FIFTH COMMITTEE DISCUSSES SIERRA LEONE PEACEKEEPING FINANCE, APPROVES TEXT CALLING FOR $4.56 MILLION FOR ANGOLA OFFICE

Press Release
GA/AB/3369

FIFTH COMMITTEE DISCUSSES SIERRA LEONE PEACEKEEPING FINANCE, APPROVES TEXT CALLING FOR $4.56 MILLION FOR ANGOLA OFFICE

There should be no more procrastination in giving the United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL) what it required to do its job, the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) was told this morning, as it took up the financing of that Mission and its predecessor, the United Nations Observer Mission in Sierra Leone (UNOMSIL).

The current situation in Sierra Leone occurred in part because the mandate of the United Nations Mission there was not adequate, the representative of Kenya, speaking also on behalf of Uganda and the United Republic of Tanzania, told the Committee. The mandate should be more robust, forces should be speedily deployed, and equipment and material to enable the mission to do its job should be provided as a matter of urgency. The Sierra Leone situation and the deployment of the Mission should provide lessons on how to proceed in the future with establishing peacekeeping operations.

Nigeria’s representative said his country was paying the price in resources and material for participation in the search for a solution to Sierra Leone’s problem. Every effort should be made to address this situation as quickly as possible.

Also this morning, the Committee approved a draft by which the General Assembly would decide to approve some $4.56 million for the extension of the mandate of the United Nations activities in Angola. Those funds would come from the allocation for special political missions in the United Nations budget. The draft, which was introduced by the Committee’s Chairman, Penny Wensley (Australia), was approved without a vote.

Funding of participation of representatives of least developed countries and others in the Third United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries, as well as the high-level intergovernmental meeting on funding for development, was also discussed. Member States questioned the cost of such participation, and the mode of funding the Secretary-General had proposed.

The representatives of Morocco, Cuba, Uganda, Canada, Nigeria (on behalf of the "Group of 77" developing countries and China), Bangladesh, United States, Libya, Portugal (on behalf of the European Union), Syria and the United Republic of Tanzania spoke. C.S.M. Mselle, Chairman of the Advisory Committee on

Fifth Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/AB/3369 63rd Meeting (AM) 11 May 2000

Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ), introduced his Committee's reports. The United Nations Controller, Jean-Pierre Halbwachs, introduced the Secretary-General’s reports; and the Director of the Programme Planning and Budget Division, Warren Sach, answered Member States’ questions.

The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. Monday, 15 May, when it will examine the financial reports of United Nations peacekeeping operations, reports of the Office of Internal Oversight Services, human resources management issues, and internal control standards.

Fifth Committee - 3 - Press Release GA/AB/3369 63rd Meeting (AM) 11 May 2000

Committee Work Programme

The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) met this morning to consider the financing of the United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL) and its predecessor, the United Nations Observer Mission in Sierra Leone (UNOMSIL). It was expected to consider the financing of the United Nations Office in Angola (UNOA), as well. The Committee was also scheduled to begin discussion on the programme budget implications of a draft resolution before the General Assembly on the high-level intergovernmental event on financing for development and the Third United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries.

The Committee had before it the Secretary-General's financial performance report for the UNOMSIL (document A/54/778) for 13 July 1998 to 30 June 1999. Of the $22 million the General Assembly appropriated for the Mission, some $16.2 million has been assessed. Expenditures for the period totalled about $12.9 million gross (some $12.4 million net) leaving an unspent balance of some $9.12 million gross (about $8.9 million net). The unspent balance of appropriations amounted to some $3.3 million gross.

The Secretary-General explains that the reduced expenditure was largely the result of the outbreak of hostilities in Freetown in December 1998 and early January 1999, which led to the evacuation of UNOMSIL staff to Conakry and to the subsequent downsizing of the Mission's military and civilian component . The Secretary-General recommends the Assembly revise the appropriation for UNOMSIL from the $22 million to the $16.2 million actually assessed, and decide what it wants done with the unencumbered balance.

Also before the Committee was the Secretary-General's report on financing of the UNAMSIL (document A/54/820). In February, the Security Council revised the mandate of the Sierra Leone Mission and expanded it to a maximum of 11,000 personnel. The report contains the revised budget for the operation of UNAMSIL from 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000, as well as the proposed budget for the 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001.

