that connection, the Advisory Committee was informed that the Task Force currently has 289 cases, including 40 significant, complex matters involving high-value contracts and multiple procurement exercises over several years.  The aggregate value of contracts under examination exceeds $1.5 billion.

The Advisory Committee emphasizes the interim character of the arrangements described in the Secretary-General’s report and points out that it will revert to the issue of the Task Force’s funding in the context of its review of several forthcoming reports, including one on the overall capacity of OIOS.  Accordingly, ACABQ’s recommendations on the matter are without prejudice to its future consideration of those documents.

ACABQ recommends that the Assembly take note of the Secretary-General’s proposed arrangements and his intention to accommodate the requirements, to the extent possible, within the appropriations for the period concerned, and to report on them in the context of the financial performance reports.  The Advisory Committee expects that the requirements will be absorbed within approved appropriations.

Special Political Missions

SHARON VAN BUERLE, Director of the Programme Planning and Budget Division, introduced the reports of the Secretary-General on the estimates in respect of special political missions, good offices and other political initiatives authorized by the General Assembly and/or the Security Council (document A/62/512 and Adds. 1-5).  She said that the report contained the budget proposals for 2008 for 26 special political missions.

The missions were grouped into three thematic clusters and two stand alone reports, she said.  Thematic cluster I covered special and personal envoys, special advisers and personal representatives of the Secretary-General, and the Office of the United Nations Special Coordinator for Lebanon.  Thematic cluster II related to sanctions monitoring teams, groups and panels, while thematic cluster III covered United Nations offices, peacebuilding support offices, integrated offices, and commissions.  The United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) and the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) were treated as stand alones.

The total requirements for the 26 missions in 2008 amount to $58,045,200 net ($617,207,700 gross).

RAJAT SAHA, Chairman of ACABQ, introduced the related ACABQ report (document A/62/7/Add.29) and said that, although there were significant under-expenditures recorded in the current biennium for the special political missions, travel budgets showed overruns for almost all missions.  The Committee also drew attention to the parallel structures relating to field operations that existed in the Department of Peacekeeping Operations and the Department of Political Affairs. 

The Committee considered that the Secretary-General’s proposal with regard to the Office of the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide was a policy matter that should be decided by the General Assembly, he continued.  Regarding the proposals for the United Nations Regional Centre for Preventive Diplomacy for Central Asia, the Committee considered that they should be considered in the context of the proposals for the strengthening of the Department of Political Affairs and did not recommend the approval of the related resources.

The Committee recommended the acceptance of most of the Secretary-General‘s proposals, he said.  It noted a number of deficiencies with regard to the proposals for a building in Baghdad for UNAMI and said that, given the scale and complexity of that project, the exceptional security situation and the high risks presented by the operational environment of the mission, the Secretary-General should be requested to submit a complete proposal with full justification.  In the meantime, the Committee recommended against approval of the related resources.

Statements

BEN LUKWIYA ( Uganda) said that he had some specific comments on the United Nations Political Office in Somalia (UNPOS), as well as the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General for Lord’s Resistance Army-affected areas.  Peace, security and stability in Somalia were crucial for his country.  The international community could not expect lasting peace and stability in the rest of the Horn of Africa, and indeed the entire region, without peace in Somalia.  Since its establishment in 1995, the Political Office had been instrumental in trying to advance peace and reconciliation in Somalia.  He supported the activities of that Office and was confident that they would bear fruit.  He regretted that it had been unable to relocate to Somalia in 2007, on account of “the current unfavourable security situation, as well as the lack of progress on fostering an all-inclusive reconciliation process within the framework of the lasting and sustainable peace and stability in the country”.  However, he welcomed the establishment of four operational regional offices in Baidoa, Mogadishu, Kismayo and Hergeisa.

