REGULAR BUDGET FUNDING OF PEACEKEEPING ACTIVITIES AMONG SECTIONS OF PROPOSED 2000-2001 BUDGET DISCUSSED BY FIFTH COMMITTEE

Press Release
GA/AB/3332

REGULAR BUDGET FUNDING OF PEACEKEEPING ACTIVITIES AMONG SECTIONS OF PROPOSED 2000-2001 BUDGET DISCUSSED BY FIFTH COMMITTEE

Committee Also Discusses United Nations Common System

Managers’ judgement must be used in determining which peacekeeping activities were funded from extrabudgetary funds and which were funded from regular budget funds, the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) was told this morning, as it discussed proposals for the regular budget funding of peacekeeping as part of its continuing part-by-part discussion of the United Nations 2000-2001 budget.

When a programme manager traveled to assess activities funded from the regular budget, he might also use the trip to assess the activities of a peacekeeping mission to survey activities funded from extra-budgetary resources, C.S.M Mselle, Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ), explained, in response to Member States’ questions about distinguishing the source of funding for activities.

There was clearly no co-mingling of funds from extra-budgetary and regular budget sources, he added, but this was not clear in the budget proposal because its inclusion would make the proposal unmanageable. Mr. Mselle also introduced ACABQ comments on this and other budget sections.

During the Committee’s consideration of the budget, it was addressed by the representatives of Bolivia, United States, Cuba, Zambia, Uganda, Finland (on behalf of the European Union and Associated States), Mexico, Algeria, Japan, Republic of Korea, Canada, Argentina and Israel. The Chairman of the Committee for Programme and Coordination, Tommo Monthe, answered Member States’ questions, as did Assistant Secretary-General for Programme Planning, Budget and Accounts and United Nations Controller, Jean-Pierre Halbwachs, and the Director of Budget Division, Warren Sach.

When the Committee turned its attention to its agenda item on the United Nations common system, Wendy Mann, representing the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), advocated the approval of the proposed changes that would allow common system organizations to seek an independent opinion on the legality of the International Civil Service Commission (ICSC) recommendations before implementing them.

Fifth Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/AB/3332 26th Meeting (AM) 4 November 1999

[At present, common system administrations must implement ICSC decisions, which can only be overturned following appeal by staff to an Administrative Tribunal.]

She explained that, following a recent judicial reversal of an ICSC decision, the FAO alone faced retroactive and unbudgeted costs of more than $9.6 million, and had nearly exceeded its financial authority in meeting them. In view of this and other precedents, approving the proposal could save time and money, she said.

The Chairman of the ICSC, Mohsen Bel Hadj Amor, rejected the allegation that the ICSC was responsible for budget problems at the FAO.

The representative of Syria said he had every trust in the ICSC, and was unenthusiastic about another common system proposal for a review of the ICSC by a panel of experts. If the Committee thought such a review was necessary, the survey could be carried out by the Joint Inspection Unit, which was elected by the General Assembly and had that body’s confidence.

The Director of the Office of Inter-Agency Affairs of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Qazi Shaukat Fareed, stressed that this proposal was not a criticism of the ICSC and was not for an inspection or an audit. Rather, a review had been proposed as part of efforts to strengthen the United Nations and to maintain the integrity and unity of the common system while adapting it to the modern circumstances.

The representatives of Mexico, Poland, Cuba and Tunisia also spoke about the common system.

The Committee will meet again at 3 p.m. this afternoon, when it will continue its part-by-part 2000-2001 budget analysis, commencing with section 8 on legal affairs.

Committee Work Programme

The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) met this morning to continue its discussion of its agenda item on the United Nations common system (notably, on the report and activities the International Civil Service Commission) and to continue its part-by-part consideration of the programme budget for 2000-2001, commencing with the completion of consideration of part II, and then moving on to consideration of part III. Part II of the programme budget concerns political affairs, and part III covers international justice and law.

[For background on the report of the International Civil Service Commission, see Press Release GA/AB/3324 of 28 October. For an introduction to the proposed programme budget, see Press Release GA/AB/3322 of 27 October. For background on Part II of the programme budget proposal, see Press Release GA/AB/3310 of 3 November, and for background on part IV, see Press Release GA/AB/3311 of 3 November.]