The Mission's expansion is reflected in the revised 1999-2000 budget, which amounts to some $265.8 million gross (about $264.4 million net) -- an increase of some 33 per cent or $65.8 million gross over the already appropriated resources. Military personnel costs account for some 55 per cent of resources, while civilian personnel costs accounts for 6 per cent. Operational costs account for 38 per cent and staff assessment for 1 per cent. Other programmes comprise less than 1 per cent of the total.

The Secretary-General's proposed budget for 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001 amounts to some $476.72 million gross (about $472.96 million net). Military personnel costs account for 74 per cent of that amount, while 7 per cent of the resources are allocated for civilian personnel costs. Operational costs will account for 18 per cent of the budget. The remaining 1 per cent of the budget is for staff assessment and other programmes.

The Secretary-General asks the Assembly to appropriate the additional amount of some $65.8 million gross for UNAMSIL for 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000. He also asks the Assembly to appropriate some $476.72 million gross ($472.96 million net) for the Mission for 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001. He asks that the Assembly assess the amount of some $47.7 million gross for 1 July to 6 August 2000. In addition, he asks the Assembly to assess some $429.1 million for 7 August 2000 to 30 June 2001, at a monthly rate of $39.72 million gross ($39.41 million net).

In a related report of the ACABQ (document A/54/858), that body concurs with the Secretary-General's recommendation to reduce the appropriation for UNOMSIL for July 1998 to June 1999 from $22 million gross to $16.2 million gross, which corresponds to the amount actually assessed on Member States. The Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) also recommends that the unspent balance of $2.9 million gross be returned to Member States.

The report explains that the revised budget figure for UNAMSIL for 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000, and the proposed budget for 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001, were mainly due to the almost two-fold expansion of the military component of the Mission. With regard to civilian personnel, the request for an increase of 48 support staff was modest, the ACABQ noted, given the near doubling of military personnel. It welcomes efforts by the Mission to keep support staff increases to a minimum. Cost-effectiveness must be monitored, however, in light of the Mission's operational needs. Given the importance of effective coordination amongst the various entities in the Mission area, the ACABQ requests that a monitoring and evaluation programme be put in place to ensure successful completion of the Mission's disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programme.

Finally, the ACABQ recommends that the Committee approve the Secretary- General's request for the appropriation and assessment of an additional $65.8 million gross for 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000. The Committee also recommends approval of the appropriation and assessment of some $476.73 million gross ($472.96 million net) for the following year.

The Committee also had before it a report of the Secretary-General on estimates in respect of matters of which the Security Council is seized (document A/C.5/54/53). It is submitted in the context of actions taken by the Security Council regarding good offices, preventive diplomacy and post-conflict peace- building missions on the basis of requests from governments and/or recommendations by the Secretary-General. It explains that the General Assembly approved some $90.4 million for special political missions for 2000-2001. Of that amount, some $61.51 million had been utilized, leaving an unallocated balance of about $28.9 million.

Additional resources for the extension of the mandate of UNOA, the report continues, amount to some $3.85 million to be charged against the provision of the $90.4 million approved by the Assembly for special political missions. As a result, the total charges against the provision for special political missions amount to some $65.4 million, leaving an uncommitted balance of $25.02 million.

Before the Committee is another report of the Secretary-General on estimates in respect of matters of which the Security Council is seized (document A/C.5/54/57). This report contains proposed requirements for a monitoring mechanism composed of up to five experts authorized by the Security Council in resolution 1295 (2000) of 18 April. The estimated requirements of some $710,600 would be charged against the provision of the $90.4 million for special political missions.

The Secretary-General suggests that the Assembly approve the charge of some $3.85 million for UNOA. The total charge against the provision for special political missions would amount to some $66.1 million, leaving an unspent balance of about $24.31 million.

The Committee also had before it a note by the Secretary-General on the review of resource requirements for the high-level international intergovernmental event on financing for development and the Third United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries (document A/C.5/54/58). The resources needed to cover the activities of the Preparatory Committee of the high-level event would amount to some $154,500. That amount includes the travel and daily subsistence allowance of the participants in consultations of the Bureau with intergovernmental and other stakeholders. Regarding the Third United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries, the participation of two government representatives from each least developed country in the meetings of the Preparatory Committee and the Conference itself would cost approximately $1.2 million and $500,500 respectively.