His country was fully committed to ensuring that peace and stability returned to Somalia, as exemplified by the deployment of 1,700 troops to the African Union Mission to Somalia force, he said.  The situation was described as unfavourable, but deployments could still be made and, in his view, that was the best possible way to address the situation.  He urged Member States that had pledged troops to the African Union Military Observer Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) to fulfil those pledges.  On that note, his delegation was pleased that one of the expected outputs of the Office for 2008 would be to facilitate six meetings between troop contributors, the African Union and donors in support of the AMISOM deployment.  He welcomed the adoption of Security Council resolution 1772 (2007), especially as far as it requested the Secretary-General to continue to develop the existing contingency planning for possible deployment of a United Nations peacekeeping operation replacing AMISOM.  He still believed that a decision had to be taken at the earliest opportunity on replacing AMISOM by a United Nations mission.

Regarding the Special Envoy, he noted that the Secretary-General’s report envisaged new mandates for 2008 to arise.  Since his appointment on 1 December 2006, the Special Envoy had played an important supplementary role in the Juba peace talks between the Government of Uganda and the Lord’s Resistance Army, under the mediation of Rick Machar, Vice President of the Government of Southern Sudan.  He fully supported the continuation of the mandate of the Special Envoy in its current form, namely addressing the implications of the activities of the Lord’s Resistance Army in the region, including supporting the peace process.  Following the signing of the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement in Juba in August 2006, and subsequent appointment of the Special Envoy, a lot of progress had been made.  He trusted that the talks would be concluded within the first quarter of 2008.  Since the signing of the Agreement of the Principles of Accountability and Reconciliation, nation-wide consultations had been held by the Government on the modalities of implementation.  The Lord’s Resistance Army was also currently carrying out its consultation process, with full support of the Government. 

And finally, he expressed sincere appreciation to the international community and regional Governments for their unwavering support in addressing the Lord’s Resistance Army problem.  Special thanks went to the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC) for the day-to-day support and close collaboration on that matter.

YASSAR DIAB ( Syria) noted that the budget for the special political missions had doubled several times in the past few years and that that situation put a great burden on Member States, especially the smaller ones.  Since political missions established by the Security Council were similar to those established in peacekeeping missions, their financing should be in accordance with the scale of assessments for peacekeeping missions.

He said that Syria had noted that the deficiencies in the preparation of the budgets of the special political missions were still prevalent and had even exacerbated.  Most of the expected achievements and indicators were presented in a manner that was contrary to legislative mandates and the results-based budgeting that the Secretariat had been called upon to use.  In the presentation of the achievements and indicators, links between them were often not in accordance with regulations for programme planning.   Syria agreed with OIOS that the Department of Political Affairs did not have adequate control of the budget of the special political missions and that had hindered its ability to use those resources adequately.

The programme budget of the Special Envoy with regard to Security Council resolution 1559 (2004) was full of deficiencies, he went on.  The expected accomplishments included the issue of the border between Lebanon and Syria, but Syria had reiterated that the matter was not linked to that mandate.  The Secretariat persisted in matters that were not in the mandate and focused on secondary issues that were not within the mandate of the United Nations.   Syria would follow up on those matters in informal consultations, in order to correct it.

He also found it odd that the preparers of the budget did not mention the continued violation of the sovereignty of the territorial integrity of Lebanon, by land and by air, by Israel.

KEN MUKAI ( Japan) expressed strong dissatisfaction over late submission of budget proposals for special political missions, saying that their introduction in the final week of the session gave Member States extremely limited time to consider and adopt the budget.  It would be difficult to ensure proper use of resources and work on the budgetary procedures.  That was indeed a concern for all Member States and he strongly requested the Secretary-General for improvement, in that regard.  During the final days of the session, his delegation was resolved to examine the budget proposal before the Committee, including the total amount proposed for special political missions, the need for following the guidelines and examination of the appropriate level of costs for missions that showed high vacancy rates.  The rapid growth of special political mission budgets had been one of the driving forces of budget increases in recent years.  He believed that funding special political missions through the regular budget could have a negative effect on financial discipline.  It was time to consider the possibility of separating the budgeting of special political missions from the regular budget.  He hoped the Committee’s discussions would bring about results that would meet the mandates of special political missions and Member States’ concerns.