Statements on Common System

ERNESTO HERRERA (Mexico), speaking on behalf of the Rio Group, said the role of the International Civil Service Commission (ICSC) was important. He welcomed the decision of the Staff Union to return to cooperation with it.

The Commission’s report should not be the subject of controversy, he said. Regarding the Geneva post adjustment, he supported the ICSC recommendations that further review by that body should not be carried out, and that the status quo should remain. He also supported the recommended increase in the base/salary scale starting 1 March 2000.

He had read the Administrative Committee on Coordination’s proposal to amend the ICSC statute, he said. The Rio Group had reservations about this initiative. First, as its decisions would not be binding on the parties, it would not per se be a deterrent to new controversy. Secondly, the majority of Administrative Tribunal decisions had confirmed the legality of ICSC decisions. There had only been four cases otherwise in the last 25 years. Third, the establishment of such a panel would have costs. Therefore, its establishment was not justified and should not be considered further. Legal advice should be available from legal advisors already in the system.

He said the proposed new body to analyse the mandate and functioning of ICSC would create duplication, and called on the Commission to face the challenges that would confront the system in the twenty-first century. Additionally, in any exercise to review its work, the ICSC should be included.

JAN JAREMCZUK (Poland) reconfirmed his support for and confidence in the ICSC. It was evident that to achieve results with the review of the ICSC, it would be helpful to have a document that would provide information and take into account all the views expressed by States. Such an approach, through the appropriate process of consultation, would strengthen the common system. Poland would be happy to participate actively in such consultations.

DULCE BUERGO RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said it was for the Member States to deal with the concerns of staff and ensure that steps were taken to remedy anomalies. It was unacceptable that efforts to cut budgets or institute zero budget growth had a detrimental effect on staff.

The question of the loss of younger staff members should be addressed as a matter of urgency, she said. There was a need to guarantee career prospects for everyone and improve conditions of service, which were increasingly less competitive. Cuba had carefully considered the recommendations of the ICSC and, generally speaking, it supported them. But on this occasion, she wished to note the work carried out by the ICSC in the context of a human resources management framework.

On the review of the ICSC, she said all the necessary information had not yet been provided for States’ consideration. Cuba believed that the current proposal appeared to seek to redefine the institutional framework of the Commission. Any review of the Commission should be carried out by the General Assembly and ,in a way, decided on by the General Assembly.

WENDY MANN, representing the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), said the Fifth Committee had a proposed amendment to the ICSC statute before it, and she had requested permission to speak on this as her organization was a member of the common system and the Administrative Committee on Coordination.

The proposal to establish a panel to examine the legality of ICSC decisions had arisen because common system administration had been severely criticized by Administrative Tribunals for implementing ICSC decisions, and very extensive retroactive and unbudgeted costs had subsequently been imposed on the organizations.

Member States would recall that common system administrations were obliged to introduce ICSC decisions, she added, even when their legal advisors suggested that the implementation might result in an illegality.

Following the recent reversal of an ICSC decision to phase out the language factor for General Service staff, the FAO, the World Food Programme (WFP) and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) had faced large unbudgeted and retroactive extra costs. For the FAO alone these costs had been $9.6 million, not including a long list of costs related to the review process, such as costs of the FAO’s response to staff member’s appeals against the decision, costs of approximately $20,000 for a staff member’s appeal to the Administrative Tribunal, the cost of arrangements for retroactive payment, and legal fees of the staff complainant set at 50,000 French francs.

The IFAD did not have sufficient funds to cover its costs in its budget, she said, and had been obliged to consult its member States on an extraordinary basis for the first time in its history. The FAO faced a similar situation, as it had nearly exceeded its financial authority.

In another situation, an ICSC mistake in working the multiplier for the Geneva Post adjustment had resulted in unbudgeted costs to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) of some 73,500 Swiss francs, she said.

A similar situation had arisen when the WIPO had applied General Service salary scales recommended by the ICSC, which had been overturned by the International Labour Organization (ILO) Administrative Tribunal, on the ground of incorrect application by the ICSC of its own methodology.

