ACTING WITHOUT VOTE, FIFTH COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS FRANCE, CUBA, RUSSIAN FEDERATION, UNITED STATES AND CAMEROON FOR ELECTION TO ACABQ

Press Release
GA/AB/3334

ACTING WITHOUT VOTE, FIFTH COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS FRANCE, CUBA, RUSSIAN FEDERATION, UNITED STATES AND CAMEROON FOR ELECTION TO ACABQ

Also Makes Recommendations for Election to Contributions Committee, Board of Auditors; Discusses Common System, Proposed Programme Budget

The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) recommended the election of candidates to five subsidiary bodies, and the confirmation of appointments to another, when it met this morning to consider these appointments, and also to continue its consideration of the United Nations common system, as well as its part-by-part consideration of the programme budget for 2000-2001.

Acting without a vote, the Committee recommended to the Assembly the election to the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) of Gerard Biraud (France), Norma Goicochea Estenoz (Cuba), Vladimir V. Kuznetsov (Russian Federation), Susan M. Shearhouse (United States) and Roger Tchoungui (Cameroon), thus filling all five vacancies.

Again without a vote, it recommended that the Assembly fill six vacancies on the Committee of Contributions by electing Alvaro Gurgel de Alencar Netto (Brazil), Ju Kuilin (China), Sergei I. Mareyev (Russian Federation), Angel Marron (Spain), Hae-Yun Park (Republic of Korea), and Ugo Sessi (Italy), and that the Auditor-General of South Africa be elected to fill a vacancy on the United Nations Board of Auditors.

It also recommended confirmation of the reappointment of three members of the Investments Committee, the election of two people to the Administrative Tribunal and the election of an alternate member for the United Nations Staff Pension Committee, all without taking a vote.

Following the elections the representative of South Africa made a statement.

When it resumed its part-by-part consideration of the programme budget for 2000-2001, the representative of India stated that the best

Fifth Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/AB/3334 28th Meeting (AM) 5 November 1999

of intentions and goodwill for assistance to African development had not, in the past, been matched by resources.

Africa had been seen by other countries as a receptacle for their own obsessions, phobias, hopes and interests, he added. Prescriptive action must be directed at areas identified by African countries themselves.

The decline in extra-budgetary resources for development was of serious concern, the representative of Brazil said. He called on donors to support activities for development in Africa. Given the importance of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), the level of regular budget resources the Secretary-General had proposed did not seem adequate for its activities, he added.

The representative of the United Republic of Tanzania, speaking also on behalf of Kenya and Uganda, said the UNCTAD Office of the Special Coordinator for least developed and land-locked countries and small island States was grossly marginalized. Ninety States depended on this Office for advice.

The idea of least developed countries (LDCs) being a cross-organizational concern within UNCTAD had not worked, he added. Given the number and importance of the tasks it faced, the level of resources and manpower the Secretary-General proposed for this Office should be at least doubled.

The representatives of the United States, Canada, Japan, Sudan, Egypt, Ethiopia, China, Bahamas, Cuba, Zambia, Algeria, Guyana (speaking on behalf of the “Group of 77” and China), Kenya, Uganda and Pakistan also spoke. The Chairman of the Committee for Programme and Coordination, Tommo Monthe, introduced that body’s comments on the budget areas under discussion, and the United Nations Controller, Jean-Pierre Halbwachs, and Warren Sach, Director of the Budget Division, answered Member States’ questions.

The Committee also heard from Bel Hadj Amor, Chairman of the International Civil Service Commission (ICSC), the United Nations Legal Counsel, Hans Corell, and the Director of Inter-Agency Affairs in the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Qazi Shaukat Fareed, during its consideration of the activities and reports of the ICSC under its agenda item on the United Nations common system.

The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. on Monday, 8 November to continue its discussion of the programme budget for the biennium 2000-2001.

Committee Work Programme

The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) met this morning to make recommendations to fill vacancies in six subsidiary organs of the General Assembly, and to continue its part-by-part discussion of the proposed programme budget for 2000-2001.

It had before it a note from the Secretary-General transmitting the nominations to fill five vacancies on the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ)(document A/C.5/54/5). According to the note, the successful candidates would take up their positions on 1 January 2000.

