FIFTH COMMITTEE APPROVES TEXTS ON JOINT INSPECTION UNIT, UNAVEM III, CONTINGENT-OWNED EQUIPMENT AND BOARD OF AUDITORS RECOMMENDATIONS

Press Release
GA/AB/3313

FIFTH COMMITTEE APPROVES TEXTS ON JOINT INSPECTION UNIT, UNAVEM III, CONTINGENT-OWNED EQUIPMENT AND BOARD OF AUDITORS RECOMMENDATIONS

Fails To Reach Consensus on Development Account Draft

Four draft resolutions were approved by the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) this afternoon, as it met to resolve a number of issues it had not resolved during the Assembly’s fifty-third session. However, it failed to reach consensus on a fifth draft on the Development Account.

The Assembly would ask the Secretary-General to carefully examine internal audit recommendations about irregularities in the procurement process at the United Nations Angola Verification Mission (UNAVEM III) before taking action, and also ask him to ensure that that audit recommendations regarding fraud and financial abuse be consistently implemented, by the terms of a draft introduced by the representative of Pakistan and approved without a vote.

Recommendations made by a working group on changes to the means of determining the United Nations’ liability for equipment owned by Member States, but used in United Nations’ peacekeeping missions, would be endorsed, by the terms of a draft introduced by the representative of the Netherlands and approved without a vote today.

By another draft resolution, introduced by the representative of Panama and also approved without a vote, the Assembly would endorse all the recommendations of the Board of Auditors on peacekeeping operations, except two (on reimbursement of contingent-owned equipment and on financing peacekeeping missions), which it would decide to consider.

A draft resolution taking note of a series of reports of the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) and endorsing proposals to follow up the implementation of that Unit’s recommendations was introduced by the representative of Panama and also approved without a vote.

The representative of Uganda, who had coordinated the Committee’s informal consultations on the matter, advised the Committee that there was no consensus on a draft on the Development Account introduced by Guyana on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China. After several suspensions, the Committee decided to continue informal consultations on the Development Account with a view to reaching consensus by 20 October.

Fifth Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/AB/3313 7th Meeting (M) 15 October 1999

The representatives of Norway, Cuba, Costa Rica, Finland (on behalf of the European Union), United Republic of Tanzania, Algeria and Canada also spoke on the drafts.

Penny Wensley (Australia), Fifth Committee Chairman, spoke during the Committee’s consideration of the draft on the Development Account and, at the outset of the meeting, drew the Committee’s attention to an additional sub-item -– on South Africa and regional groups -– which had been allocated to it.

The Committee will meet again at 3 p.m. on 18 October, to begin its consideration of the pattern of United Nations conferences and of the scale of assessments for the apportionment of the expenses of the United Nations.

Committee Work Programme

The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) met this afternoon to consider its programme of work and to take action on a series of draft resolutions.

Programme of Work

The Committee had before it a letter from the General Assembly President (document A/C.5/54/1/Add.1) advising that the Assembly had decided to allocate a sub-item to the Fifth Committee's agenda, on the relocation of South Africa to one of the regional groupings of Member States, used by the Assembly to determine the geographic distribution of positions on its various subsidiary bodies.

Joint Inspection Unit

Also before the Committee was a draft resolution on the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) (document A/C.5/54/L.5). By its terms, the Assembly would take note of the Unit's annual reports for 1995-1996 and 1996-1997 and various other of its reports. It would recognize improvements made in the JIU's functioning, ask that efforts to improve continue, and decide to revert to the issue at its fifty-sixth session.

By other terms, the Assembly would endorse the system of follow-up annexed to the Unit's 1996-1997 report. The JIU would be invited to send reminders about the implementation of recommendations to executive heads, and to include information on approved recommendations not implemented in subsequent reports. It would ask the JIU to give priority to reports requested by participating organizations, and to report on experience with the system.

Contingent-owned Equipment

By the terms of a draft resolution before the Committee on reformed procedures for determining reimbursement to Member States for contingent-owned equipment (document A/C.5/54/L.6), the Assembly would endorse the recommendations of the Phase IV Working Group on Contingent-owned Equipment. It would also endorse those of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ), except for certain recommendations relating to reimbursement levels in cases of hostile action or forced abandonment and for damage during transportation, for tentage and accommodation, and for the use of outside expertise in the establishment of generic value.

The Assembly would emphasize that the new procedures were intended to ensure equitable reimbursement while protecting the interests of Member States and the Organization. It would approve a policy whereby the United Nations could only assume financial responsibilities in accord with Assembly decisions. The Secretary-General would be asked to avoid double payments while implementing the reformed procedures, and the Assembly would reaffirm that only the reformed procedures should apply to missions started since 1 July 1996. It would emphasize that the manual for contingent-owned equipment should be constantly revised.