PABLO BERTI OLIVA ( Cuba) expressed regret on the late submission of reports on the special political missions and said that it prevented the Committee from properly considering the Secretary-General’s reports, which involved numerous increases in resource requirements.  That situation had become common in recent years and Cuba wondered whether it was meant to prevent thorough review of the budget by Member States.   Cuba welcomed ACABQ’s recommendations on the special political missions, saying that they gave clear guidelines and reflected many of its own concerns.

He added that, regarding the issue of the Special Adviser on Prevention of Genocide, Cuba noted a change in the name, which showed the addition of “Mass Atrocities”.   Cuba was not aware of that new language and its implications for the mandate.  Also, a new application was made for a new Special Adviser on Responsibility to Protect.  In that regard, Cuba agreed with ACABQ -- adequate information was not included in the Secretary-General’s report.  The communications addressed to the Security Council were different from the proposals being made to the Committee, thus preventing clear consideration of the matter.

Cuba was concerned that the Secretary-General was making proposals regarding a concept on which the General Assembly had not completed its consideration, he said.  The definition of the mandate of such a special adviser was not in line with what was agreed in the final document of the World Summit.  There was clear and substantive change in the underpinning framework and the indicators of achievement.  Thus, Cuba was not of the view that the Committee should consider that matter.  It would have more detailed questions in informal consultations about the intentions of the Secretary-General.   Cuba was also not persuaded of the need to establish the post of a Special Adviser on the “responsibility to protect” and had serious reservations regarding the change in title.

FERNANDO DE OLIVEIRA SENA ( Brazil) said that he shared other speakers’ concern regarding the late submission of reports and expressed appreciation for the recommendations of ACABQ in that regard.  Highlighting the issues of particular importance to his delegation, he stressed the importance of the integrity of resources provided to the United Nations Peacebuilding Support Office in Guinea Bissau.  The country remained in a fragile situation and faced significant challenges.  As recently as last week, the Security Council had expressed its concern regarding the situation in Guinea-Bissau in a press statement.  A few days before, it had requested advice from the Peacebuilding Commission on the situation there.  International support for Guinea-Bissau was increasingly needed.  The Committee should not only approve the required resources, but also endow the Office with the means to support new areas of action.

Continuing, he requested a correction of a mistake on page 25 of the English version of document A/62/512/Add.3 and recalled that the cross-cutting resolution on peacekeeping operations (61/276) had requested the Secretary-General to submit a report on possible application of relevant provision for various operations, including the special political missions.  While grateful for the information provided, his delegation had been expecting a more detailed analysis on the application of resolution 276.

RODRIGO YAÑEZ PILGRIM ( Venezuela) also expressed concern regarding the late submission of documents and noted that the resources for special political missions had increased astronomically in recent years, following Security Council decisions.  Delays in publishing hampered the consideration of important issues by Member States.

Turning to the proposals on thematic group I, in particular a Special Adviser for the Prevention of Genocide and Mass Atrocities, he noted the Secretary-General’s intention to appoint a Special Adviser on the Responsibility to Protect.  Paragraphs 138-140 of the Outcome Document of the World Summit reflected the negotiations on the matter -– one of the reasons why his delegation had expressed its reservation regarding that Document.  Therefore, it was difficult for him to accept that there was agreement on the responsibility to protect.  He also shared Cuba’s concern regarding the fact that the request by the Non-Aligned Movement had been ignored in taking action in that regard.  His delegation wanted to express its reservation regarding that aspect of the document.

IMTIAZ HUSSAIN ( Pakistan) said that spending for special political missions had experienced phenomenal growth.   Pakistan supported taking a close look at the budgets of those missions and at whether particular guidelines were being followed in their preparation.  He added that the late submission of the budgets of the special political missions had become a tradition, which appeared to be aimed at forcing Member States not to give them full consideration.