The note states that the nominees for these vacancies are Gerard Biraud (France), Norma Goicochea Estenoz (Cuba), Vladimir V. Kuznetsov (Russian Federation), Susan M. Shearhouse (United States) and Roger Tchoungui (Cameroon).

The curricula vitae of the candidates are annexed to the note.

It also had before it a note from the Secretary-General transmitting the nominations to fill six vacancies on the Committee on Contributions (document A/C.5/54/6). According to the note, the successful candidates would take up their positions on 1 January 2000.

The note states that the nominees are Alvaro Gurgel de Alencar Netto (Brazil), Ju Kuilin (China), Sergei I. Mareyev (Russian Federation), Angel Marron (Spain), Hae-Yun Park (Republic of Korea) and Ugo Sessi (Italy).

The curricula vitae of the candidates are annexed to the note.

It had before it a note from the Secretary-General transmitting the nominations to fill a vacancy on the United Nations Board of Auditors for a three- year term that will commence on 1 July 2000(document A/C.5/54/7). The Board of Auditors is composed of the Auditors-General (or equivalent) of three Member States of the United Nations.

The Secretary-General states that the sole nominee for this position is the Auditor-General of South Africa.

It had before it a note from the Secretary-General seeking the General Assembly's confirmation of three appointments to the Investments Committee (document A/C.5/54/8).

According to the note, he proposes to reappoint the three members of that Committee whose terms expire on 31 December 1999 for an additional three year term.

The note states that these people are Francine Bovich (United States), Takeshi Ohta (Japan) and Peter Stromonth (United Kingdom). Their curricula vitae are appended to the note.

He also notes his intention to Emilio J. Cardenas (Argentina), Frigyes Harshegyui (Hungary) and Helene Ploix (France) as ad hoc members for a one year period beginning 1 January 2000.

It also had before it a note from the Secretary-General transmitting the nominations to fill two vacancies on the Administrative Tribunal of the United Nations for terms beginning 1 January 2000 (document A/C.5/54/9).

The note states that the nominees for these vacancies are Julio Barboza (Argentina) and Mayer Gabay (Israel).

The curricula vitae of the candidates are annexed to the note.

It also had before it a note from the Secretary-General transmitting the nominations to fill a vacancy for a member of the United Nations Staff Pension Committee (document A/C.5/54/5), to commence on the date of appointment and expire on 31 December 2000.

The note states that the sole nominee for this vacancy is Amjad Hussain Sial (Pakistan).

His curriculum vitae is annexed to the note.

[For an introduction to the proposed programme budget see Press Release GA/AB/3322 of 27 October. For background on part IV see Press Release GA/AB/3331 of 3 November.]

Appointments to Fill Vacancies

Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ)

The Committee Chairman, PENNY WENSLEY (Australia), advised the Committee that five vacancies on the ACABQ must be filled, and that there were five candidates.

The Committee, having decided to dispense with the use of a secret ballot, recommended the election of Gerard Biraud (France), Norma Goicochea Estenoz (Cuba), Vladimir V. Kuznetsov (Russian Federation), Susan M. Shearhouse (United States) and Roger Tchoungui (Cameroon), by acclamation.

Committee on Contributions

The COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN advised that six vacancies for the Committee on Contributions must be filled, and that there were six candidates.

The Committee, having decided to dispense with the use of a secret ballot, recommended Alvaro Gurgel de Alencar Netto (Brazil), Ju Kuilin (China), Sergei I. Mareyev (Russian Federation), Angel Marron (Spain), Hae-Yun Park (Republic of Korea), and Ugo Sessi (Italy) for the positions, by acclamation.

United Nations Board of Auditors

The CHAIRMAN then advised that one vacancy must be filled on the Board of Auditors, and that there was one candidate.

The Committee, having decided to dispense with the use of a secret ballot, recommended the Auditor-General of South Africa for election, by acclamation.

Investments Committee

The CHAIRMAN, advised that the confirmation of the appointment of three candidates for the Investments Committee was required, and that there were three candidates.