The Assembly would ask the Board of Auditors to continue to audit implementation of the reformed procedures, and also ask the Secretary-General to take all measures to ensure full-participation in the Phase V Working Group.

Development Account

By another draft, on the Development Account (document A/C.5/54/L.7), the Assembly would decide to establish a special multi-year account for supplementary development activities based on priorities approved for the medium-term plan. It would also decide that any cumulative savings from efficiency measures transferred to the Account's budget section without prior Assembly approval would form the base for that section in subsequent programme budgets.

By other terms, the Assembly would emphasize that efficiency measures should not lead to budget reduction or involuntary separation of staff, and that such measures should not effect full implementation of all mandated activities. It would reaffirm that the Account should be operated in accord with relevant United Nations rules and regulations, decide to keep the Account's implementation under review, and request the Secretary-General to report on it as per relevant rules and regulations.

Board of Auditors

By the terms of a draft resolution on the reports of the Board of Auditors (document A/C.5/54/L.9), the Assembly would endorse all the Auditor's recommendations (see document A/53/5), except two (on reimbursement of contingent-owned equipment and on financing peacekeeping missions) which it would decide to consider.

United Nations Angola Verification Mission (UNAVEM III)

According to another draft, on procurement matters at the United Nations Angola Verification Mission (UNAVEM III) (document A/C.5/54/L.10), the Assembly would take note of the Secretary-General's report on the Office of Internal Oversight Service's findings on this subject, and note with concern that one of the Oversight Office's recommendations was based on incomplete information. It would ask the Secretary-General to carefully examine the internal audit recommendations before taking remedial action, and -- expressing concern over inconsistent application -- ask that audit recommendations regarding fraud and financial abuse be consistently implemented.

It would look forward to his report on procurement of goods for UNAVEM III quartering areas, and would call for additional information on measures being taken to improve procurement in the context of a previously requested report on management irregularities causing financial loss to the Organization. It would ask the Secretary-General to submit a concrete plan to correct procurement-related problems in peacekeeping operations, which should include all remedial measures taken regarding identified problems in missions, standardization of corrective measures across existing and future operations, and descriptions of how accountability was, and would be, pursued in cases where individuals had engaged in fraud, mismanagement and abuse.

(For background on UNAVEM III procurement irregularities, see Press Release GA/AB/3308 of 4 October.) Action on Texts before Committee

The Fifth Committee Chairman, PENNY WENSLEY (Australia), drew Member States’ attention to the additional sub-item on South Africa and regional groups allocated to the Fifth Committee under agenda item 151 by the General Assembly.

The Committee then turned its attention to the draft resolution on the reports of the Board of Auditors (document A/C.5/54/L.9).

JUDITH CARDOZE (Panama) introduced the draft, which was then approved without a vote.

The Committee then turned to consider the draft resolution on the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) (document A/C.5/54/L.5), which was introduced by AMJAD SIAL (Pakistan). That draft was approved without a vote.

The draft resolution on procurement issues related to the financing of UNAVEM III (document A/C.5/54/L.10) was then introduced by Ms. CARDOZE (Panama). The draft was approved, also without a vote.

MICHIEL CROM (Netherlands) introduced the draft resolution on reimbursement to Member States for contingent-owned equipment (document A/C.5/54/L.6). The draft was approved without a vote.

Speaking in explanation of position, the representative of Pakistan said the adoption of the recommendations of the Phase IV Working Group, which truly reflected objectivity and professionalism, would further refine and clarify the reformed procedures for reimbursement. A much shorter procedural decision could have been adopted at the last Assembly session; however, the issue had become controversial and complex because some proposals were made by the Secretariat to substantially change the Working Group’s recommendation, which was not in conformity with the Assembly decision. That the Secretariat did not fully comply with instructions to identify proposals that did not require specific Assembly decisions and to report on any recommendations that went beyond the specific mandate of the Working Group resulted in prolonged negotiations.

The ACABQ had made recommendations which could substantially modify the proposals of the Working Group, when it should have confined its comments to administrative and budgetary aspects, he said. He supported that the Committee did not accept those ACABQ recommendations, which would change Working Group recommendations.

He hoped the Secretariat would submit its report on the Phase V Working Group in accordance with Assembly instructions, and that the ACABQ would continue to serve the Committee in accordance with Rule 157 of the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure, rather than recommending substantive changes.