She subscribed to the most simple and cost-effective procedures for dealing with administrative matters, she said. It was not envisaged that requests for advisory opinions would be pro forma, but rather that they would only arise when legality of the decision was in doubt. This had tended to be the exception, not the rule.

In view of the precedents, the proposal could save time and money, she said. This had been the intention of the Legal Advisors of the United Nations system in proposing this to the Administrative Committee on Coordination.

While some might view it as unnecessary, she said, a $9.6 million unbudgeted costs for a single organization due to a single illegal ICSC decision argued against this position.

TAMMAM SULAIMAN (Syria) noted, regarding the proposed study of the ICSC activities, that the Secretary-General was proposing the establishment of an advisory panel. He had every trust in the ICSC, as it had been set up by Member States.

He was not very enthusiastic about the proposed panel of experts, he said. The United Nations itself was capable of conducting the survey. There might in fact be other existing bodies that could consider such a review, if the Fifth Committee so recommended. If the Committee agreed, the survey could perhaps be carried out by the Joint Inspection Unit. This Unit was elected by the Assembly, and he had confidence in it. He did not think an external body should carry out such a review.

He had no objection to staff participating in a review in an advisory capacity, he said. They had always participated in ICSC meetings and he had no objection to this extending to a review, provided the Inspection Unit conducted it.

The Chairman of the ICSC, MOHSEN BEL HADJ AMOR, said that last year’s report on the human resources framework had been an interim one and the framework, at that stage, had been somewhat embryonic. He agreed that the areas cited by States were important, but they were not considered to be core –– in other words, requiring regulation at the level of the common system. He added that gender balance would again be taken up by the Commission in 2001.

He noted that some speakers had raised the linkage of the mobility and hardship allowance to the base/floor salary scale. This matter had been reviewed on two previous occasions and the outcome confirmed by the General Assembly. The Commission would examine the issue in the context of its next review of the allowance.

He noted that most speakers agreed with the Commission’s conclusion that there was no further benefit to be derived in further pursuing the matter of the Geneva post adjustment. As for those who expressed disappointment with this conclusion, he said that the ICSC had never refused to reply to General Assembly requests, had always taken such requests seriously, and would continue to do so.

On the subject of the education grant, he said the Commission’s decisions taken after a comprehensive review in 1989 remained in effect. The purpose of the grant was to aid the reintegration of children into the staff member’s home country.

On the question of the Paris survey, he said that the list of employers to be surveyed had been drawn up by the staff and administration of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and had been presented to him, on behalf of the Commission, for approval only.

He drew Member States’ attention to paragraph 166 of the Commission’s report, which highlighted the issue of the safety of staff in the context of the framework of human resources management.

Finally, he said he was gratified that the Commission’s repeated efforts to streamline its reports and render them more concise had been noted. This was a dynamic, continuing process. In a reply to points made by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), he rejected any allegation that the ICSC was responsible for budget problems at the FAO.

QAZI SHAUKAT FAREED, Director of the Office of Inter-Agency Affairs of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, said there was obviously disagreement about this proposal, but that was the nature of the dialogue.

On the issue of why the review was being proposed, he said he did not know how to respond to suggestions that there was no problem. If the Commission was the only part of the United Nations where there were no problems, it should be a source of real pride. At a recent meeting of members of the Administrative Committee on Coordination, they had asked for a review. Members had raised the point that millions of dollars had been spent on reversal of ICSC decisions. Whatever the cause, there was clearly a problem.

Apart from whatever minor problems might exist, he said, the fundamental issue was that the United Nations system must keep pace with the world. Almost every body in the system had recently undergone processes of review and renewal.

The proposal should not be taken as criticism of Commission, he said. This was not the issue. It had been proposed as part of the overall effort to strengthen the United Nations as a whole, and as part of efforts to maintain the integrity and unity of the common system, while adapting it to the modern circumstances.

On the modalities and terms of reference, he said he had tried to explain previously that the Secretary-General had proposed changes to the Assembly, he said. It was the Assembly’s role to choose the modalities and references that would best serve the United Nations.

He pointed out that the Assembly had adopted resolution 53/209 in which it had decided to revert to issues related to the Commission, including its role, members and activities in the review process, in the context of the proposal by the Secretary-General for a review at its fifty-third session.