The Committee, having decided to dispense with the use of a secret ballot, recommended the confirmation of Francine Bovich (United States), Takeshi Ohta (Japan), and Peter Stromonth Darling (United Kingdom), by acclamation.

Administrative Tribunal

The CHAIRMAN told the Committee that two vacancies on the Administrative Tribunal must be filled, and that there were two candidates.

The Committee, having decided to dispense with the use of a secret ballot, recommended the election of Julio Barboza (Argentina) and Mayer Gabay (Israel), by acclamation.

United Nations Staff Pension Committee

The CHAIRMAN said that one vacancy, for an alternate member of the United Nations Staff Pension Committee, must be filled, and that there was one candidate.

The Committee, having decided to dispense with the use of a secret ballot, recommended the election of Amjad Hussain Sial (Pakistan), by acclamation.

DUMISANI KUMALO (South Africa) said the Office of the Auditor-General has worked hard to become an internationally acknowledged supreme audit institution. Through its participation in the United Nations Panel of External Auditors, the Office was already at the forefront of international auditing developments and in the development of United Nations accounting and auditing expertise.

He said he had brought with him an information package on the South African Auditor-General for the perusal of Member States. As a Member of the of the United Nations Board of Auditors, South Africa would execute its responsibilities to the best of its ability, providing the necessary professionalism to make the United Nations more effective.

Statements on United Nations Common System

QAZI SHAUKAT FAREED, Director of the Office of Inter-Agency Affairs, spoke on questions raised previously by Member States.

On a request from the representative of Tunisia for a written response, he said a document would be circulated during the meeting containing written answers. He was also circulating the written text of the statement he had made yesterday to the Committee about the proposed review of the International Civil Service Commission

He drew the Committee’s attention to a written statement by the Administrative Committee on Coordination, which was to be made available during the meeting.

The United Nations Legal Counsel, HANS CORREL, then made a statement about the proposed amendment to the International Civil Service Commission statute. He asked the Chairman of the Commission for clarification on information he had received that the Chairman had told an Administrative Committee on Coordination (ACC) meeting that he was not as concerned about the proposal as he had been.

It was inherent in the system that a judicial body had the final authority to decide on the legality of a decision under the rules, he said. Anybody applying rules prior to the Court’s decision could legitimately have a different view on the legality of decisions. The International Civil Service Commission might have excellent reasons for taking a particular decision but the Court might disagree.

He believed the system was good, and that it should not be changed because of this particular problem of the overturning of the implementation of the Commission’s decisions, on the grounds of illegality, by the Courts -– the United Nations and the International Labour Organization Administrative Tribunals, he said. None-the-less, legal advice given by organizations’ legal advisers to the Commission and to those organizations was not binding on the Tribunal.

While the proposed panel’s advice would not be binding on the Tribunals either, if a panel included, as suggested, judges from both the Administrative Tribunals, then its opinion would be very authoritative, he said. There would be some costs involved in the establishment of the panel, but they would be limited. He envisaged that the panel would only rarely be invoked. The Commission itself could invoke the panel if it had doubt about the legality of a decision it was considering. He did not foresee that legal advisors to the organizations of the common system would invoke the panel unless they had serious doubts about a decision.

This was not a matter of prestige or any such thing, he said. It was just a suggestion from the common system organizations’ legal advisors, aimed at addressing a problem without making large-scale changes to the system. He hoped that the International Civil Service Commission Chairman would speak, so the position of the Commission could be clarified.

The Commission Chairman, MOHSEN BEL HADJ AMOR, said in response to the question about the ACC meeting that Mr. Corell had referred to, that the facts of the Commission’s position had been set out in the introduction to its report. It said the Commission was not for or against this panel. However it also stressed that the Commission did not need this consultative advisory panel. The debate was therefore between the Assembly and the ACC. When he had said this at the ACC some members of that body had nodded, and therefore obviously agreed with him. The Commission’s position had not changed.

In a previous report the Commission had noted the development of the proposal with satisfaction, he said. The Commission had been pleased that the Administrative Committee had been able to arrive at a solution to its legal problems, if they existed.

