FIFTH COMMITTEE CONCLUDES GENERAL DEBATE ON DEVELOPMENT ACCOUNT, CONSIDERS UN FUND FOR INTERNATIONAL PARTNERSHIPS

21 May 1999

Press Release
GA/AB/3296

FIFTH COMMITTEE CONCLUDES GENERAL DEBATE ON DEVELOPMENT ACCOUNT, CONSIDERS UN FUND FOR INTERNATIONAL PARTNERSHIPS

19990521

Committee Also Takes Up Financing of UNIFIL

The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) concluded its general debate on the Development Account this morning, with delegates voicing questions and concerns on a wide range of issues. It was considering the Account's modalities, as well as projects proposed to be funded through it, as the United Nations improved its efficiency and redirected resources.

The General Assembly had not yet acted on the Secretary- General's proposal on time-limited initiatives, so why were they included in projects proposed for funding by the Development Account? Pakistan's representative asked.

Similarly, Guyana's representative, for the "Group of 77" developing countries and China, questioned whether including such limits was in accordance with the United Nations regulations and rules. Those procedures must be fully complied with, as the Account was a part of the regular budget, he stressed.

As the Group of 77 and China had stated before, it was concerned about the proposal of the Secretariat to submit productivity gains for approval by the General Assembly only in the context of the budget performance report, he continued. The Secretariat should submit a report every six months on the impact of efficiency measures after approval by the Assembly.

The United States representative noted that the proposed appropriation for the upcoming regular budget contained funds for the Account. He wondered if that meant that all future budgets would include funds for the Account, which would entail assessments for Member States.

The representative of the Russian Federation stressed that possible savings from fluctuation of the currency rates, inflation and delays in the implementation of certain programmes and measures should not be transferred to the Development Account, as they could not be classified as savings arising from efficiency measures.

Responding to questions, the Director of the Management Policy Office, Department of Management, Amir Dossal, said that time limits had been included

Fifth Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/AB/3296 59th Meeting (AM) 21 May 1999

to give a multi-year dimension to proposed activities in the development area. The overall aim of the exercise was to improve ways of supporting the Organization's substantive activities. Resources for development were inadequate and while the effort was not likely to lead to a major impact, it was a step towards remedying the paucity of resources in the development area. Also this morning, the Committee considered the United Nations Fund for International Partnerships, created after Ted Turner donated $1 billion to support United Nations causes.

When setting up the Fund, the Fifth Committee had been concerned about introducing additional bureaucratic layers of procedure, Somendu Banerjee, the Fund's Acting Executive Director recalled. With that in mind, the Fund was guided by the mechanisms for programme monitoring evaluation that were in place in all the funds, programmes and specialized agencies of the United Nations system.

In addition to introducing reports of the Secretary-General, he responded to questions posed by Committee members on issues including criteria for approving financing of projects, ways to measure the impact and progress of projects and the areas of expertise of the Fund's advisory board.

The Committee recommended that the General Assembly take note of the report of the Secretary-General on the activities of the United Nations Fund for International Partnerships and the related observations of the Advisory Committee, and that it request the Secretary-General to continue to inform it regularly on the activities of the Fund.

In other action, the Committee recommended that the Assembly take note of the report of the Secretary-General on the peacekeeping reserve fund and concur with the related observations and recommendations of the Advisory Committee.

A draft resolution on the financing of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) was introduced by the representative of Guyana, speaking on behalf of the Group of 77 and China.

Representatives of Mexico, Cuba, China, Algeria, Syria and Cote d'Ivoire also spoke this morning.

The Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ), C.S.M. Mselle, introduced reports and responded to questions.

The Committee was also addressed by Assistant Secretary- General for Policy Coordination and Inter-Agency Affairs of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs Patrizio M. Civili.

The Committee will resume its work at 3 p.m. on Monday, 24 May, to consider the question of East Timor, under the agenda item on programme budget for the biennium 1998-1999.

Fifth Committee - 2 - Press Release GA/AB/3296 59th Meeting (AM) 21 May 1999

Fifth Committee Work Programme

The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) met this morning to consider the programme budget for 1998-1999; administrative and budgetary aspects of peacekeeping operations; and financing of the United Nations peacekeeping forces in the Middle East.