The note explains that the Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) has sent a note verbale to States members of UNCTAD inviting them to consider providing voluntary contributions to enable representatives from least developed countries to participate in both the Preparatory Committee and the Conference. To date, no contribution has been received by the Secretariat in response to that invitation.

A review of existing extrabudgetary resources that could be used for the payment of travel costs of representatives of least developed countries showed that $113,000 was available in the Trust Fund for the Participation of Least Developed Countries in Intergovernmental Meetings. That Trust Fund was established in 1995 to finance the participation of representatives of least developed countries in the High-level Intergovernmental Meeting on the Mid-term Global Review of the Implementation of the Programme of Action for the Least Developed Countries for the 1990s.

In that connection, the Secretary-General recommends that the Assembly approve the use of the $113,000 available from the Trust Fund to provide a portion of the required $582,000. Some $469,000 would still be needed, however, to enable two delegates of each least developed country to participate in the first session of the Preparatory Committee in July 2000.

In the event that no voluntary contributions are received by the Secretariat before the first session of the Preparatory Committee, the Secretary-General recommends that the General Assembly approve an alternate source of funding. He suggests using -- on an exceptional basis -- the savings on exchange rates achieved since the beginning of the year 2000 in respect of the regular budget appropriation for UNCTAD. An estimated $700,000 in savings would have been generated by the exchange rate changes by the end of May 2000. Pending approval of his suggestion, the Secretary-General would report to the Assembly on the resources utilized for the Preparatory Committee in the first performance report.

Also before the Committee was the programme budget implications of the draft resolution on preparations for the substantive preparatory process and high-level event (document A/C.5/54/59). If the Assembly adopts the draft resolution, an additional amount of some $154,500 would arise under the programme budget for 2000- 2001. The Secretary-General proposes that the Assembly authorize him to incur related expenditures of up to $154,500 and report to the Assembly on the actual requirements for implementing the requests contained in the draft resolution. If at that time additional resources were needed, the contingency fund would be used to meet those requirements.

Commenting on projected resource requirements for the least developed countries conference, the ACABQ (document A/54/7/Add.14) states that even if $113,000 from the Trust Fund is made available, $469,000 will still be required to defray government participation costs. Warning that the Secretary-General’s proposal to use gains from currency fluctuations was inadvisable, the ACABQ states that the Secretary-General should have requested a commitment authority for that $469,000. The ACABQ agrees with the Secretary-General’s proposal to draw the Assembly’s attention to the requirements for the second Preparatory Committee and the Conference.

On the high-level event on financing for development, in the same report, the ACABQ expresses concern about establishing a precedent through the call in the draft to facilitate the travel of Bureau members to take part in the consultations with major stakeholders. It believes the Secretariat should have explored the possibility of conducting consultations with intergovernmental stakeholders through video-conferencing, thus, saving $119,400, a practice that should be followed in future. The estimate is based on all 15 Bureau members seeking reimbursement, so savings could occur if that did not happen.

It recommends that the Fifth Committee inform the Assembly that adoption of the draft resolution would result in additional requirements of up to $154,500.

Statements

JEAN-PIERRE HALBWACHS, Controller, introduced the Secretary-General’s reports for the United Nations Observer Mission in Sierra Leone (UNOMSIL) and the United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL). In view of the Secretary-General’s statement that UNAMSIL had to be brought up to strength as soon as possible, the revised amount for UNAMSIL remained necessary and was, indeed, required to replace equipment and vehicles possibly lost because of hostilities. Should there be further developments later on, the Controller would come back at that point to that Committee if in session, or to the Advisory Committee.

C.S.M. MSELLE, Chairman of the ACABQ, said that the Advisory Committee had accepted without change the proposals of the Secretary-General both for the period ending 30 June 2000 and for the period starting July 2000 and ending June 2001. The ACABQ had not changed the Secretary-General's proposals, which was justified by the developments that had taken place in Sierra Leone after the Committee had prepared its own reports. The acceptance of those proposals were subject to observations the Committee had made in its report.