He explained that the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) was so keen on this idea because it was an idea developed in the FAO legal office. Maternity and paternity of the idea they were defending belonged to the FAO, but they were not in a position to impose it. The Commission’s position had not changed, and the Commission did not need this panel, he said. He asked that words to the contrary not be put into his mouth. CARLOS ALBERTO MICHAELSON DEN HARTOG (Brazil) said, under section 9, that his delegation had already voiced its concern over the decline in extra-budgetary resources, and now renewed its call to donors to support activities for development in Africa. As to the overall level of resources devoted to section 9, Brazil noted that the number of posts funded by the regular budget had been retained, whereas the number financed from extra-budgetary sources had been reduced. He would appreciate further efforts by the Secretariat to reduce the vacancy rate to the level agreed to.

On section 11, he felt the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) was the focal point and key body within the United Nations system in this field. Brazil shared the opinion of the Committee for Programme and Coordination (CPC) on the significance of UNCTAD’s programme as a whole, and that this should fully comply with the medium-term plan. He agreed with the conclusions and recommendations of the CPC for this budget section, but as far as the high-level intergovernmental event for 2001 was concerned he agreed that UNCTAD had a very important role to play here too. He said the proposed level of resources did not seem to be adequate for the planned activities of UNCTAD.

COLEMAN NEE (United States) said he was still disappointed with UNCTAD’s performance, and management failures in particular, including a complete lack of managerial accountability. These had plagued UNCTAD for some time and these problems had to be resolved before his delegation could consider supporting further resources in this budget area.

CRISTOPHER BURTON (Canada) noted the forthcoming session of UNCTAD in Bangkok in 2000 and wondered to what extent United Nations conference centres would be used. He said programme support was 19.7 per cent of the total budget in UNCTAD -– more than any of the five sub-programmes. He asked for further details on this, as well as on the relationship between administrative services in various sections. These were all significant budget items and he wondered if there was duplication.

TETSUO KONDO (Japan) said with the World Trade Organization (WTO) meeting approaching in three weeks, the UNCTAD conference in 2000 and the third United Nations conference on least developed countries (LDCs) in 2001, there was a clear need to strengthen UNCTAD. But the Secretariat should do so by streamlining and increased managerial accountability. He was concerned about the transfer of a P-5 level post from sub-programme 3 to sub-programme 2 in view of the next round of preparatory negotiation. The need for costly promotional materials was doubtful; better use could be made of the Web site. Japan appreciated the work of the office of the special coordinator during the last meeting on landlocked developing countries, but this office could be further strengthened.

Mr. EL GHAZALI (Sudan) said UNCTAD was the main instrument to help developing countries cope with globalization. He joined the representatives of Guyana and Bangladesh in stating that additional resources must be given to an UNCTAD Unit charged with supporting least developed countries (LDCs).

He stressed the growing importance of UNCTAD, he said, particularly in the light of the need for preparation for the tenth session of UNCTAD and for the Third United Nations Conference for LDCs.

AYMAN ELGAMMAL (Egypt) said the work of UNCTAD for Africa and development programmes was important, because it was the only body in the United Nations responsible for international trade and the host of related United Nations concerns. It had been established in 1964 to become the United Nations body for trade policy to be adopted by the Assembly. Thus it was the only United Nations branch that could deal with trade and development.

It was the only United Nations body chaired by a secretary-general, as a consequence of importance given to it by the Assembly since its creation, he said. The resources proposed were not commensurate with the importance of its work. Reductions in its budget, beginning in 1996 because of an orientation that did not serve developing countries’ interests, had had an adverse impact on UNCTAD's capacity to fulfil its mandate.

Egypt asked that the resources for it be revitalized, he said.

HAILE SELASSIE GETACHEW (Ethiopia) stressed that UNCTAD was the focal point for monitoring the programme of action for LDCs. The small increase proposed was inadequate, in the light of the services it was expected to provide for developing countries. He concurred with the ACABQ statement that it was not convinced that the Office of the Special Coordinator was adequately equipped to address the impending conferences and preparatory processes.

Sub-programme 5, on least developed, landlocked and small island countries, was highly important, he said. He agreed with the ACABQ that, compared with its workload, this sub-programme’s resources were unrealistic.

He asked that the level of resources requested for consultancies for UNCTAD be seen in the context of its high vacancy rate.