Under the 1998-1999 budget, it was to take up the United Nations Fund for International Partnership and the Development Account. The Fund was created following Ted Turner's gift of $1 billion in support of United Nations causes. To date, three funding rounds have been completed: May 1998, September 1998 and February 1999. Out of 520 proposals received and analysed by the Fund's secretariat, the Secretary-General and his Advisory Board have recommended 95 projects, and the United Nations Foundation, Inc. has approved a total of 64 projects for funding.

(For background on the Secretary-General's report on the peacekeeping reserve fund, see Press Release GA/AB/3292 of 10 May.)

1998-1999 Budget

The Committee had before it a report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) on the Development Account (document A/53/7/Add.12), in which the Advisory Committee agrees with the proposals made by the Secretary-General in paragraph 15 of his report on the modalities for operating the Development Account (document A/53/945). The Committee also reiterates its recommendation that section 33 of the programme budget be entitled "Supplementary development activities" and that the term "Development Account" be reserved for financing, accounting and auditing purposes for the sake of clarity.

By the recommendations contained in paragraph 15 of the report of the Secretary-General (document A/53/945), the General Assembly would approve the creation of a special account for supplementary development activities; and approve the procedures for the transfer to the Development Account budget section of resources arising from productivity gains. The Assembly would specify that the account is of a multi-year nature. It would also consider the operation of the Development Account budget section; and the operation of the special account for supplementary development activities.

The Advisory Committee notes that for the proposed programme budget for the biennium 2000-2001 the Secretary-General will propose that the General Assembly appropriate an amount of approximately $13 million for supplementary development activities. Projects related to this appropriation will be considered and approved by the Assembly at its fifty-fourth session.

In its previous report (document A/53/7/Add.1), the Advisory Committee had indicated that possible additional savings arising out of efficiency measures amounting to between $5 and $7 million could be realized during 1998-1999. It was informed, however, that the Secretariat does not expect this amount to be released as projected. The level of resources resulting from efficiency gains had been projected at approximately $53 million by the end of 2001.

Also according to the report, the Advisory Committee notes that the amount of $40 million projected for 2002-2003 should instead read $53 million -- to include the $13 million already appropriated for the biennium 2000-2001. The report states that the timetable and reporting frequency shown in annexes 1.a and 1.b should be regarded as provisional, to be amended and adjusted on the basis of experience.

The Advisory Committee also notes that, contrary to its recommendation, the proposed programme budget for 2000-2001 makes no indication of projections of possible productivity gains. The Secretary-General, in his introduction to the budget, indicated that information regarding initiatives by programme managers to improve productivity was not included because developments precluded such a procedure. Once the General Assembly has completed its consideration of matters related to the Development Account, the Secretary-General would be able to report on the specific measures. The Committee will make detailed observations in connection with its examination of the proposed programme budget for 2000-2001.

The Committee also recalls that the Assembly had approved four of the eight proposals. All the proposals, except C, have been reformulated, as requested. The Advisory Committee was informed that there has been an increase of some $1 million in the resources allocated to project F (on-line network of regional institutions for capacity-building in public administration and finance). Project H (activities for the implementation of Agenda 21, the Copenhagen Declaration and Programme of Action for social development, and the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action) has been increased by about $1.2 million.

The Committee had before it a report of the Secretary- General on the United Nations Fund for International Partnerships (document A/53/700). The Fund was set up to coordinate, channel and monitor contributions from the United Nations Foundation, Inc. -- the public charity established by Ted Turner to administer his financial gift to support the work of the United Nations system.

The report explains that following consultations between the Secretary-General, the Foundation and the ACABQ, the Secretary- General established the autonomous Fund, headed by an Executive Director who reports to the Secretary-General, and staffed with one Director-level, six Professional and five General Service posts. All staff, except the Director-level post funded by the United Nations Development Group Office, will be paid for by the Fund, and recruitment will be in accord with normal United Nations procedures.

The relationship agreement between the United Nations and the Foundation, which is appended to this report, was signed at Headquarters on 12 June. The agreement describes, among other things, the relationship between the Fund and the Foundation, identification of projects to be funded, reporting requirements, fund raising and dispute resolution mechanisms. An Advisory Board of the Fund has been established to provide the Secretary-General with advice on policy and appropriateness of projects, and to identify suitable activities and projects. Advisory Board members are appointed by the Secretary-General and serve two-year terms. The Deputy Secretary-General chairs the Board, which has 10 members (from Member States, Foundations and the United Nations system), who serve in their individual capacities along with the Fund Executive Director, serving "ex officio". As of November, it has met four times.