ABDESALAM MEDINA (Morocco), speaking on behalf of the African Group, commended efforts made to find solutions to the conflict in Sierra Leone, and regretted the hostage-taking and the loss of life. He hoped that such an incident was not replicated elsewhere and that it did not discourage Member States from taking part in peacekeeping operations. The Group hoped that the current situation would be resolved in the spirit of the existing agreements, and that UNAMSIL would reach its mandated strength in the time frame originally envisaged.

THOMAS B. AMOLO (Kenya), speaking also on behalf of Uganda and the United Republic of Tanzania, said he believed very strongly in the United Nations peacekeeping role in Africa, and in the world in general. He expressed deep and growing concern about the dangerous situation in Sierra Leone, not only for the people of that country, but also for the peacekeepers. Kenya’s involvement in the peacekeeping mission there had resulted in loss of life. The situation had arisen because of many factors, including that UNAMSIL’s mandate was not entirely adequate. He supported the recent proposals form the summit of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), including that the mandate of UNAMSIL be reviewed to make it a more robust operation, that UNAMSIL forces be speedily deployed, that the mandated number of those forces be increased, and that there be speedy provision of equipment and material to enable the Mission to do its job.

The Sierra Leone situation and the deployment of the Mission should provide lessons on how to proceed in the future with establishing peacekeeping operations, he said. He stressed the need for equal treatment in the establishment and financing of all peacekeeping missions. The Department of Peacekeeping Operations had made sterling efforts in trying to put together the peacekeeping operation. The role of the Security Council in Sierra Leone should be more robust. There should be no more procrastination in giving UNAMSIL what it needed to do its job, and today’s discussion should provide a clear way forward on the question of how to finance the Mission.

HASSAN MOHAMMED HASSAN (Nigeria) said he agreed with statement by his African colleagues. Everyone knew how Nigeria was paying the price in resources and material for its efforts to participate finding a solution to the problem in Sierra Leone, and every effort should be made to address the situation as quickly as possible.

The Committee then concluded its general discussion on these items and turned its attention to consideration of estimates in respect of matters on which the Security Council was seized, in particular, the financing of the United Nations Office in Angola (UNOA) and the monitoring mechanisms there.

Mr. MSELLE, Chairman of the ACABQ, said that the Security Council had authorized the establishment of UNOA for an initial period of six months until 15 April 2000. The Assembly had approved a provision in the programme budget for the biennium 2000-2001 of $2.03 million for UNOA for the period from 1 January to 15 April 2000. The Security Council endorsed the decision of the Secretary-General to extend the mandate of UNOA for a period of six months until 15 October 2000. The ACABQ noted that the total cost of the extension of the mandate of UNOA from 16 April to 15 October 2000 was estimated at $4.43 million to be partly offset by savings of $588,100 from the appropriation of the prior mandate period.

Regarding staff resources, the Committee recalled paragraph 2 of Security Council resolution 1268 (1999) in which the Council decided that UNOA would consist of up to 30 substantive Professional staff. The Committee noted that it was the function of the Assembly, upon recommendation of the Fifth Committee, to establish the level of resources, including staff, for activities of the Organization.

Turning to monitoring mechanisms, the Committee noted that the Security Council had established an independent panel of experts to investigate violations of the measures imposed against the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA), he said. The final report of the panel was submitted to the Security Council on 10 March 2000. The Council had requested the Secretary-General to establish a monitoring mechanism composed of up to five experts to collect relevant information and investigate relevant leads relating to any allegations of violations of measures in Council resolutions, including any relevant leads initiated by the panel of experts. The Secretary-General reported that the requirements of the monitoring mechanism comprising five experts for six months were estimated at $710,600. The ACABQ recommended that the General Assembly approve that charge against the provision of $90.39 million for special political missions in the 2000-2001 programme budget.

DULCE MARIA BUERGO RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) supported the ACABQ recommendations. She repeated Cuba’s concern at the role of the Assembly in examining activities financed from the regular budget, but mandated by the Security Council -- a matter she trusted the Assembly would find time to look into. The Assembly should be more active in implementing and approving those mandates. She would be interested to hear how much of the total resources spent under the special political missions section of the budget (section 3) related to mandates from each body.