SUN MINQIN (China) said UNCTAD’s work was very important, as it was the only focal point for an integrated treatment of development and the interrelated areas. After the reforms, it had a demonstrated special advantage in policy analysis and several other areas. It also had an important role in promoting partnership, and in promoting trade. China fully agreed with the Committee for Programme and Coordination recommendation for this section, and hoped plenty of resources would be provided for it.

She was concerned about the large amount of resources requested for the recruitment of experts and consultants, she said. Also, vacancy rates were high. She sought information about the high vacancy rate and the money it proposed for consultants and experts.

MAURICE MOORE (Bahamas), speaking on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), said UNCTAD had provided these States with critical work on development, trade, market access, technology and other key issues. But the level of resources it could devote to small island developing States (SIDS) was disappointing and AOSIS was concerned that this had not been rectified under this item. Work on SIDS had suffered deep cuts in the course of UNCTAD’S downsizing and this had to be reversed if it was to serve developing countries and SIDS properly. The Fifth Committee had the responsibility to provide the Office of the Special Coordinator the resources it needed to do its work for SIDS effectively.

DULCE BUERGO RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said she was concerned about the meager resources allocated to this section for the next biennium. She asked whether the programme of work for UNCTAD had been considered by the Trade and Development Board. Under the summary of requirements by component, Cuba had noted a reduction of 0.2 per cent in the programme of work for UNCTAD. In addition, she asked about expert meetings in the next biennia -- what criteria were applied to determine the number of such meetings? On travel resources under this section, why had travel costs for the Secretary-General not been included in section 1? she asked. She noted the comment of the Advisory Committee on that issue. She also noted the reduction in travel in the next biennium -– what was the reason for this?

She said there was a reduction in resources for general operating expenses and was concerned about this –- why had the reduction been proposed? she asked.

Asking what criteria had been used to allocate within the various sub- programmes, she said some of the allocations were not consistent with the mandates given to UNCTAD. She asked for information on resources for south-south cooperation. There was no information in the document on this issue and it was a fundamental objective in UNCTAD’s programme of work. On the third United Nations conference on LDCs, no additional posts were proposed and this was at odds with the medium-term plan.

MUHAMMAD YUSSUF (United Republic of Tanzania), speaking also on behalf of Kenya and Uganda, wanted to reaffirm the importance he gave to the Special Coordinator’s Office. It was grossly marginalized, he said, with 10 professional posts to deal with 90 States. All those States depended on the Office for advice. Even administrative work would overwhelm the staff, without considering the substantive work. In addition, only seven professionals were in place, and during the UNCTAD reforms, a number of non-performers had been foisted on it.

The idea of LDCs being a cross-organization subject of consideration was not working, he said. It had proved impossible to get divisions to contribute to a focus on LDCs. Ten additional posts should be created to allow for proper coordination. The Geneva-based Member States missions had reported this in their working party. However, the resources requested did not reflect their concerns.

The Office did substantive work in producing the LDCs report, he noted. The report was late because the other UNCTAD divisions had not contributed to it. All other reports prepared by UNCTAD had at least three professionals working on them, but this report had none.

The Special Coordinator’s Office was also charged with monitoring the implementation of the LDCs programme of action, he said. It was also charged with organizing the third LDCs conference, and this was a major undertaking. Last time the conference had 38 professional posts attached to it, and for the impending conference there were only 10 allocated. The Office could not carry out this task and keep up regular work. Resources and manpower beyond those the Secretary- General’s requested must be provided. The proposed resource level shown should be, at a minimum doubled.

RAMESH CHANDRA (India) said the best of intentions and goodwill for assistance to African development had not been matched by resources. In 1992, needs had been estimated at some $30 million. Those needs, for a variety of reasons, were now far greater.

African countries were net transferers of resources abroad, he said. A study produced last year had noted that sub-Saharan countries transferred four times what they spent on health care, and even then their debt was not being serviced. He noted stated improvements in coordination of activities for the new agenda, he said. However, these such improvements were pointless when donors took unilateral action. It was crucial that full ownership of activities was assured through full involvement of recipient countries. Africa had been seen by other countries as a receptacle for their own obsessions, phobias, hopes and interests. Prescriptive action must be directed at areas identified by African countries themselves. The international community must support African initiatives, and not impose its phobias and desires on these countries. Resources and staff levels for this budget section should be increased.