Since the Fund's establishment on 1 March, two funding rounds -- May and September -- have been completed, with a third round to be completed by January. Funded projects are detailed in tables annexed to the report. For the first tranche, where applications were restricted to United Nations departments, funds and programmes, 99 executive summary requests amounting to some $240 million were received. On 20 May, 22 were approved by the Foundation. Of the $22.2 million allocated, 42 per cent went to projects on women and population, 30 per cent on children's health and 6 per cent for environment/climate change.

For the second tranche, the guidelines and selection criteria were further refined, and concepts, rather than proposals, were sought. Additionally, the entire United Nations system was approached to submit. There were 242 submissions from 37 entities. On 24 September, the Foundation approved 17 projects from 11 entities. They totalled $32.9 million, with 43 per cent going to children's health projects, 28 per cent going to women and population-related projects, and 16 per cent to environment/climate change projects.

For the third tranche, 189 concept papers had been received as of September, with 46 concept papers from 16 entities submitted to the Advisory Board. In the future, the Foundation expects to award some $80 million per year.

An addendum to the report (document A/53/700/Add.1) states that programme development is to be streamlined and greater inter-agency consultation in the definition of opportunities is to be pursued by the United Nations system with Foundation money. Programme Framework Groups are to be established, providing guidance for the preparation of specific projects. The report also states that the composition of the Fund's Advisory Board has changed, reflecting the change in the presidency of the Economic and Social Council.

The Committee also had before it the report of the ACABQ on the United Nations Fund for International Partnerships (document A/53/7/Add.11), which notes that the process of solicitation, review and selection of project proposals has been reviewed to promote a greater degree of strategic and programmatic focus, and that ways to measure the achievements and impact derived from the contribution have been addressed. Programme Framework Groups have been established to provide guidance for the preparation of specific projects, with the participation from United Nations and external entities, the Fund, the Foundation and the World Bank. Two Programme Framework Groups commenced their work in mid- February (population and women's and children's health) and another group on environment will start work later in the year.

The Advisory Committee notes that the agreement between the United Nations and the United Nations Foundation, Inc. provides for the reimbursement of administrative costs for the administration of the Fund at a rate not to exceed 1 per cent of the amounts channelled through the Fund by the Foundation. The Foundation provides an advance against the Fund's administrative costs at the beginning of each calendar year and another advance at the beginning of the second half of the year. In addition, a figure of 6 per cent was agreed upon by the implementing partners and the Fund for project support costs of the implementing partners, and 1 per cent corresponds to project support costs of the Fund's programme development facility.

The Committee requested the breakdown of the annual indicative planning figure of $100 million to be programmed along the following lines: $30 million for women and population projects; $30 million for children's health; $20 million for the environment; $14.4 million for humanitarian and institutional support and Better World Fund; $1.6 million for a Fund administrative and programme development facility; and $4 million for the Foundation. The Committee recommends that the General Assembly take note of the Secretary- General's reports on the matter.

Administrative and Budgetary Aspects of Peacekeeping Operations

The ACABQ's report on the peacekeeping reserve fund (document A/53/961) recommends that the Secretary-General take note of the report of the Secretary-General, pending his submission of a comprehensive one.

United Nations Peacekeeping Operations in Middle East

The Committee also had before it a draft resolution on the financing of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) (document A/C.5/53/L.58) submitted by Guyana on behalf of the "Group of 77" developing countries and China. The amounts that the Fifth Committee recommends the General Assembly appropriate for maintaining the Force for the period from 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000 are left blank.

Statements on Development Account

MOVSES ABELIAN (Armenia), Fifth Committee Chairman, drew attention to reports on the Development Account that had been introduced in an earlier meeting.

CONRAD MSELLE, Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ), introduced that body's report. The Secretary-General's recent report on the Account was broadly in line with the ACABQ's previously expressed views. He reiterated that section 33 of the programme budget should be renamed. The maintenance base of the section on supplementary development activities should not be adjusted for inflation. In the proposed programme budget for 2000-2001, the ACABQ had proposed that the Secretary-General indicate section- by-section preliminary anticipated efficiency gains. However, due to the Assembly's failure to act on reports before it, the Secretary-General had not been able to indicate that information in the fascicles on the budget.