He sought to reemphasize that an inspection or audit was not intended, he said. The review had to be forward looking and Member States would clearly change the terms of reference if needed to ensure this. Broad overview was sought. Therefore, the Secretary-General had proposed managers, not experts, for the panel. He had intended to ensure expertise would be available to it, including from Member States.

The Secretary-General’s proposal was intended to be carried out pro bono by the panel, and travel and other costs would be absorbed into the consultant costs of the agencies of the common system, he said. A statement of financial implication would be provided on whatever decision was taken.

Regarding the suggestion that the Joint Inspection Unit carry out this review, he said that that body had recently carried out a review of the Administrative Committee on Coordination. He saw no problem with asking the Inspection Unit examine the Commission.

RADHIA ACHOURI (Tunisia) said she had asked specific questions and they had required detailed answers, which her delegation had requested in writing to be considered during a formal meeting. The ICSC and the common system were complicated and technical. Mr. Fareed had said the working group would not raise any charges for its services, but the budgets of organizations were paid by Member States so there was in fact a cost. She said the secretariats of affiliated organizations should pay close attention to the debate about budgetary discipline; this justified the request to review the ICSC. The regime at the United Nations was now one of strict budgetary discipline.

Ms. MANN, the FAO representative said that a complete factual note on budgetary aspects of her agency would be made available to delegates. She quoted the United Nations Legal Counsel as saying earlier to the Committee that heads of agencies were legally bound to observe the decisions of the ICSC when taken within its areas of competence.

Statements on Proposed Programme Budget

EDUARDO GALLARDO (Bolivia) said that there was a 10 per cent increase in costs for peacekeeping which reflected an increase in demand for the United Nations services. All of the elements of the Organization should have the necessary resources they needed. However, the large amount of resources required by peacekeeping required specific and detailed consideration. Bolivia reserved the right to request specific information in informal meetings.

THOMAS REPASCH (United States) said he was not totally satisfied with the review of Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO), but believed that a good first step had been made. On expected accomplishments, the relevant paragraph appeared vague and difficult to measure. He wanted to know more from the Secretariat on how this was to be done.

With general operating expenses, there was a decrease due to lower communications costs, he asked. He asked to what these reduced costs were attributed and wondered whether this approach could be used elsewhere in the budget to make further reductions. There was also a decrease due to departmental reorganization, including reforms that the United States believed should have been developed long ago. At what point would implementation begin and development conclude? he asked.

He also asked why certain insurance premiums had increased and what the expected accomplishments on this would be for the next two years.

DULCE BUERGO RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said she wanted to reiterate the questions she had asked about the political affairs section regarding duplication. She asked what measures were being taken to avoid duplication between the Department of Political Affairs and the Department of Peacekeeping Operations. There were no references to measures in the Secretary-General’s report. A review could be established.

She would also like to be told of the mandates that justified the inclusion of stated Department activities for providing advice and contingency planning for areas where peacekeeping might be required.

She asked the Secretariat to elaborate on the criteria used for employing extrabudgetary as against regular budget resources. Sometimes she had difficulty understanding why a particular source of resources was employed. Some requests made for regular budget resources appeared to be for activities that would be better financed from the support account, such as estimates related to reimbursement for contingent- owned equipment.

MATHIAS DAKA (Zambia) said Zambia was a least developed country that contributed personnel and equipment to peacekeeping operations. He was concerned about the backlog of claims for reimbursement, which affected his country’s ability to contribute to missions. He therefore supported measures to address that problem, and specifically supported the proposed employment of additional staff to address it. However, he agreed with the ACABQ comment that the costs of addressing contingent-owned equipment reimbursal should be transferred to the support account.

NESTER ODAGA-JALOMAYO (Uganda) said his delegation would pursue the questions of political affairs and the determination of the levels of special representatives in informal meetings. There was a need for streamlining. On electoral assistance, Uganda felt the narrative in the Secretary-General’s report was a little confusing and would be seeking clarification. What was the policy on allocation of items to regular budget and extra budget? he asked.

Uganda clearly supported the decolonization unit, he said, and believed its travel costs should be kept separate. Uganda was also very attached to the disarmament centres and was pleased to see they were all operational and wished to thank the Secretariat particularly for the centre in Lomé.