MATHIAS DAKA (Zambia) said the account of the status of resources for the Office of the Special Coordinator given by the representative of Tanzania made the required actions obvious. Given the workload of sub-programme 5, resources, particularly human resources, must be added. Staff must be increased as a matter of urgency.

WARREN SACH, Director of the Budget Division, said the resource level in this section represented 0.4 per cent real growth –- slightly above the average for the budget as a whole. The Secretariat was working with an overall budget proposal that set almost the same level of real resources as the current biennium. He acknowledged that there was strong feeling that some sub-programmes were not receiving their due.

He said there were no post reductions as such for the section as a whole, but there were continuing problems with high vacancy rates in the professional category and above. The Secretariat was not using consultants and experts to make up for this –- they were a short term solution and could not make good high vacancy levels. Savings made in 1996-1997 had been not fully utilized, he said. These were the subject of a separate report made available, he thought, on 8 November. This was an unusual arrangement agreed to by the General Assembly to provide for the special needs of UNCTAD.

As for the inclusion of the item on the travel of the Secretary-General to the forthcoming UNCTAD conference, this was an arrangement used in a number of other areas, he said. The conference on restrictive business practices was being held in September 2000 and the UNCTAD Secretariat would make the arrangements; this was fully consistent with the decision taken by the trade and development board.

On arrangements for UNCTAD X in Bangkok, Mr. Sach said the meeting was to be held using resources provided by the government of Thailand and United Nations conference centres. There was a need to use resources from both sources. Host Government agreement was currently under finalization.

On the breakdown of programme support funds, he said there was a need to be careful with any comparison of programme support tables across different sections of the budget. The UNCTAD’s tables included things that other tables did not. The breakdown of the intergovernmental aspect and programme support required a degree of judgement in assigning staff, he added. This was not necessarily the easiest calculation to do.

Ms. BUERGO RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said, in a follow-up comment, that she was not clear about the justification given for inclusion of the Secretary-General’s travel costs. Special arrangements for the conference could have been included under section 1 as was the case with other meetings. She was not clear either on certain details related to restrictive practices regarding the conference. Cuba was not satisfied with the answer.

On the savings achieved in UNCTAD, she hoped the forthcoming report could be considered in the context of the Committee’s review of this section of the budget.

She asked for additional information on the conference on LDCs. The medium- term plan provided for sufficient resources for the activities of these countries and Cuba did not see any specific reference to the resources that would be used to follow up these activities. Could the Secretariat state what the related resources were, she asked.

She was concerned over criteria for the redistribution of posts and asked that further clarification on this be provided in writing, she said. On South- South issues, LDCs and landlocked States, resources were duly identified for activities during this biennium. She also referred to the decline in the travel costs in the next biennium –- perhaps Mr. Sach would go into greater depth later on, she said. She also asked him to elaborate on measures taken to resolve the issue of the high vacancy rate.

The Chairman of the Committee for Programme and Coordination, TOMMO MONTHE, then introduced that body’s comments on the resources proposed for the International Trade Centre UNCTAD/WTO. He said his Committee had difficulties considering the proposals related to this Centre. It was not in a position to properly consider the narrative because the Centre’s administrative arrangements were under consideration by the General Assembly.

DJAMEL MOKTEFI (Algeria) said the Centre was important to developing countries. He noted that the ACABQ had made comments on the proposal, thus the procedure had not been fully followed. He sought the Secretariat’s explanation of this.

FLAVIO DEMICO SOARES (Brazil) endorsed the request of Algeria. This was an important Centre, and he was concerned at the modest increase of 1.4 per cent proposed. This programme must be provided with adequate resources.

Ms. BUERGO RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said she also took note of the Committee for Programme and Coordination’s statement on the difficulties it had in considering this section. The situation was regrettable. She asked what difficulties had arisen.