GARFIELD BARNWELL (Guyana), speaking on behalf of the "Group of 77" developing countries and China, said that reformulated proposals should be examined in detail with a view to reaching an agreement in this resumed session. Recalling resolution 53/220 about reformulation of projects in accordance with regulations and rules, the Committee had not commented in its report -- document A/53/374/Add.1 -- on the development dividend, whether the decision of the General Assembly had been complied with. The operation of the Development Account and rules of the Organization should be fully complied with, as the Account was a part of the regular budget. The projects were time-limited and he wanted to seek clarification as to whether it was in accordance with the regulations and rules.

The Group would also like to have a detailed breakdown of resources to be utilized for implementation of the approved projects. It also looked forward to the information regarding allocation of resources, as pointed out by the ACABQ in its report A/53/7/Add.12. On the modalities for operating the Development Account, the Group wanted to reiterate that the transfer of resources associated with productivity gains into the Account was not a budget reduction exercise and would not result in involuntary separation of staff and would not adversely affect the full implementation of all mandated programmes and activities. He also sought clarification as to who would verify the productivity gains and what was meant by "sustainable gains".

He asked how the projections of $40 million in productivity gains for 2002-2003 had been estimated, and if the amount of the $13 million approved for 1998-1999 in addition to the estimate was also included in the projections. Could the Secretariat inform the Committee, whether the attainment of the target of $40 million would have any impact on programme delivery? he asked. With regard to the estimated $40 million in productivity gains, the Group would like to recall that such an exercise should not in any way involve staff reductions.

As the Group of 77 and China had stated before, it was concerned with the proposal of the Secretariat that the productivity gains would only be submitted for the approval of the General Assembly in the context of the performance report. The Secretariat should submit a report every six months on the impact of efficiency measures after approval by the General Assembly, in the context of the Development Account, on the implementation of mandated programmes and activities.

He said the Group would like the Secretariat to inform the Committee if identification of productivity gains in the budget document was in accordance with the financial regulations and rules governing programme planning. If that was so, he wanted to know the specific reference to those rules and regulations. The Group believed that the resources requested should be commensurate with the mandates for their full implementation. Several issues on the modalities still needed clarification before positions could be taken on them. For that reason, the Group found it difficult to approve the recommendation of the Secretary-General as outlined in his report (document A/53/945).

ERNESTO HERRERA (Mexico), speaking on behalf of the Rio Group and the Dominican Republic, said that, as part of United Nations reform, the utilization of the development dividend and the Development Account presented particular interest. As regarded document A/53/374/Add.1, he said that General Assembly resolution 53/220 represented a great negotiating effort directed at harmonization of diverse positions. The resolution had been a necessary step. As a result of the reformulation, an improvement in the realization of the projects would be possible. Reformulation of project F concerning the development of an on- line network of regional institutions for capacity-building for public administration and finance was very welcome, and the participation of Latin American and the Caribbean countries would increase.

Document A/53/945 on the modalities for operating the Development Account contained interesting elements that would enrich the work of the Committee, he said. However, more information was required in that connection. The Rio Group also reaffirmed its commitment to the Organization's reform process, and believed it would be possible to achieve positive results. THOMAS REPASCH (United States) said the Secretary-General's report (document A/53/945) indicated that the initial appropriation for the upcoming regular budget would contain funds for the Account. Did that mean that all future budgets would include funds for the Account, which would entail assessments for Member States? he asked. There was no need for the Account to be in the regular budget merely as a funnel for channelling funds to the special account. It should, therefore, be deleted from the regular budget.

He noted that the Secretary-General had not included estimated efficiency savings in the proposed budget, because of "developments". However, he rejected the idea that the Secretary-General was precluded from identifying efficiencies. In fact, he was authorized and responsible to pursue such measures. The United States delegation supported the improvements in the project narratives for the Account, especially those that more clearly defined expected achievements and provided examples on how they would be measured. He said he would like to hear what the ACABQ thought of the indicators.

NIKOLAI V. LOZINSKI (Russian Federation) said that his delegation had studied the documents before the Committee and wanted to note that, to a large extent, the report of the Secretary-General on the modalities for operating the Development Account reflected the views expressed previously by many delegations. He noted the creation of a special account for the distribution of the funds of the Development Account and the extension of normal budgetary activities to the functioning of the Development Account. The report was a good basis for further discussion.

Several constructive comments were contained in document A/53/7/Add.12, he said, and his delegation supported the view of the Committee that possible savings from fluctuation of the currency rates, inflation and delays in the implementation of certain programmes and measures should not be transferred to the Development Account, as they could not be classified as savings arising from efficiency measures.