Pakistan’s most important concern had to do with the proposal for the appointment by the Secretary-General of a Special Adviser on Prevention of Genocide and Mass Atrocity, he went on.  No such thing as “mass atrocity” had been defined in order to give the Secretary-General the mandate to make such an appointment.  The General Assembly, in follow-up to the World Summit Outcome Document, had not yet pronounced itself clearly, in order to establish such a mandate.  Thus, the intention to appoint a new adviser on “responsibility to protect” was in clear violation of the decision at the summit level and needed further deliberation.  There had been no consensus and the current attempt was an effort to promote a point of view that had not been agreed upon.

MAJDI RAMADAN ( Lebanon) said that several actions had been taken to accommodate Syrian concerns.  Lebanon believed that the logical framework of the Special Envoy had already been agreed to by the General Assembly.  In that regard, it should not be changed.  Lebanon considered Syria to be a brotherly country.   Lebanon had called for the resolution of all issues between the two.  It agreed that the continued violation of the Lebanese territorial integrity by the Israeli fell within the mandate of the Special Envoy.  Thus, reports on the financing of that office should include the issue of Israeli violation of Lebanese territory.

YU HONG ( China) said that, as a result of the late submission of the reports, ACABQ had not had enough time to study the Secretary-General’s reports, and Member States had had no time to consider both the Secretary-General’s and ACABQ reports.  Some documents had been issued only today, and she hoped the Secretariat would provide the reasons for that situation.  For the coming financial period, the special political mission budget would amount to some $575 million, representing an increase of 41 per cent, compared with 2006-2007.  Recognizing the importance of special missions, good offices and pre-emptive diplomacy, she was concerned about recent phenomenal growth of the budget, which increased the burden on Member States.  In the context of reforming the Secretariat by improving the efficiency and effectiveness of management, the Secretary-General should study how to best use the resources to achieve the mandates and let the Member States see improved efficiency, instead of just the growth in resources. 

Continuing, she asked for clarifications regarding the establishment of the position of the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide and Mass Atrocities at the Under-Secretary-General level and the position of the Special Adviser on the Responsibility to Protect.  As far as the United Nations was concerned, the tasks of the prevention of genocide and mass atrocities and the responsibility to protect were closely connected, and she wondered if there was duplication and overlapping involved.  In addition, there was a request for the establishment of a P-5 for special assistant to coordinate those positions, as well as a P-3 reporting officer and an administrative assistant.  She wanted to know if the request to increase staffing by those three positions was necessary.

Turning to UNAMI, she also questioned the requirement of some $190 million for an integrated headquarters in Baghdad.  Her delegation supported the provision of a safe and secure working and living environment at the Mission, but the present situation in Iraq was not at all stable.  Was it appropriate to have such a large-scale construction, under those conditions?  Some issues, including bidding and procurement, should be further studied.  In the future, the Secretary-General, when presenting large budgets, should take into account the ability of Member States to pay.  The Secretary-General should be requested to submit a detailed report, in that regard. 

On coordination and cooperation, she noted that several entities had been established in the same region.  For example, in Lebanon, there were the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), the Office of the Special Coordinator for Lebanon and the Independent International Investigation Commission.  She wondered if coordination and cooperation issues had been considered in that regard, to avoid duplication and overlapping.  How could cooperation be improved?

HESHAM MOHAMED EMAN AFIFI (Egypt) supported the comments made by the representatives of Cuba, Pakistan and China and said that his delegation shared the concern of others and ACAQB regarding late submission of the reports on the financing of 26 special political missions two days before the official date of the closing of the session.  He would seek clarifications from the Secretariat as to why the Committee had to face such a situation every time.

Continuing, he said that his delegation shared the comments of the Advisory Committee regarding possible duplication among various structures, which had been repeatedly expressed before by OIOS.  In considering the issue, he would focus on how to make those structures and related reporting structures more coordinated.  His delegation was concerned over the phenomenal growth of resources for special political missions and agreed on the need to take a closer look at their budgets, which were also increasing the level of the regular budget in an unbalanced manner, particularly as far as development was concerned.