She noted that the ACABQ had considered this section, she said. She also noted that the proposals were not based on the budget outline previously approved by the Assembly, but pre-dated the outline. Cuba believed that the Organizations’ activities in the area of trade were especially important, and this part of the budget proposal was clearly relevant to this priority.

Mr. SACH, Director of the Budget Division, then answered questions. The arrangements between the WTO and the United Nations on the Centre were new. The WTO was now clearly interested in fully exercising its rights as a half-parent of the Centre. Previously, the United Nations had led on the Centre, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade had followed.

The arrangements had involved a sequence of reviews; however, the tight budget preparation timetable had meant it was not possible to secure agreement with the WTO before initial budget proposals were prepared. Thus, the request for this Centre was for a maintenance base budget; a reservation of funds pending the conclusion of negotiations with the WTO.

Subsequently, agreement with the WTO on the outline which could be used for the detailed budget had been secured in May, he said, by which time the ACABQ review of the budget had been three-quarters completed.

Work had then begun on a detailed budget proposal for one year, 2000, as the WTO used annual budgets, he explained. Substantial agreement had been reached on this thus far, but there were one or two areas where no agreement had yet been reached. He expected this to be resolved within a few days, and then a detailed proposal would be made in the normal format. Until this was available, he suggested there was little use in considering this matter further, and perhaps the Fifth Committee could decide to return to it then.

Mr. MOKTEFI (Algeria) said that he deplored the situation the Committee was now faced with. When the proposal to conclude new administrative arrangements with the WTO over the Centre had been made, Member States were given assurances that there would be no problems as a result of the changes, and it was under that understanding that Algeria had supported the Assembly decision. The new document must be submitted to the Fifth Committee as soon as possible and the current difficulties must be settled as quickly as possible.

Ms. BUERGO RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) asked what the Secretariat already knew about when the new proposal would be received by the Assembly. She supported the representative of Algeria’s comments, she added.

Mr. SACH, Director of the Budget Division, said the new budget proposal was 99 and a half per cent complete, but one or two little things regarding post levels were outstanding. The new proposals should be available by approximately 15 November.

The Acting Chairman, AHMED DARWISH (Egypt), then proposed the suspension of discussion of this matter, pending submission of new documents, and the Committee so decided.

The Chairman of the CPC, TOMMY MONTHE, said, under section 12, that the Secretary-General had now prepared the new narrative, but unfortunately the Committee did not have the views of the CPC. He invited the Fifth Committee to carefully consider whether the narrative was consistent with the rules and regulations governing programme planning and other relevant decisions of the legislative bodies. It would be a good idea to employ these standards to evaluate the new text that was now before the Committee.

GARFIELD BARNWELL (Guyana), speaking on behalf of the "Group of 77" developing countries and China, said the Group reaffirmed the Nairobi declaration and expressed its support for the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) as the principal institution within the UN system in the field of the environment and for its location in Nairobi.

He said the Group wished to reiterate the need for adequate resources for the ongoing revitalization of the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat) in Nairobi. The Group was concerned about inadequate funding for UNEP and Habitat at a time when budgetary resources were declining. The Group noted that the issue of rural settlements had not received adequate consideration and that this should now be addressed.

P.R.O. OWADE (Kenya) stated his support for the statement of the representative of Tanzania expressing disappointment with the budget element on Nairobi. There had been an appeal for substantial increase for the office for 2000-2001.

On the UNEP budget, he stressed the need to ensure predictability, stability and adequacy of funding to enable the agency to carry out its mandate. He was encouraged that UNEP was intensifying some of its activities. He welcomed the new area on policy implementation. It was vitally important that UNEP coordinate responses to environmental emergencies. He was concerned that regional directors of UNEP had been downgraded to reduce top-heaviness. Why did that argument not apply to other areas, such as human rights? he asked.

He agreed with the Advisory Committee that UNEP must have its fair share of reimbursement from convention secretariats. The amount of Habitat’s resources that came from extra-budgetary resources was a cause for concern; it was making it difficult for Habitat to execute all its programmes in a fair and equitable manner. He commended Habitat for reforms undertaken so far.

MR. NEE (United States) said he supported the work and strengthening of UNEP. The United States generally approved of the new executive director’s direction and the changes he had proposed to the UNEP governing council. The UNEP should focus on core tasks of monitoring and assessment, and providing support for the negotiations on chemical issues.