The representative of Norway said she was pleased that the outcome of the Working Group was reflected in the text. She reminded Member States to submit their inputs on the Phase V Working Group. That involved review and update of the Phase II and III reports adopted by the General Assembly. It was of vital importance that the Working Group be provided with the necessary information for a proper review.

She emphasized how important it was that all States –- including non-troop- contributing countries –- take an active part in the Phase V Working Group. Norway strongly believed that the new procedures for contingent-owned equipment were an important step in streamlining and simplifying the logistical and financial aspects for countries which were contributing troops and equipment for peacekeeping operations.

The Committee then turned its attention to consideration of the Development Account.

NESTER ODAGA-JALOMAYO (Uganda), who was the coordinator of the Committee’s informal consultations on the subject, said that, at the last minute, a consensus had not been possible, and he regretted that there was no draft resolution for the Committee. He appealed to the Committee to move cautiously.

He requested that no decision be taken in haste on the item and requested that the Chairman delay action on the item to allow more time to be taken for informal consultations on it. He believed that consensus could still be achieved.

The representative of Guyana then spoke about the draft resolution (document A/C.5/54/L.7) which had been proposed by his country on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China. He said that, to satisfy the Assembly deadline of 15 October, and also the Group’s ministerial declaration of 24 September where the ministers had emphasized the need for an early conclusion of consideration of the modalities of the Development Account, he was presenting the draft resolution on the Development Account to the Committee. He noted some editorial changes had been made in operative paragraph 2, and the Group wanted the original language reinstated.

The Fifth Committee CHAIRMAN said the Committee had heard the clear statement by the coordinator of informal consultations and his appeal for time to find consensus on the resolution. She had also been approached by delegations seeking further informal consultations on the issue. She, therefore, proposed that the Committee delay action on the Development Account until a later date, and said she would invite interested parties to resume their consultations, and the coordinator to continue his efforts on behalf of the Committee.

The representative of Cuba said she had listened carefully to comments made. Before any final decision was made about the course of action to be taken, she thought it would be useful to hear from the delegations that had difficulties with the draft resolution what those difficulties were.

She had heeded the representative of Uganda’s admonition that the Committee be cautious, but felt that irrespective of the decision taken, Member States should leave the room with a clear idea about the framework within which the consensus the coordinator referred to could be achieved. There were Assembly rules and regulations that made it possible to take decisions in other ways.

She said she would like to hear whether any new proposal could be made or alternative sought that would enable the Committee to arrive at the longed-for consensus. The Assembly had clearly stated there was limited time, and the Committee needed to be prudent. The Committee had previously examined the importance of concluding items from the fifty-third Assembly session before fully taking up the issues of the fifty-fourth session. The Committee had been working over recent weeks as if it were winding up a session –- at a fast pace and with intensity. It was used to this, but it must be careful and aim to achieve the best possible results at the end of session.

The representative of Costa Rica asked when and in what context the decision was being postponed for consultations. She felt that the Committee was always cautious, and when a decision such as the current one was taken, it was because the limit of negotiating space had been reached. But the Committee should see if there was any new information not heard before.

She wanted to know what the deadline would be for re-presentation of the draft, because this might open the door to postponing a number of other issues, and the time limit might be important.

The representative of Algeria said the Development Account was a fundamental issue; the proposed reform of the Secretary-General was something Algeria had fully supported and was anxious to see operational. The Committee’s agenda, however, was densely packed, and there were many other important issues on it, so he wanted to set a date for the conclusion of the negotiations on the Account.

Algeria was prepared to accept further consultations, but another deadline must be set to send everyone a clear signal that the negotiations must be concluded.

The representative of Finland, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the issue required more time to be settled in the spirit that characterized the work of the Committee. The Union, after attempts to reach a consensus had been abandoned for the time being, was willing to continue doing its utmost to reach a consensus. The Union sensed that there remained a spirit of compromise and flexibility in the Committee, and that a solution was still possible . He hoped the Committee could proceed on the basis of informal consultations.

The representative of the United Republic of Tanzania said the absence of consensus was very unfortunate –- his delegation had wanted a draft resolution by the deadline. As the coordinator had demonstrated his willingness to continue, that would be in the best interest of the Committee and of the United Nations.

He agreed with Algeria’s suggestion to fix another deadline, however. Open-ended consultations were not appropriate. He asked the Committee to think constructively about the impact of the resolution, taking into account the need to fix a new deadline.

The representative of Guyana asked, in light of the request for further consultations by the coordinator, for a short suspension of the meeting for consultations on the proposed delay.