WARREN SACH, Director, Programme Planning and Budget Division, said the figures given by the ACABQ Chairman for expenditure on special political missions were for both Assembly- and Council-mandated activities. He would provide a breakdown as soon as possible.

NESTER ODAGA-JALOMAYO (Uganda) said he shared the ACABQ concerns about other legislative bodies’ interventions on resourcing mandated activities, a matter which was properly the mandate of the Fifth Committee. In addition, he sought information on the scope of the accommodation provided free to the United Nations by the Angolan Government, and specifically whether it would be adequate if an expanded mandate for United Nations activities was established.

Mr. SACH explained that, currently, one quarter of the accommodations made available by the Government of Angola were currently occupied and, thus, some capacity was still available should the mandate be expanded. There were limits to that capacity, however, and its sufficiency would depend on the nature of any expanded mandate. If the mandate was expanded. the Fifth Committee would be approached regarding any increase in required resources. The reduction in per diem paid to staff would apply as long as there was sufficient free accommodation. Should the physical capacity be reached, the United Nations would have to increase the per diem for staff not accommodated. However, given the current mandate, the current per diem of $72 would apply.

Of the $66 million encumbered against the special political provisions in the regular budget, some $41.6 million related to activities mandated by the General Assembly and some $24.43 million related to Security Council-mandated activities, he explained in response to the question from Cuba’s representative.

The Chairman, PENNY WENSLEY (Australia), then drew the Committee’s attention to a draft decision circulated to Member States.

The Committee Secretary, JOSEPH ACAKPO-SATCHIVI, read the decision to the Committee.

By its terms, the Assembly would note the Secretary-General’s reports and the related observations and recommendations of the ACABQ on matters on which the Security Council was seized. It would approve the charge of some $4.56 million for the extension of the mandate of UNOA and the monitoring mechanism, against the provisions for special political missions in the 2000-2001 budget. It would note that, following this decision, some $66.07 million of those provisions had been used, leaving some $24.31 million of the original $90.39 million.

JOHN ORR (Canada) sought clarification of the title of the monitoring mechanism, to ensure that the decision meant the money was going to the right place.

The Committee SECRETARY said that the title of the monitoring mechanism should be as Canada’s representative had said, “the monitoring mechanism on violations of the measures in Security Council resolution 864 (1993)”.

Mr. ODAGA-JALOMAYO (Uganda) asked for clarification on whether the statement by the ACABQ Chairman would be issued as an official document. If it was to be issued, he proposed the Committee endorse the ACABQ’s recommendations and observations and call for their implementation in the draft decision, rather than simply note them.

Ms. BUERGO RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) also asked for clarification on whether the ACABQ comments would be issued as a formal document.

The Chairman, Ms. WENSLEY (Australia), said the ACABQ statement would be formally circulated and asked if the Committee accepted the changes proposed by the representative of Uganda.

The ACABQ Chairman, Mr. MSELLE, suggested that instead of calling on relevant bodies to implement the observations and recommendations, the decision should ask the Secretary-General to draw them to the attention of the President of the Security Council.

The Committee then approved the draft decision, with the modifications suggested by Uganda’s representative and modified in line with the Chairman of the ACABQ’s suggestion.

Mr. MSELLE, Chairman of the ACABQ, introduced the report of that body on a review of the resource requirements for the high-level event for the financing for development and the Third United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries. Commenting first on paragraphs 2 to 7, concerning the least developed countries, he said the preparatory activities and the Conference itself would lead to the need for $1,164,500 and $500,000, respectively, to implement the previous decisions of the General Assembly as recommended by the Second Committee (Economic and Financial). At the first part of the fifty-fourth session, the Secretary- General had reported that requirements for travel of two governmental representatives and also for the first part of the preparatory programme would amount to $582,000. $113,000 had been identified from a trust fund as referred to in paragraph 3 of the ACABQ report. There remained a balance of $469,000 which the Secretary-General intended to handle as indicated in paragraph 4 of the report. The ACABQ had expressed some reservations on the procedure outlined by the Secretary-General, as noted in paragraph 5 of that report. With respect to the balance, the second session of the preparatory process and the Conference itself, the Secretary-General intended to report at the fifty-fifth session of the Assembly. The ACABQ agreed with that.