Turning to the proposals in respect of the Special Advisers on Genocide and Mass Atrocities and the Responsibility to Protect, he said that the matter had to be decided by the General Assembly.  Member States had never agreed on how to deal with the matter.  The Committee was now faced with the need to take a decision on a mandate that had not been given.  His delegation refused to consider approval of any resources before approval of the mandate by the Assembly.  As for the facilities in Baghdad, his delegation was willing to go along with the ACABQ recommendations to facilitate the consideration of the matter.

NAGESH SINGH ( India) said that the late submission of documents hampered deliberations by the Committee and he expressed concern that that situation had become a pattern.  He went on to say that India strongly supported UNAMA and felt that it would be most fair to provide it with all the requested resources.

With regard to the proposal to establish a Special Adviser on the “responsibility to protect”, he said that the General Assembly consideration was still going on and had not reached anywhere.  The idea still needed thorough consideration and debate.  The proposed appointment was premature and without any legitimate mandate.   India would be opposing the proposal in informal consultations.  With regard to the new nomenclature, India would be seeking clarification.

DANILO ROSALES DIAZ ( Nicaragua) expressed concern regarding the unacceptable repeated late submission of reports on the special political missions.  That situation was all the more unacceptable, in light of the increase in resource requirements being experienced.  Those increases were all the more surprising given the concerns in connection with the regular budget.   Nicaragua also noted the duplication and overlap of duties between the Department of Political Affairs and the Department of Peacekeeping Operations.  He was very surprised that the report still included the intention to introduce offices and posts linked to the reform of the Department of Political Affairs.  It would not be possible to consider the reform at this time, and his country would speak out strongly against it.

On the Office of the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, he stated that the Outcome Document of the 2005 World Summit had requested the General Assembly to continue consideration with regard to the responsibility to protect.  It was, therefore, clear that it was solely within the competence of the Assembly to consider that matter.  Thus, only the Assembly had the authority to establish such a post.

JAVAD SAFAEI ( Iran) said that, like others, he regretted the late submission of reports of great political and financial importance, which deprived Member States from deep examination and discussion of those issues.  On the coordination between the Department of Peacekeeping Operations and the Department of Political Affairs, as indicated by ACABQ and OIOS, designing clear criteria and transparent decision-making for special political missions was of the utmost importance.  As for the Secretary-General’s intention to appoint a Special Adviser for Genocide and Mass Atrocities, he added his voice to the concern expressed by the representatives of Cuba, Pakistan, India, China and others, emphasizing the role of the General Assembly, which needed to decide on both substance and budgetary and administrative aspects of the matter.  He also noted the need to ensure balanced geographical distribution in the management of special political missions, all of which functioned in developing countries.

He added that his delegation wanted to express its general support for United Nations assistance missions in two neighbouring countries -- Iraq and Afghanistan.  The overall orientation of the missions should be focused on independent socio-economic development.

ALEJANDRO TORRES LEPORI ( Argentina) supported the reclassification of the position of the Special Adviser for Genocide and Mass Atrocities and the establishment of the Assistant Secretary-General post on the responsibility to protect.  ACABQ had pointed out that the matter had to be decided by the Assembly, and he hoped those positions would be established for the next budget.

Programme Budget Implications

Ms. VAN BUERLE introduced the Secretary-General’s programme budget implications statements before the Committee, except documents A/C.5/62/16 on the Law of the Sea draft and A/C.5/62/21 on global efforts for the elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action.  Those documents would be considered on Tuesday.

Related ACABQ reports were introduced by the Advisory Committee’s Chairman, RAJAT SAHA.  Regarding revised estimates relating to the implementation of Human Rights Council decision 3/104, the Advisory Committee had recommended approval of additional requirements for 2006-2007 estimated at $4.27 million, to be met from within the approved resources under the programme budget for 2006-2007.  For 2008-2009, it had recommended approval of additional resource requirements amounting to $815,000, including a reduction of $369,200 under section 2; an increase of $1.02 million under section 23; and an increase of $164,500 under section 35, to be offset by an equivalent amount under income section 1.  With regard to the requests for additional resources under sections 27 and 28 E, ACABQ had expressed the view that no net additional resource requirements should arise. 