He went on to say that much still remained to be done, and that some questions had not been fully worked out. Thus, the necessity of moving the funds saved for the Development Account through separate sections of the regular budget of the Organization was still unclear. There was no clear link between the programmes and measures already in the mid-term budget and additional supplementary activities for the same purpose. From the ACABQ report, the question regarding the size of the Account for the two forthcoming budget periods was also unclear. The question of the Fund's sustainability remained open.

His delegation had learned with satisfaction of the proposals of the Secretary-General regarding projects F, G and H contained in the report on the use of the development dividend (document A/53/374/Add.1), which had to a significant extent taken into account the observations of the General Assembly contained in resolution 53/220. In conclusion, he assured the Committee that his delegation was ready to continue constructive consultations on the Development Account.

AMJAD SIAL (Pakistan) said the proposal on time-limited initiatives was still pending. Since the General Assembly had not acted on the Secretary-General's proposal, why had they been included in proposals for the Development Account? he asked. The Account should be dealt with in the same manner as other budget sections. Regarding programme budget fascicles, those that had been received so far did not contain information on programmes to be carried out under the Development Account. The Committee for Programme and Coordination (CPC) was to meet next month, and it should have the fascicles before it to avoid further use of the ad hoc procedures that had been used during the current biennium. What was the status of those fascicles? he asked.

DULCE BUERGO RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said Member States viewed the Account as being of great importance, yet the Assembly had not been able to act due to a lack of information. In the next few days, the Committee should make every effort to find a reasonable and practical solution to the issue. Her delegation would cooperate, as it had in the past. The proposal to establish limited periods of time for project implementation and the subject of indicators for implementation and performance needed further clarification during informal sessions.

Through resolution 53/220, the Assembly had requested revision and reapplication of projects in compliance with certain provisions, she said. Unfortunately, subjects had been included which had not been discussed or approved by the Assembly. Regarding modalities for using the Account, her delegation had examined the Secretary-General's proposals and wanted greater clarity on certain issues.

She reiterated her delegation's concern about the role of the Assembly in efforts to improve efficiency in the early stages. She noted with concern the report on amounts proposed for the next biennium regarding efficiency measures. That subject would require follow-up during informal consultations.

MINQIN SUN (China) said time limits had been set for all the projects proposed by the Secretary-General for the development dividend. Had the Secretariat conducted a study as to how long those projects would take to accomplish their tasks? she asked. If so, her delegation would like the schedule for project implementation. Also, the Secretary-General estimated that some $40 million could be saved from efficiency gains. Efficiency gains must be limited; they could not be maintained forever. Further, nothing had been implemented yet. How could figures for efficiency gains be provided? she asked. The Secretariat should provide more clarification on its estimate for efficiency gains.

The Secretary-General's report mentioned that he would only include gains that had been verified and were sustainable, but he had failed to explain how such gains could be sustainable, she said. There was need for clarification.

Mr. MSELLE, ACABQ Chairman, said some of the questions must be answered by the Secretary-General's representatives. The Secretary-General envisaged realizing efficiency gains amounting to $40 million in the 2000-2001 biennium. But that was just an assumption. The amount had not been reviewed by the ACABQ or approved by the Assembly. It was in the same nature as the $7 million referred to in the ACABQ's report. The Secretariat had expected an additional gain of $7 million over and above the $13 million already realized for the period prior to that. "However, he now tells us it is not possible to realize that $7 million", he said.

At the appropriate time, the Secretary-General might come and say it had not been possible to realize the $40 million, or any gain at all, he continued. When would he come to the Assembly with that $40 million? he asked. The Secretary-General was supposed to indicate that in the context of the proposed programme budget for the 2000-2001 biennium, to be reviewed at the fifty-fourth Assembly session. He should already have indicated his tentative projections within the context of the budget fascicles, to enable the ACABQ and the CPC to have a preliminary look at his justifications. But, as indicated in the introduction to the proposed programme budget, that had not been possible because the Assembly had not completed the process of approving the modalities for the operation of the Development Account process. Once the reports of the Secretary-General before the Fifth Committee were approved, the Secretary-General would submit projections for efficiency gains in 2000-2001, he continued. He would also present proposals for projects to be financed by the $13 million already approved by the Assembly, which would be appropriated in the autumn. In the present programme budget, section 33 showed $13 million. The projects being discussed now related to the initial $13 million.