The next part of the report, paragraphs 8 to 16, dealt with the requirements related to the high-level intergovernmental event on financing for development, he said. The Committee had had a lively discussion on that item. Its observations were indicated in the relevant paragraphs, some of which were in bold. The ACABQ had taken some exception of the treatment of the $154,500, and the Committee was indicating that that amount should be subject to the procedures for the use and operation of the contingency fund. The Committee had made a number of observations regarding the payment of travel for the Bureau members. Those observations were contained in paragraphs 10, 11 and 12.

Mr. HASSAN (Nigeria), speaking on behalf of the "Group of 77" developing countries and China, attached the greatest importance to the high-level event and felt that the resources needed for both events should be provided on the basis of the current budgetary procedures. The Secretary-General’s proposal to use the regular budget for financing of activities in paragraph 7 of the draft resolution was fully in line with the letter and spirit of such a resolution. The Group endorsed the ACABQ report. The proposal contained in paragraph 7 of the document of the programme budget implications for the preparatory process and the event was not consistent with two General Assembly resolutions.

On the Third United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries, the Group concurred with the Secretary-General’s recommendation to use the balance of $113,000 available in the Trust Fund for the participation of least developed countries. The Group further noted with concern the proposal to use savings on exchange rates from UNCTAD to enable two representatives from each least developed country to participate in the first session. Such a proposal was a serious distortion of the budgetary process, and the Group disagreed with such a proposal. The Group proposed that the requirement of $469,000 as identified in the Secretary- General’s report should be subject to the procedures of the contingency fund. Extrabudgetary resources should have been made available. The Group requested the Secretary-General to make additional efforts and then to report to the General Assembly. The bureau of the Preparatory Committee should, accordingly, be informed. The Fifth Committee was the main committee responsible for budgetary matters.

M. RIAZ HAMIDULLAH (Bangladesh) said that his country associated itself with the statement of the representative of Nigeria. The Third United Nations Conference was an important meeting. Bangladesh had been keen to see that sufficient resources were provided. His country was dismayed at the way sufficient financing of least developed countries had been kept undecided, when the first meeting was just two months away. When the resource situation was reviewed in March, no voluntary contributions were forthcoming. The Fifth Committee had been consciously bypassed in making a decision.

The significance of the Conference and preparatory process needed little reiteration. The participation of experts remained crucial. That would allow the Conference to accurately reflect on the real situation in developing countries. To ensure the participation of two experts, necessary resources were needed on a secure basis. He had taken note of the Secretary-General’s report, which clearly pointed to the inadequacy of extrabudgetary resources. The $469,000 was needed. The Secretary-General had proposed meeting that amount by utilizing savings on exchange rates. How much would be available from the contingency fund to facilitate participation of representatives to the meetings? he asked.

Ms. BUERGO RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said that she shared the reservation expressed by Nigeria on behalf of the Group of 77. Cuba attached special importance to the holding of the events mentioned in the Secretary-General’s report. It believed that the Fifth Committee should take a specific decision to safeguard the availability of all necessary resources to guarantee participation of representatives in the meetings. The proposals to fund the meeting were very far from established budgetary procedures. The statement of the Group of 77 expanded upon the position of Cuba. Cuba would like the Secretariat to explain the justification of such proposals, which had departed from established norms. There was a trend to avoid funding activities that required additional resources from the regular budget. Correctional measures should be taken.

She asked for the current amount in the reserve fund as that information would be useful for the General Assembly in taking a decision. She drew attention to the recommendation of the ACABQ in paragraph 5. There was a need to approve additional resources for the Conference and also the high-level meeting. She pointed out the comments made by the ACABQ in paragraph 10. In no case should that become a precedent for the use of resources from the regular budget to achieve the objectives in the draft resolution.

THOMAS REPASCH (United States) said the events under consideration were important, but he sought some information on both the report and the ACABQ comments, which could be provided either in the formal meeting or in informal consultations. Regarding the reference to resources for participation of least developed countries’ representatives, he sought more detail on the determination of the amount required. Regarding the ACABQ comment that the Secretariat had not replied to a question about the use of resources from the contingency fund for those purposes, he asked for an explanation of what had happened. Before he could make a decision on that matter, he needed to explore more fully the issues raised by the proposal and the ACABQ comments, he concluded.