The meeting was then suspended.

When the meeting resumed, the representative of Guyana said the Group of 77 deeply regretted that today’s deadline was not met by the Committee in addressing the item. The Group had made great efforts to arrive at a consensus. Indeed, the draft resolution was based on extensive consultations under the guidance of the coordinator.

He said that, in an effort to achieve consensus, the Group agreed to the extension of the deadline until Wednesday, 20 October, when it was hoped a decision on the Development Account would be taken.

The representative of Finland, speaking on behalf of the European Union, thanked the Group of 77 for its flexibility and said the Union recognized the issue’s urgency and that a deadline had previously applied. The Union believed that more time was needed. He hoped and believed that, as with many other issues, the Fifth Committee would come up with a solution to this issue, even under the most difficult of circumstances. The Union supported the coordinator and Fifth Committee chair in their call for continued flexibility in search of a solution acceptable to all.

While he hoped that agreement could be reached by the middle of next week, he said the outcome of consultations could not be prejudged. The matter of the time needed to conclude negotiations should be left to the Committee’s coordinator of informal consultations on the issue. He should be allowed to determine how much time was necessary to come to a solution.

He wished to remind Member States, he continued, that when they decided to defer this issue to the fifty-fourth session of the Assembly, they also decided that the Fifth Committee should make every effort to reach agreement on a number of other outstanding issues by mid-October. It had not reached agreement on those other issues, but it continued to work, as required and with goodwill, for solutions. He proposed the coordinator be given as much time as needed to reach a solution, and that no new deadline be established.

The CHAIRMAN said there were clearly two different proposals. The suggestion that the coordinator of the Committee’s informal consultations be asked to resolve the impasse put a great burden on him, particularly as he was a representative of a member of the Group of 77. She proposed that, after the meeting, the Committee bureau meet to consider how to address the difficulty. The bureau had been entrusted with solving such issues, and it knew that that was a matter of immense importance to many members.

She was also aware that the established practice of the Committee was of seeking consensus on all issues, she said. Before the meeting was suspended, she had intended to state her appreciation at the progress made in the work of the Committee over the past few weeks. She thought it was highly complimentary that it had been able to approve four draft resolutions today, thus, closing four complex and difficult matters.

The Development Account was not the only matter outstanding, she explained. The Committee was yet to take decisions on procurement reform, financing the United Nations Iraq-Kuwait Observation Mission (UNIKOM) and the United Nations Mission in East Timor (UNAMET), and matters related to the Office of Internal Oversight Services, all of which must be addressed in informal consultations next week. The Committee had a heavy schedule, and the bureau would need to see how best the consultations could be scheduled.

The representative of Cuba deplored the scenario the Committee now had before it on this issue. She agreed with what had been said by the Chairman about the progress made by the Committee, in which four draft resolutions were successfully approved. Unfortunately, at this point, the scenario that was being played out did not correspond to the earlier good atmosphere in the Committee.

A deadline had been set for a decision to be taken, she said. The Committee had strayed by proposing to give delegations more time in the next few days, although that was positive. She hoped people agreed that that was a very important decision. At this stage, the General Assembly should take a decision, as it had in May, and the Committee should now take its decision. It was important to be very serious about the decision taken.

The representative of Costa Rica said the matter of deciding when to meet again was not one for the bureau, but for the Committee.

The representative of Algeria said the Fifth Committee had worked with a new cooperative attitude over the last few weeks. Four draft resolutions had been approved today. As had been said, there were still three pending matters due for completion today pending, in addition to the Development Account. He remained optimistic and expressed his full support for the representative of Uganda in his role as coordinator. He should continue in that role and should be allowed to seek a solution.

The representative of Canada said he supported the European Union’s position and concurred with the Chairman’s suggestion that the bureau consider how to reconsider the issue and make proposals to the Committee about the Development Account, and about the other issues subject to the same deadline. It was appropriate for the bureau to make such decisions. That was why it was elected and why each regional grouping had representation on it.

The CHAIRMAN explained that her mention of a burden that would be placed on the representative of Uganda was in no way a suggestion that he not continue to coordinate the consultations. She was highly appreciative of the work done.

As there was no consensus on the appropriate decision, she said she had no choice but to suspend the meeting again to consult with the Fifth Committee bureau about the matter.

The meeting was then suspended again.

When the meeting resumed, the CHAIRMAN said the bureau had found a way to adopt the programme of work to be responsive to the needs of the Group of 77, for sufficient extra informal consultations to allow for the possibility of consensus on the draft resolution by Wednesday, 20 October.

* *** *