The Chairman of the Group of 77 and China had asked whether the $53 million included the $13 million, he recalled. The answer was yes. The $53 million comprised $40 million in gains projected for 2000-2001 and the $13 million already transferred to the Account. While it was for the Assembly to decide on a multi-year Account, the projects themselves spanned financial periods. For that reason, the ACABQ concurred with the proposal. He said he would leave the issues of time limits and indicators to the Secretary-General's representatives.

PATRIZIO M. CIVILI, Assistant Secretary-General for Policy Coordination and Inter-Agency Affairs, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, said that careful note was being made of the remarks made in the discussion and of the comments regarding the projects being reformulated. Specific questions expressed in the debate had mostly to do with the functioning of the Account. Turning to the projects themselves, he said that the estimates were now being verified in accordance with General Assembly resolution 53/220 and would be recirculated in the coming days. Regarding the question concerning the evaluation methods, he said that one of the adjustments introduced was the inclusion of the section on expected accomplishments, and the Account's Project Manager had started discussions regarding the system of evaluation. He hoped the results of the evaluation would be fully reflected in the progress report.

He said that both the report of the Advisory Committee and the representative of the United States had referred to the fact that the cost of projects F and H had increased from the initial formulation. Project F had been reformulated and now involved the establishment of five regional centres, which had not been provided for in the initial estimate. For each of the centres, the necessary infrastructure would be established and training provided. The assessment of the impact would be provided later, to demonstrate what specific activities warranted the increase. The same applied to project H, which was being completely reformulated in response to the reviewed objectives.

AMIR DOSSAL, Director of the Management Policy Office, Department of Management, said the intention was to ensure better delivery of mandates given by the Assembly. The Secretariat would focus on improving the quality of delivery. The Secretary- General had no intention of involuntarily separating staff as a result of redeployment of resources emanating from the exercise. The aim was to try to improve ways of supporting the Organization's substantive activities. For example, efforts were being made to eliminate duplication in the adminstration of staff benefits, which were currently handled in the executive office of substantive departments and the Office of Human Resources Management. The intention was to redeploy resources to areas where they were needed. He underscored that there should be no change in budgetary resources.

On the sustainability of gains, he said there was no intention to include gains that resulted from underexpenditure, postponement of expenditure or savings as a result of currency or inflation. It was only where long-term benefits were seen for the Organization. The Secretariat was expected to use resources for the Organization's maximum benefit, and that was what it intended to do.

To questions regarding the $40 million, he said the amount was an assumption based on initial consultations. It was not a final figure. It was hoped that at the end of the day, the figure might be achieved, but if not, the Committee would be presented with the actual figure. Assuming that the Assembly confirmed the proposals before it, the Secretariat would like to present a list of productivity improvements and, upon the Assembly's concurrence with those, they would be implemented. If an idea was implemented and the Committee believed that those funds should not go to the Account, then that would be the case. At all times, the Secretariat was mindful that there should be no negative impact on programme delivery.

On the issue of time limits, he said the effort in the proposals had been to provide a multi-year dimension to activities in the development area. Resources for development were inadequate. The Secretary-General recognized that the effort was not likely to lead to a major impact, but was a step towards remedying the paucity of resources in the development area.

Statements on United Nations Fund for International Partnerships

SOMENDU BANERJEE, Acting Executive Director, United Nations Fund for International Partnerships, introduced two reports of the Secretary-General. The projects were of very good quality. The difficulties in the first year of operation were due largely to the fact that the process was very scattered. The reports presented the development of a more cohesive and focused approach to using the resources for development activities in the programme framework group approach.

He said that during a fourth funding tranche, about 11 projects had been approved by the United Nations Foundation, Inc. last week, totalling some $22 million. Some 18 United Nations agencies, funds and programmes were currently participating with respect to the Fund's programme. A key event had been that, in keeping with the Committee's recommendation last year on 30 April, the Fund had completed -- in a comprehensive exercise by the external Board of Auditors -- an audit of its first year of operation.

Introducing the report of the Advisory Committee on the matter, Mr. MSELLE said that the Committee recommended that the General Assembly take note of the report of the Secretary-General contained in document A/53/700 and Add.1. The Committee would provide additional comments in the context of its consideration of the programme budget for the biennium 2000-2001.

