Date: December 21, 2007 Original Source: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2007/gaab3835.doc.htm Press release excerpts Sixty-second General Assembly Fifth Committee 26th Meeting (Night) FIFTH COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS 2008-2009 BUDGET OF $4.17 BILLION, AS IT CONCLUDES WORK FOR MAIN PART OF CURRENT SESSION   Financing for Darfur Hybrid Mission, International Tribunals, Administration of Justice among Issues Addressed by Wide Range of Texts ...The framework of the formula reached at the conclusion of the main part of the Committee’s session -- a draft resolution on questions relating to the proposed 2008-2009 budget -- was approved by a recorded vote of 141 to 1 against (United States), with no abstentions (annex II), and was quickly followed by a standing ovation by Member States. Speaking after the vote, the representative of the United States said that, while “prepared to live with” the outcome of the Committee’s work, he had several general concerns -- some of them common to many Members in the room.  The “Group of 77” developing countries and China, for example, was also concerned over the piecemeal approach to the budget, under which a number of additional funding requests were presented to the Committee in separate reports. Continuing, he said that, while the budget just adopted was only modestly larger than the current one, as approved today it would be significantly higher with all the add-ons.  He appreciated the commitment of those involved, but was concerned about the coming year. In that connection, the draft resolution approved today would have the Assembly request the Secretary-General, for all future budgets, to take the necessary steps to avoid such a piecemeal approach and ensure the fullest possible picture of the Organization’s requirements for the biennium.  Noting the practice of incremental budgeting, where only new requirements are justified, the Assembly would request the Secretary-General to ensure that, whenever new proposals lead to requests for additional resources, sufficient effort is made to meet the new requirements through existing resources... ...The Committee also needed a recorded vote -- 94 in favour to 40 against, with 6 abstentions (Iceland, Japan, Liechtenstein, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland) (annex I) -- to approved a text informing the Assembly that “preliminary additional requirements” of up to $6.79 million would be required, should the Assembly adopt a draft on the follow-up to the 2001 World Conference against Racism. Speaking in explanation of vote after the vote, the representative of Canada said his country had serious reservations about the estimates for the Durban Conference and the role of the Fifth Committee was not to discuss substantive issues.  For its work, the Committee required detailed estimates, but the Secretary-General had not provided enough information to enable the Committee make informed decisions... ...According to section K, relating to global efforts for the total elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of the follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (document A/C.3/62/L.65/Rev.1 as orally revised), the Committee would decide to inform the Assembly that, should it adopt the draft, preliminary additional requirements up to $6.79 million would be required under section 2, General Assembly and Economic and Social Council Affairs and conference management ($4.89 million) and section 23, human rights ($1.89 million), of the proposed programme budget for the biennium 2008-2009.  The Committee would recommend that the Assembly take note of the estimates.  Upon conclusion of discussions and negotiations and the determination of the structure of the Durban Review Conference, including the regional preparatory meetings, detailed information and financial implications would be submitted. The representative of the United States said his country could not join the consensus on the document because of the section relating to the Durban conference.  His country, therefore, requested a recorded vote on the programme budget implications statement of the Durban Conference. The representative of Pakistan, speaking on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China, said that the decision that had been challenged should be treated in accordance with established procedures.  The ACABQ had provided a clear recommendation, on which the Committee should be able to take a decision.  The Group of 77 and China would vote in favour of the section. The representative of the United States requested a short suspension of the meeting to allow for consultation. The representative of Pakistan, on behalf of the Group of 77, said that sufficient time had been already available to all delegations to consult and express their opinions on the decision.  The Group of 77 could, therefore, not support any suspension of meeting at the present stage. Section G was then approved by a vote of 94 in favour to 40 against, with 6 abstentions ( Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Switzerland) (annex I). The Committee then adopted the draft decision as a whole without a vote. Speaking in explanation of vote after the vote, the representative of Canada said his country had serious reservations about the estimates for the Durban Conference.  The role of the Fifth Committee was not to discuss substantive issues.  For its work, the Committee required detailed estimates, but the Secretary-General had not provided the information to enable the Committee to make informed decisions.  In the absence of the needed information, Canada had voted against the resolution. The representative of the United States said that his country’s concerns had been stated in the Third Committee.  Part of the Fifth Committee’s role was to be fully informed.  This programme budget implications statement was unlike any in the history of the United Nations, with one exception.  It was missing key information and the Committee needed to rely on detailed and precise information in order to make informed decisions. The representative of Spain said that her delegation had meant to vote against the draft... ...By the draft resolution on questions relating to the proposed programme budget for 2008-2009 (document A/C.5/62/L.18), the Assembly would reaffirm that no changes to the budget methodology, established budgetary procedures and practices or financial regulations may be implemented without prior review and approval by the Assembly, in accordance with established budgetary procedures. Noting with concern the piecemeal approach to the budget process, it would request the Secretary-General, for all future budgets, to take the necessary steps to avoid such a piecemeal approach to the budget process and ensure the fullest possible picture of the Organization’s requirements for the biennium.  It would reiterate that allocation of resources should reflect fully the priorities established in the Biennial Programme Plan and emphasize that the resources proposed by the Secretary-General should be commensurate with all mandated programmes and activities.  The Assembly would also reiterate its request to the Secretary-General to specifically define accountability, as well as clear accountability mechanisms, including to the General Assembly, and to propose clear parameters for its application and the instruments for its rigorous enforcement, without exception, at all levels, during the sixty-second session. On extrabudgetary funding, the Assembly would ask the Secretary-General, in the budget proposal for the next biennium, to submit estimates of the total amount of resources, from all sources of financing, that he should have at his disposal to be able to implement fully the mandated programmes and activities efficiently and effectively.  In connection with the budget presentation, the Secretary-General would be requested, in future budget submissions, to propose measures to offset the budget increases, wherever possible, without undermining the implementation of mandated programmes and activities.  