As for the proposal for inclusion of a provision in the biennial resolution on unforeseen and extraordinary expenses of a new paragraph authorizing the Secretary-General to enter into commitments of up to $2 million for expenses arising from human rights measures, ACABQ pointed out that the purpose of the provision was to deal with expenses for which no provision had been made in the approved regular budget.  If, on the basis of the experience of the last two bienniums, there was a recurrent need for special missions in the area of human rights, then, in the interest of budgetary transparency, consideration should be given to including a provision for such requirements in both the budget outline and the proposed programme budget, similar to that used for special political missions.  In the meantime, requirements from 2008-2009 relating to special human rights missions should continue to be treated as they had been in the past.

THOMAS GUERBER ( Switzerland) said that the General Assembly had created the Human Rights Council in order to address, through a universal periodic review of each State, situations where human rights were being violated.  In order to carry out that mandate, adequate funding had to be provided through the regular budget.  Therefore, his delegation had supported the resource requirements concerning the institution building package of the Human Rights Council in a statement earlier this session.  His delegation regretted that the request for funding of the Human Rights Council had been made through three different channels:  the proposed budget; a revised estimate; and a resolution with programme budget implications.  That fragmentary budget presentation made it very difficult for delegations and capitals to get a comprehensive overall picture of the resource requirements.  That situation was further aggravated by the fact that delegations had received an advance copy of the ACABQ report last Friday, giving them only two days over the weekend to prepare for the discussion of the issue.  He was concerned that the combination of a piecemeal presentation and time constraints seriously impeded Member States’ ability to effectively manage the budget process. 

He said that the mandate of ACABQ included careful examination of budget proposals with a view to identifying potential for cost savings and reporting them to the Committee.  He appreciated the Advisory Committee’s effort in that regard, but, in approving only roughly $3 million of the $12.4 million requested for the Human Rights Council, ACABQ could be interpreting that mandate too excessively, in this particular case, thereby jeopardizing timely and full implementation of the mandate of the Human Rights Council.  Further, his delegation regretted the sometimes summary justification of the recommendations by the Advisory Committee, offering little ground for a meaningful debate.

While ACABQ recommended only a small part of the required additional resources for the Council to be met through a charge against the contingency fund, he noted that it did not question, in most cases, the actual need for additional resources.  Rather, it suggested that those resources be accommodated within the overall budget for 2008-2009, given the expenditure patterns under the current biennium.  That concerned mainly the sections relating to the General Assembly and Economic and Social Council affairs and conference management, public information and administration, Geneva, where the second performance report showed actual 2006-2007 expenditures being lower than the revised appropriation for the biennium.

In order to ensure that the important mandate given to the Human Rights Council by the Assembly could be properly implemented along the lines of the suggestion of ACABQ just mentioned, his delegation intended to propose appropriate language in informal consultations on the item.  Having said that, he expected the Secretary-General to include all required resources related to the work of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Human Rights Council in the framework of the proposed programme budget for 2010-2011, thereby separating the resource requirements for the Human Rights Council from other mandates of the Office of the High Commissioner.

Mr. MUKAI ( Japan) recalled that, in its resolution 61/254, the Assembly had decided that the contingency fund should be set at the level of 0.75 per cent of the preliminary estimate, or $31.46 million.  Today, the total amount of potential charges against the contingency fund exceeded the amount approved.  The Assembly, in resolutions 41/213 and 42/211, had set out a clear solution to that situation, by which the Secretary-General, in his consolidated statement, would make proposals for revising the amount, so that it would not exceed the available balance.  However, his delegation believed that those established procedures had not been fully exercised.  So far, there had not been any visible actions by the Secretary-General to accommodate the size of programme budget implications and revised estimates to the size of the contingency fund.  To the contrary, there had been an almost endless increase in the possible charges against the contingency fund.  Member States had not yet seen a deadline for the submission of programme budget implications and revised estimate statements decided -- another rule set out in resolution 42/211.