DJAMEL MOKTEFI (Algeria) said that the reports of the Secretary-General had provided full information on the three financing cycles and he hoped that such practice would be pursued in the future. However, he had several questions and needed clarification regarding the criteria for approving financing. Programmes were pre-selected by the Fund for International Partnership, and the Fund made the final decision on whether financing would be provided. He wanted to know what criteria were used to make that decision. Regarding the activities of the programme group for the reformulation of projects, he asked what contribution external entities made to its work and what role they played. Would that information be included in the next report of the Secretary-General? he asked.

His other question was whether the United Nations had borne the cost for the programmes and whether expenses had been charged to the regular budget of the Organization. The Fifth Committee should be involved in that process. He also had questions regarding the post of the Assistant Secretary-General mentioned in paragraph 10 of the report of the Advisory Committee. Based on the response to those questions, further consultations on some of those matters might be required.

Mr. REPASCH (United States) said he was pleased to hear of the progress made in bringing the projects to reality. Progress in that area was in marked contrast to the efforts in connection with the Development Account. His delegation supported the recommendations of the ACABQ. However, he had some questions on the matter, in particular, regarding specific ways to measure achievement and progress. He also wondered if the approach used might have implication for the Development Account proposals and other activities of the United Nations.

TAMMAM SULAIMAN (Syria) said he wanted to clarify some points regarding the Secretary-General's report contained in document A/53/700. In particular, in connection with the issue of the independence of the Fund, he wanted to know to what extent it was independent and what the nature of that independence was, taking into account the agreement concluded between the United Nations and other institutions. He wanted to know in what areas of general policy the advice would be provided by the executive committee of the Fund -- of the Advisory Board. He also wanted to know how those policies were determined. He did not think the general policy could cover all the areas of activities. For example, how could the Fund cover such areas of United Nations competence as mine clearance and other questions if the United Nations itself could hardly cover all those areas? he asked. He also asked for clarification regarding the use of the name of the United Nations by the Fund, asking whether it was the Secretary- General or the General Assembly who determined the use of the name.

Continuing, he said that paragraph 19 of the Secretary- General's report mentioned the geographic regions. However, at the last session, a resolution had been adopted by the General Assembly in the context of human resources management, cancelling the classification of the geographical regions, which included the Middle East. In that connection, he asked that such classification not be used in the future, as it had been abolished by the resolution. The traditional classification should be used.

Mr. SIAL (Pakistan) asked what the percentage of support costs for programme support and for administrative support costs was. Why was the Fund's name changed? he asked. Ms. BUERGO RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) expressed appreciation for the Fund in view of the Organization's financial situation -- caused by the major contributor's failure to pay its assessed contributions. Her delegation noted the information provided by the ACABQ on the guidelines for preparation of projects. It would be valuable if, in view of the large number of proposals being presented -- some 520 -- and the total number of projects approved -- some 64 -- the countries and institutions presenting projects had more information when they presented the projects. The General Assembly, especially its Second Committee (Economic and Financial) and Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) should receive information on those projects. She was interested to hear responses to questions raised by others, particularly on the vacant executive director post. The Assembly should follow up on the subject carefully.

Mr. MSELLE, ACABQ Chairman, responded to the query by the United States delegate about paragraph 5 of the ACABQ report. The ACABQ had noted that the solicitation, review and selection processes had been reviewed to promote strategic focus, and that ways to measure achievement and impact derived from the contribution had also been addressed. But that was not saying that the ways to measure impact had been developed. According to the report of the Secretary-General, experience in 1998 provided the basis for considering ways to improve working methods. The solicitation process should encourage definition of ways to measure achievement and the impact derived from the Fund's contribution. The forms introduced to streamline the process of soliciting, developing and approving projects should also address improving indicators.

Mr. BANERJEE, Acting United Nations Fund for International Partnerships Executive Director, said the Committee had expressed concern when considering setting up Fund that it not introduce additional bureaucratic layers of procedure, which would be onerous to Member States receiving assistance. The Fund was guided by mechanisms for programme monitoring evaluation that were in place in all the funds, programmes and specialized agencies of the United Nations system.

Projects approved over the last year had been implemented by partners of the United Nations system, he said. They stringently applied their monitoring and evaluation procedures, which met the needs of 185 Member States and the countries that received assistance. The Fund monitored those reports and shared them with the donor. If reports were not adequate, the matter would be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Last year, efforts had focused mainly on establishing procedures and policies and some $88 million was "projectized".