The Assembly would also decide that supplementary financial information presented to the ACABQ, including detailed explanations of requirements by component and source of funds and by object of expenditure, should also be made available to Member States, including through the Fifth Committee website. Further by the text, the Assembly would set the staffing table for the biennium at 9,923 and express its concern at the high vacancy rate, especially at the Professional level, in certain areas of the Organization, emphasizing its negative impact on the effective delivery of mandated activities.  The Secretary-General would be requested to recruit staff expeditiously through proper planning and streamlining of personnel activities and procedures. Reaffirming that the vacancy rate is a tool for budgetary calculations and should not be used to achieve budgetary savings, the Assembly would set a vacancy rate of 6.5 per cent for Professional and 3.5 per cent for General Service staff, and 27.2 per cent for Field Security staff as a basis for the calculation of the budget for 2008-2009.  It would also point out that deliberate management decisions should not be taken to keep a certain number of posts vacant, as such actions make the budgetary process less transparent and management of resources less efficient. Noting the practice of incremental budgeting, where only new requirements are justified, the Assembly would request the Secretary-General to ensure that whenever new proposals lead to requests for additional resources, sufficient effort is made to meet the new requirements through existing resources.  It would reaffirm the role of the General Assembly with regard to the structure of the Secretariat, including creation, conversion, suppression and redeployment of posts and request the Secretary-General to continue to provide the Assembly with comprehensive information on all decisions involving established and temporary high-level posts.  Any transfer of resources between posts and non-post objects of expenditure would require the approval of the General Assembly.  The OIOS would be entrusted with a comprehensive review of the implementation of the recruitment, promotion and mobility policies of United Nations staff over the last five years and report on it to the sixty-third session of the Assembly. By the draft, non-post requirements would be reduced by 2 per cent, other than travel of staff, contractual services and general operating expenses.  For those expenditures, the Assembly would decide to maintain the resources at the 2006-2007 level, after recosting.  It would also decide not to apply relevant adjustment to travel provisions of the regional commissions. Also by this draft, the Assembly would address the issues of information technology and conference servicing and training and provide guidance on various sections on the budget in the areas of overall policymaking, direction and coordination; political affairs; international cooperation and development; regional cooperation for development; human rights and humanitarian affairs; public information; common support services; internal oversight; jointly financed administrative activities and special expenses; and safety and security. The draft was introduced by the coordinator of informal consultations on the budget, ALEJANDRO LEPORI ( Argentina), who said that much work had been required to conclude work on the text, and he was very proud that it had succeeded. Prior to action on the draft, the United States representative expressed regret that his country could not join consensus on the United Nations budget and called for a recorded vote. The representative of Pakistan said that he regretted to see a call for a vote on a consensus resolution -- a product of months of hard work.  By that extreme action, the spirit of consensus, of the Committee working together, of harmony and trust had been put in question.  All concerns expressed by delegations had been fully discussed and addressed to the extent possible.  The Committee had worked days and nights, and it was a sad moment that after all the hard work the Committee had found itself at such a dead end.  He did not know what message the Committee was sending.  The delegation of the United States had made it a practice to challenge the work of the Committee.  During previous deliberations on the budget, a cap had been placed on the budget, and that had continued to haunt the relationship between Member States for some time.  It was regrettable that lessons had not been learned from that hard experience.  He was very disappointed and would vote in favour of the budget proposal. He also expressed deep appreciation to the coordinator, Mr. Lepori of Argentina, for his extraordinary work and for the Chairman, who had made sure that there was no exclusion from the process. The draft resolution was approved by a vote of 141 to 1 against ( United States), with no abstentions (annex II). The United States representative said that he joined the standing ovation for the coordinator and applauded the efforts in which the Committee had engaged.  He gave a lot of credit to everyone in the room for their commitment and time.  His delegation was prepared to live with the outcome of the Committee’s work, but it had several general concerns -- some of them common with many members in the room.  The Group of 77, for example, was also concerned over the piecemeal approach to the budget. His delegation was concerned that action taken today was on a preliminary budget, he continued.  He was concerned that what the Committee endorsed was not the final budget.  While only modestly larger than the past budget as approved today, everybody knew that the budget for 2008-2009 would be significantly higher.  It was important for the credibility of the United Nations to adopt fiscally disciplined budgets.  He appreciated the commitment of those involved, but was concerned about the coming year.  The ultimate final straw, which had prevented his delegation from joining the consensus, were concerns over the inclusion of the Durban II conference.  Because of those combined reasons, he had been unable to join the consensus and called for a vote... ANNEX I Vote on Durban Anti-Racism Plan The draft resolution on carrying out the Durban anti-racism programme of action (document A/C.5/62/L.17 section K) was approved by a recorded vote of 94 in favour to 40 against, with 6 abstentions, as follows: In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burundi, Cambodia, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe. Against:  Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, Monaco, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States. Abstain:  Iceland, Japan, Liechtenstein, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland. Absent:  Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bhutan, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Israel, Jamaica, Kiribati, Liberia, Madagascar, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Montenegro, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Suriname, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Togo, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu. ANNEX II Vote on Questions Relating to 2008-2009 Budget The draft resolution on questions relating to the programme budget for 2008-2009 (document A/C.5/62/L.18) was approved by a recorded vote of 141 in favour to 1 against, with no abstentions, as follows: In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe. Against:  United States. Abstain:  None. Absent:  Albania, Azerbaijan, Bhutan, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Israel, Jamaica, Kiribati, Liberia, Madagascar, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Suriname, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Togo, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.