His delegation was concerned that several items that should not be charged against the contingency fund had been included in the list before the Committee, he said.  For instance, outstanding conference costs that had been previously charged against the contingency fund, such as the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, should rather be treated in the context of the programme budget, as resolution 41/213 states that the programme budget should include expenditures related to political activities of a “perennial” character whose mandates were renewed annually, together with their related conference costs.  He also understood that the requests for establishing new posts should be considered in the context of the programme budget, not as additional expenditures to be accommodated in the contingency fund.  His delegation was resolved to work intensively under the agenda item, in line with General Assembly resolutions 41/213 and 42/211, in order to identify and eliminate unnecessary and inappropriate charges against the contingency fund.

FERNANDO DE OLIVEIRA SENA (Brazil), referring to the Human Rights Council, said that his country supported the establishment of all posts requested and was in favour of the periodic review process.   Brazil would study the recommendations of ACABQ and their possible negative effects on the periodic review process of the Human Rights Council.

RAJAT SAHA, Chairman of ACABQ, responding to a request by Switzerland, said that, for conference management, the programme budget implications had requested $3.8 million for temporary assistance for meetings, representing half of 1 per cent of the proposed budget for the Department for General Assembly and Conference Management.  He added that, given a new interpretation team and new reviser capacity, it was reasonable to question whether all the temporary assistance was needed.

Also, for section 28 E (administration, Geneva), the requirements were barely 1 per cent of the proposed budget, he went on, adding that it was reasonable management practice to exhaust opportunities for absorption.  That situation was similar to section 27 (public information).  If existing provisions were not sufficient, recourse through the performance report was available, he said, explaining that ACABQ’s recommendations were not intended to impede the capacity of those departments to implement the mandated tasks.

KARLA SAMAYOA-RECARI ( Guatemala) requested the ACABQ Chairman to submit the explanations to the Committee in writing.

Procurement Task Force

The Secretary-General’s report before the Committee was introduced by United Nations Controller, WARREN SACH.

A related ACABQ report was introduced by Mr. SAHA.

IMTIAZ HUSSAIN (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China, expressed concern about the presentation of the work and the future of the Procurement Task Force.  The piecemeal approach in the presentations was a matter of concern, because it undermined General Assembly resolutions in which the Secretary-General was requested to present a comprehensive report on the issue of the investigations of OIOS, so that the Committee would have a comprehensive view and could arrive at a comprehensive solution.  The Group was joining the political consensus on the matter, but disagreed with the mandate of the Procurement Task Force.  It was, rather, a temporary, ad hoc arrangement that would come to an end on 30 June 2008 and would not be extended.  The Group also believed that a review of the work of the Procurement Task Force by an oversight body might be a good idea and the Group would be pursuing that idea during informal consultation.

BRUCE RASHKOW ( United States) said that, given the importance of the work of the Procurement Task Force, he welcomed the proposed interim financial arrangements that would allow it to continue its activities in 2008.  He noted the Secretary-General’s intention to accommodate the related requirements, to the extent possible, within the appropriations for the period concerned.  The United States believed that there was a need to ensure adequate support for the Force to complete many outstanding investigations.  He also strongly supported efforts to strengthen the investigative division of OIOS, as called for by world leaders at the 2005 Summit.

It was for that reason that the United States was disappointed and frustrated that the report the General Assembly had requested during its sixty-first session regarding OIOS, recommending actions to strengthen and professionalize the investigation function in OIOS, remained held up by the Secretariat, he continued.  As he understood it, the OIOS comprehensive assessment of the functions, structure and work processes of the division had been available to Member States weeks ago.  Member States had been clear in their desire for information as soon as possible on that important issue.  He welcomed the fact that the report would be available shortly.  The Assembly, in two separate resolutions -- 61/275 and 61/279 -- had requested the Secretary-General to present a comprehensive report on investigations during the current session.  Given the importance of ensuring that the Organization had a competent, impartial, objective and independent investigative capacity, that matter should be given top priority for consideration by the Committee.  There could be no further delays.