On peacekeeping and the mixture of use of regular budget and extra-budgetary funds, there seemed to be no policy regarding travel -– what travel should be funded from where? There was no clear policy. Also, was contingent-owned equipment funded from the support account or the regular budget? he asked.

What was relationship between the phasing-out of gratis personnel and the reclassification of posts? he asked. This was not an excuse for failure to complete a data base on trust funds, he stressed.

What was latest on the streamlining of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations and the Department of Management? he asked. He also requested information on the delegation of human resources activities to the peacekeeping department. Uganda was also very concerned with the security issue, he said. He noted that some unsuitable aircraft had been used in a peacekeeping mission.

WARREN SACH, Director of the Budget Division, replied to Member States’ questions. There was always potential for duplication between activities undertaken in this area and those of the Department of Political Affairs, he said, but it had been under Secretariat and Member State review for some time, most recently when the Committee was considering the support account. Naturally, it must be kept under review at all times. At the leadership level, there were joint working arrangements arising from the reform proposals where both Under-Secretary- Generals met to consider their joint activities.

The other high potential duplication area was backstopping, he said; however, there was a single service carrying out this function for both Departments -- the Field Administration and Logistics Division in the Department of Peacekeeping Operations.

The same level of resources was in fact being sought for support for military and civilian police operations, he said. In response to a question about how the new combined arrangements to handle these areas were performing, he said he had been told that things were working well.

In terms of the distinction made between activities funded from extrabudgetary funds and those funded from regular funds, he explained that within this Department extrabudgetary funds in large part related to funds from the support account. These were assessed funds. Some balancing had to be undertaken internally to manage the dual funding source. The Secretariat was fairly pragmatic as to what financed what. It must be noted that both sources of funds were to support peacekeeping operations and he believed they were being managed well.

In response to a question about why the establishment of a database on trust funds was not complete, he said databases meant computers, and computers meant delays. It took time to get things right. The Department as a whole had been stressed in recent months and operational activities took priority over improvements in structure. Sometimes such improvements fell behind in periods of stress.

It was policy to close trust funds that had no balances and had outlived their use, he said. The funds with dashes against their balances in the proposal had funds that had been committed, but their dispersion was not yet complete.

On a question about increased expenses for an aircraft for the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP), he explained that this aeroplane had had to be changed for safety reasons, due to safety issues related to high-altitude flying requirements. The specification requirements for this aircraft had been changed for safety reasons, and the rate had increased accordingly.

On general temporary assistance funds, there were questions as to why there were provisions under the regular budget for contingent-owned equipment, he said. The Department’s activities were financed jointly from both support account and regular budget funds. Regular budget funds contributed to support of peacekeeping operations and part of this contribution was in addressing contingent owned equipment claims. The balance between funding from the support account and the regular account was a choice for Member States, and both came through the Fifth Committee. That balance could be changed if Member States so desired.

Regarding miscellaneous expenses requested for the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) and UNMOGIP, he explained that there was no breakdown of these in the texts but he would provide details to those who sought them.

On a request for information about increased security costs, explained that the resources were sought to implement a recommendation by the United Nations Security Coordinator, based on circumstances at the mission. He would share the parts of that recommendation that were not withheld for security reasons with Member States in informal consolations.

Responding to a question about the way inflation was treated in this section, he explained that the same methodology, using the same parameters, was applied across the budget proposal, and it was derived from the first performance report for 1998. There were 48 of 50 different rates used for the budget as a whole. The rates that applied in different duty stations varied. Thus the composite used in a budget section would be dependent on the number of duty stations covered by that section. For peacekeeping, for example, rates would vary for activities in Gaza compared to those for India/Pakistan. The composite resulted in over 10 per cent for this section, which was high. He would provide written examples of the methods of calculation at informal consultations. All rates were reviewed in context of recosting, he added.

On communication costs, he explained that the lower levels of resources requested reflected lower commercial rates that had come into play. The world market for telecommunications was now very competitive and some benefit was derived from this.

Regarding the expected accomplishment and their measurement, he repeated that the inclusion of measurement tools would require the development of indicators, which was a task in itself, and outside the scope of the budget at present. Some preliminary work had been done for the results-based budgeting proposals, but more would be required if Member States desired their inclusion.