The criteria for selection involved several broad areas, he said. One was the extent to which proposals conformed to guidance by the Foundation regarding its areas of interest. In United Nations trust funds, the donor could be as general or as specific as it wished in the application of resources, provided those were consistent with what the Assembly sanctioned. Successful proposals related to the themes and sub-themes defined by the Foundation. The second set of criteria related to broad goals of partnership, engaging civil society and leveraging resources from other sources and sectors. That emphasis was why the Fund's name had been changed, he said.

The third range of criteria applied to selecting proposals related to design, he said. Specialized agencies shared a common approach to design consideration, focusing on clarity and measurability of objectives, and relevance of activities with a view to reaching certain goals. A list of criteria used could be provided. Since the Secretary-General's advisory board and the Foundation and its board should have options, roughly 20 to 30 per cent more projects were proposed than would be approved.

Regarding the programming groups, he said funds and agencies had clear mandates of theme areas under consideration. The World Bank was included in the groups; it did significant lending in the three areas defined as priorities by the Fund, and therefore it could provide policy setting. Efforts had also been made to include representatives of international non-governmental organizations, academics and research scientists. Only two or three external participants participated per group, for the sake of efficiency. The United Nations did not bear the costs of their participation. Some participated at their own cost, in other cases, the Foundation would cover the expense.

The post of executive director had been vacant since January, he said. He was occupying the post on the request of the Deputy Secretary-General. The Deputy Secretary-General and the Secretary-General were considering the question.

The Fund's overhead was not funded in any shape or form by the United Nations regular budget, he said. It was funded by the Foundation as a percentage overhead.

Stressing that the Fund was part of the United Nations, he said he reported to the Secretary-General's Office. On using the United Nations name, guidance had been provided by the Legal Counsel. He would look into the comments on nomenclature and look to the resolution in question for guidance on the matter.

Support costs were to be kept to a minimum, 1 per cent of the annual budget to meet core costs, he said. With respect to programme overhead to be drawn on by implementing partners at the project level, the original recommendation was to provide support costs of 3 per cent. After a pilot group of funds, programmes and agencies had convened to consider the amount, a figure of 6 per cent was proposed, including 1 per cent for the Fund's programme development facility. That package of 5 per cent to implementing partners and "1+1 per cent" for the Fund had been approved and was in operation. Overall, projects were high quality and met the selection criteria, he said. He hoped United Nations bodies would come together for programme development, to avoid overlap and duplication. After detailing the nature of project documents, as well as the rationale for them, he said interested delegations could review them to receive as much information as they wished.

The Committee then made a decision, as proposed by its Chairman, to recommend that the General Assembly take note of the report of the Secretary-General on the activities of the United Nations Fund for International Partnerships (document A/53/700 and Add.1) and the observations of the Advisory Committee thereon and that it request the Secretary-General to continue to inform it regularly on the activities of the Fund.

Administrative and Budgetary Aspects of Financing of United Nations Peacekeeping Operations

Mr. MSELLE, ACABQ Chairman, introduced the report of the ACABQ on the matter, saying that following the exchange of views, the Advisory Committee had been informed that the Secretary- General intended to submit a comprehensive report on the matter at the next session.

The Committee then took a decision, as proposed by the Chairman, to recommend to the General Assembly that it take note of the report of the Secretary-General on the peacekeeping reserve fund (document A/53/912) and that it concur with the observations and recommendations of the Advisory Committee thereon.

Statements on Financing of United Nations Peacekeeping Forces in Middle East

MANLAN AHOUNOU (Cote d'Ivoire), Vice-Chairman of the Committee, said that, as a coordinator on the item, he had proposed a draft resolution regarding the UNIFIL. However, no consensus had been reached on the draft in the informal consultations, and the delegation of Guyana had proposed a new draft, which contained four additional paragraphs.

Mr. BARNWELL (Guyana), speaking on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, introduced draft resolution A/C.5/53/L.58, stating that the draft was in line with earlier resolutions on the matter and that he hoped it would be adopted.

Other Matters

Mr. SULAIMAN (Syria) recalled that the Assistant Secretary- General for Central Support Activities, Toshiyuki Niwa, had been asked to address the matter of parking spaces for delegates being used by other cars. The problem continued, on a daily basis, and interfered with delegates' work. The Secretariat should address the matter.

* *** *