In view of concerns Member States had expressed concerning the manner in which investigations were conducted and the implications of such concerns for United Nations staff and others, it was imperative that the Fifth Committee took prompt actions to address those technical issues, he said.  Even if time remaining did not permit the General Assembly to act on that repeatedly requested report, it was imperative that the document be submitted during the current session, so that the Assembly was in a position to address the concerns expressed at the earliest opportunity.  It was also of critical importance that the Committee expedite its decision concerning funding arrangements for the Procurement Task Force for 2008 before the main session ended later this week.

KEVIN CHEOK ( Singapore) said that, rather than a rational discussion on the Procurement Task Force, there had been innuendo and misdirection.  Anyone who voiced concern about the behaviour of the Procurement Task Force had been painted as somehow being pro-corruption or anti-reform.  They were immediately accused of trying to shut down the Procurement Task Force and its ongoing investigations, but that was meant to deflect attention from the real issues.  A Singapore national, Andrew Toh, had had to endure OIOS and the Procurement Task Force for the past 23 months.   Singapore’s Government felt that Mr. Toh had been treated unfairly in the course of the investigation.  The decisions of the Joint Disciplinary Committee and the Panel on Discrimination and Other Grievances vindicated that assertion, as both United Nations bodies had chastised the methods used by the Procurement Task Force and OIOS.  They had stated that Mr. Toh was denied due process.  His case would soon be with the United Nations Administrative Tribunal (UNAT) and, in about two years, it would be seen if he was right.

The issue was about accountability, he went on.  People expected the Procurement Task Force to take responsibility for its own actions.  The Procurement Task Force and OIOS harped on the virtues of transparency and accountability, but to have any legitimacy, those virtues needed to apply to OIOS and the Procurement Task Force as stringently as, if not more so than, they applied to others.  When there were assertions that both had behaved improperly, the international community should not blindly accept anything they did simply because they were investigators.  The Under-Secretary-General from OIOS had written publicly that her charges had done nothing improper, but that had been contradicted by the reports of two of the United Nations own tribunals, which had made clear allegations of inappropriate behaviour during investigations.  It was time to get to the bottom of the matter.

Why not have an investigation into the behaviour of the investigators? he asked.  It could be done by an independent ad hoc panel, or alternatively, it could be undertaken by an established mechanism like the Board of Auditors or the Independent Audit Advisory Committee.  OIOS and the Procurement Task Force could not be reasonably counted on to investigate themselves and there was a need to ensure that every United Nations staff member was investigated in a fair manner.

Singapore had supported the establishment of OIOS in 1994 and did not object to the creation of the Procurement Task Force in 2006, he went on.  It would be unconscionable if there was one set of standards for the Procurement Task Force and another for those it investigated.

NAGESH SINGH ( India) associated himself with the position of the Group of 77 and China and Singapore on the resources for the Procurement Task Force.  The Task Force had been created as an interim and ad hoc entity to address a particular problem, as it was perceived.  At the time, his delegation had supported its creation, but he questioned its ad hoc continued existence.  In particular, he saw a lack of accountability.  There were claims in the reports regarding certain issues, like investigations and amounts of loss discovered, that were contradicted by the Secretariat and there was nobody to judge if the claims of success were corroborated or not.  He agreed with Pakistan that resources requested for the Procurement Task Force were another example of budgeting by instalment.  That required a comprehensive look, in particular in considering the Investigative Division.  In that connection, he wanted to receive a report during the current session, but considering the lack of time, looked forward to looking at it during the resumed session.

He said that the proposal regarding giving resources for the Task Force until 30 June 2008 was relevant, and he would support that position.  His delegation would support steps towards having an impartial and independent investigative entity within the Organization.

IMTIAZ HUSSAIN (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, requested that the report of the Investigation Division also be brought to the attention of the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations.

MOVSES ABELIAN, Committee Secretary, said that the report ofthe Secretary-General would be ready on Wednesday.