Regarding the question asked about the redeployment of six posts to the rapidly deployable headquarters, he said actions on this would be reported in the support account report due this session. On questions about resources requested for cooperation with regional organizations, a good working rapport was necessary if arrangements for joint activities were to be smooth, he said. Therefore, it was important to share training, seminars and conferences.

Mr. ODAGA-JALOMAYO (Uganda) said every section was open to discussion. Delegations were free to raise concerns on sections that had already been discussed. He was surprised by Mr. Sach’s explanation about the use of extra- budgetary resources -– those resources should not be mixed with the regular budget.

Mr. REPASCH (United States), on the question of expected accomplishments, asked whether development of performance indicators was really outside the scope of budget preparation, as claimed. This was not his view.

Ms. BUERGO RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said her delegation was satisfied that the possible overlap between the Department of Peacekeeping Operations and the Department of Political Affairs was being kept under review. Cuba also agreed with the concerns expressed by the representative of Uganda. This issue would require special consideration in informal meetings.

She asked for clarification on details of activities on high-level contact with troop contributors and others, with regard to implementing mandates of the Security Council. How did this work? She also asked for information on the development of a global staffing strategy for missions. What was the status of this?

She asked whether the Secretariat was taking into account decisions of General Assembly on the delegation of human resources activities. She also requested for information on policy coordination and capacity-building in the light of experience gained in the field.

Mr. SACH, Director of the Budget Division, said in response to the representative of Cuba that regular budget and extra-budgetary funds were not mixed; separate statements had to be produced. And to ensure segregation, they were indeed managed separately. There was complete segregation of such funds, but both accounts provided resources to the department nevertheless. On expected accomplishments, he said the issue of a requirement for performance indicators had been addressed.

The Committee then turned to the section of the proposed budget on peaceful uses of outer space.

Ms. BUERGO RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said she noted the proposal stated that the Outer Space Committee had planned to hold its session in July, and she would like to be informed of the outcome of that Committee’s session, to assist in the consideration of the budget proposals.

She also wished to know what new mandates the Secretariat was referring to when it referred to those arising from UNISPACE III.

Regarding the extrabudgetary resource estimates, she would like to be informed of the criteria used to determine regular budget, as against extrabudgetary, financing of activities.

She had noted a request for resources to carry out the Board of Auditors’ recommendations on common service costs, and would like the reference to the source of the Assembly’s approval of those recommendations.

Mr. SACH, Director of the Budget Division, answered her questions. He said the General Assembly’s Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization) had recently approved a draft resolution on UNISPACE Conference outcomes. Part of this draft requested the Secretary-General to recommend measures to ensure the Outer Space Office had the resources needed to implement UNISPACE III recommendations. As a consequence, a report would be prepared in Vienna with the details of those requirements, which would be presented for review next year. The Fourth Committee was expecting the Secretary-General to define detailed provisions of how UNISPACE III recommendations would be implemented.

The narrative, prepared prior to the approval of UNISPACE III recommendations, assumed that the actions of UNISPACE III would result in some new mandates, he said.

On extrabudgetary funds, he said this office was 90 per cent funded from the regular budget. Extrabudgetary funds were used to fund fellowships, seminars and the like, and were mentioned in “other substantive activities” and “technical cooperation” in the proposal. All other elements were regular budget.

C.S.M MSELLE, Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ), then introduced that body’s comments and recommendations on part III and IV of the budget.

In the course of his introduction, he explained some matters about extrabudgetary funds which had been of concern to Member States. It was clear that there was no co-mingling of funds from extrabudgetary sources with those from the regular budget. That it was not clear which activities were funded from which in the proposal, was a matter of presentation.

The detail prepared pre-proposal by programme managers would include this, he said, but its inclusion in the budget proposal would make the budget proposal unmanageable. In the future, a way to establish the source of funding of objectives would be found.

There were problems in this area, he said. For example, when a programme manager traveled to assess activities funded from the regular budget, he might also use the trip to assess a peacekeeping mission activity or to survey activities funded from extrabudgetary resources. It then became a matter of judgement as to what should be charged against the regular budget funds and what against the extrabudgetary funds.