On the question of mobilization of international responses to environmental emergencies in the narrative, he said some reference should have been made to its acting in concert with other relevant agencies. The UNEP did not have a mandate itself to perform this task.

Where urban management was mentioned in the narrative, he said reference should be made to the work of the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat), to ensure there was no duplication of action.

Regarding the section, the United States was generally satisfied, he said. However, he sought an explanation for the surge in funding requested for consultants and experts, from some $333,000 in 1996-1997 to more than $700,000 in the current proposal.

He also noted a reference to a report on new and additional resources needed to implement the Habitat agenda, he said. This report had not been mandated. The United States had no problem with this information being reported as part of the comprehensive document being prepared for the Assembly’s special session, but it should not be prepared as a separate report.

Mr. KONDO (Japan) welcomed the reformulated fascicle for environment prepared on the basis of the recommendations of the Committee for Programme and Coordination. He agreed with the ACABQ’s comments on transparent presentation of the actions of governing bodies of the various conventions.

He was also concerned about the top-heavy structure of posts, he said. He sought clarification of a problem identified by the ACABQ on the appointment and promotion process. The restructuring should be in line with the report.

He questioned the need to create a new post of spokesman for this programme, he said. Japan would be happy to see more consolidation in Nairobi of public information activities.

Regarding section 13, Japan believed that this was an important area, particularly given the Habitat 2 and Istanbul 5 conferences, he said. He called for clear identification of programme support charges and for the monitoring of administration and management costs.

NESTOR ODAGA-JALAMAYO (Uganda) agreed with the CPC views on this section and he supported their recommendations. He associated his delegation with the comments made by the representatives of Kenya and Guyana.

He believed the environment budget proposal was not transparent or streamlined, he said. Given the terms used, it was difficult to assess the adequacy of management and administration costs of the unit. Reasons given for changes in resource levels and staffing levels were not adequate. The section should have enabled the Committee to understand what was proposed and what could be accomplished within the requested resources.

The dependence on extrabudgetary funding indicated in the proposal was a cause for concern, he said, as these were unreliable and unpredictable sources of funding. Projected expenditures should be based on reliable and stable predictable funding.

He underlined the importance of the Nairobi Declaration on the mandate of this programme, and UNEP’s important role as the United Nations principle environmental body.

He asked for an explanation of how the new responsibilities of the United Nations Office in Nairobi for elements of UNEP and other Nairobi-based agencies would be reflected in the budget. Uganda hoped that with the change would come urgent action to ensure the recruitment process was not made cumbersome, thereby delaying appointments to the Programme.

Mr. SIAL (Pakistan) said that during the Fifth Committee’s general discussion on the budget proposal he had said there was a need to ensure that action was only taken on recommendations of oversight bodies that had been approved by the Assembly. Reference was made in the proposal on the implementation of Office of Internal Oversight recommendations that had not been approved by Assembly. He asked on what basis these recommendations were being implemented and where any costs associated with them were reflected in the budget proposal.

The Assistant Secretary-General for Programme Planning, Budget and Accounts and United Nations Controller, JEAN-PIERRE HALBWACHS, then replied to Member States’ questions. On the distribution of resources for UNEP between extra- budgetary and regular sources, and the emphasis on extra-budgetary funding, he explained that this was a consequence of an Assembly decision taken when it created UNEP and the related Fund in 1972. The Assembly had decided that the regular budget would pay for conference services and for a small secretariat for coordination for UNEP, and that the Fund would pay for the programme of work.

On the authority given to the United Nations Nairobi Office to provide services, he said the Convention was paying for the services provided to it, and this was reflected as extrabudgetary funds in the section related to funding for the Nairobi Office.

As to increased requests for resources for consultants and experts for Habitat, he explained that these were required for the special Assembly session to be held in 2001. The resources would be needed for ad hoc expert panels for this session.

In response to comments about the reinforcement of the Nairobi Office, he said the reinforcement would be better considered in the budget section relevant to the Nairobi Office, where resources for this strengthening had, in fact, been requested.

* *** *