He believed the problem of identifying the source of funds would be less acute in the future, he said.

JARMO SAREVA (Finland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Cyprus, Malta, Liechtenstein and Norway, said the Union believed that the requirements of the International Court of Justice in terms of budgetary requirements ought to be met, consistent with the importance the General Assembly attached to the peaceful resolution of international disputes through law.

The Union had taken note of the remarkable increase in the Court’s caseload, and it agreed with the Advisory Committee that the resource implications of this situation should be reviewed in order to ensure that the ability of the Court to fulfil its mandate was not eroded.

In this connection, the Union also agreed with an observation made by the President of the Court that its financial resources could not be divorced from the Organization that provided them.

On section 8 of the budget proposal, he said the Union had taken note of the increased workload of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal and of the General Legal Division. It appreciated that this must be reflected in the resources at their disposal.

ERNESTO HERRERA (Mexico) said the International Court of Justice was the most important judicial institution in the world and warranted not only recognition for its work but also adequate financial and human resources support in order to be able to continue performing its functions. Mexico noted that in the budget there was provision for an additional four posts and a further $416,000 to reduce the backlog of cases. He felt, nevertheless, that given the drastic increase in the number of cases before the Court it was necessary to examine the financial situation closely to avoid the risk of reducing its ability to carry out its mandate. DJAMEL MOKTEFI (Algeria) said the Court was to be congratulated on dealing with its greatly increased workload and he supported the increase in posts for the Court. The Court had taken steps to modernize its working methods. He wished to ask exactly when the Committee might have the report on extraordinary expenditures on this issue.

Mr. REPASCH (United States) commended the Court for its highly successful Web site. He expected that the posting of documents on the site would reduce printing costs, but there would still be a need for skillful presentation.

TETSUO KONDO (Japan) said further streamlining of the regular budget was both necessary and possible. He agreed that the dramatic increase in the workload of the Court required four new posts and hoped recruitment would begin on the basis of equitable geographical distribution. Japan was doubtful, however, whether P-3 posts were required for the Office of Judicial Affairs.

LEE SEE-YOUNG (Republic of Korea) commended the ICJ. He said the high number of cases submitted following the preparation of the proposal meant there should be a review of the proposal, as suggested by the ACABQ.

JOHN ORR (Canada) also recognized the Court’s important role. He sought clarification of a request under programme support for contractual services, where an increase of some 300 per cent was proposed. He noted that some $900,000 was proposed for printing, and wondered whether this printing was done internally or externally. He asked whether other United Nations printing facilities were used for Court printing when they were not at capacity, to reduce such printing costs?

Ms. BUERGO RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) asked about the proposed substantial increase in contractual services. In addition, she noted that the ACABQ had asked for a presentation on methodologies for dealing with unforeseen and extraordinary costs. She supported this request for a presentation.

VALERIA MARIA GONZALEZ POSSE (Argentina) said she regretted that the Committee was unable to consider the Committee for Programme and Coordination recommendations on this matter. She supported the recommendation that budgetary estimates for the Court be reviewed to allow it to fully discharge its mandate. She also supported the request for an increase in posts for the Court.

RON ADAM (Israel) said he supported the statements made by the United States and Japan on the Administrative Tribunal, and noted its increased workload.

Assistant Secretary-General for Programme Planning, Budget and Accounts and United Nations Controller, JEAN-PIERE HALBWACHS, explained that the increase requested for contractual services was for the Court’s printing programme, where a significant backlog had developed. Resources were requested to eliminate this.

The Court’s printing was entirely external to it, he said. Cooperation existed between the Court and the printing operations at United Nations headquarters, but he was unsure of how they operated. The report requested by the ACABQ on unforeseen and extraordinary expenses had been cleared, and should be available soon, he added.

The Chairman of the CPC, Tommo Monthe, said the CPC was not the appropriate body to take up the working programme of the Court. It had a very special working programme and he did not think it fell within the CPC’s arena. Mr. ODAGA-JALOMAYO (Uganda) asked why freelance translators were paid overtime when established posts did not receive this.

Mr. HALBWACHS said he did not know the details of their contracts and would provide a written reply.

Mr. MOKTEFI (Algeria) asked for information on careers of permanent staff members of the Court.

* *** *