Mr. ORR (Canada) said he supported the conferences, but found the documents confusing. There was very little information on why there had been no provision in the budget for some of the elements, for which resources were now sought, when the Conference was approved. He asked what provision had been made for the absorption of those costs, and sought a time-line on the activities themselves. Every time the Fifth Committee met, it faced another request for money. He thought that Member States had approved the United Nations budget earlier this session. While understanding that "things come up", the Conference had been discussed previously.

He agreed that the Secretary-General's proposal to use currency fluctuation savings was not appropriate, he said. He congratulated the Secretariat for thinking of inventive ways to finance such events, but that particular way "might be too inventive". Regarding the $154,000 required for the Bureau meetings and the related ACABQ comment on suspension of the provisions of Assembly resolution 17/98 (1962), he asked if the Secretariat could advise how frequently the provisions of that resolution had been waived. He asked if the resources requested for travel were intended to pay for the travel of all the members of the Bureau. The Bureau included representatives of rich developed countries, and he did not believe that representatives of developed countries should have their travel reimbursed by the United Nations.

The Budget Division Director, Mr. SACH, explained that the proposals to pay for travel for representatives of least developed countries to attend the preparatory meetings for the Third Least Developed Countries Conference, the first of which was in July, came from the Assembly's Second Committee (Economic and Financial) and Fifth Committee considerations earlier this Assembly session.

In the budget debate, some sticking points had arisen that led to decisions to put certain matters aside until the Fifth Committee's resumed session, he said. One such sticking point was the financing of the events. The Secretary-General's budget proposal had included some resources for them. A statement of budget implications had later been presented to augment resources, following resolutions on the events drafted by the Second Committee. At the time the issue of least developed country representatives' participation was discussed, some Member States had stated that such participation should not be funded from the regular budget. That possibility had, therefore, been put aside.

By Assembly resolution 54/235, drafted by the Assembly's Second Committee, the Assembly decided to defray the costs of at least two representatives from least developed countries through extrabudgetary means, and that should that prove insufficient, the Secretary-General should explore all other options, he explained.

As the Committee had previously been advised at its first resumed session, UNCTAD appealed for extrabudgetary funds and none were forthcoming, he said. In accordance with the resolution, the matter was, therefore, referred to the Fifth Committee's second resumed session. It was the last chance to solve problem before the preparatory meeting in July. Extrabudgetary funds provided for other activities had been reviewed, and some resources were located -- the $113,000 reflected in the ACABQ report.

However, a balance of $469,000 was still to be found, he said. The Secretary- General was obliged by the resolution to explore other means of funding, and so he examined existing UNCTAD appropriations seeking ways to do so. Although the procedure was unusual, given that exchange rates had been favourable for the first five months of the year and, therefore, savings had accrued, he proposed that those funds might be used. The procedure was not normal, but the resolution required that all other options be explored.

He understood the concerns that the proposal gave rise to, he said, and, therefore, understood the ACABQ recommendation that a more conservative approach be used, via the contingency fund. There was some $16.36 million available in the contingency fund and that could be drawn on, if the Assembly so decided. Regarding the ACABQ observation that it had received no reply about the use of contingency funds, he said the Secretariat had replied to the question orally, but, given the speed with which the issue was being tackled, it had not yet confirmed that answer in writing.

Turning to the high-level intergovernmental event, he explained that waivers of Assembly resolution 17/98's requirements for payment of Member States' travel were extremely rare. They had occasionally been waived for travel for the preparation and holding of major conferences, but in those cases extrabudgetary funds were made available to support the waivers. The use of budgetary funds following waivers of the provisions were even rarer. In addition, budgetary funds were used to pay for travel, but only for events that were outside the provisions of that resolution.

Ms. BUERGO RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said she was concerned at the proposal. She believed that the Secretariat should facilitate the work of the Assembly on such subjects by following established procedures. As Mr. Sach had acknowledged, the proposal was not in accord with established procedure. The amount of some $16 million was available in the contingency fund, and she wondered why use of that fund had not been proposed. She was aware that some Member States did not want regular budget funds used, but whenever the Assembly approved activities, the means to fund them should be proposed under the United Nations regular budget. If that procedure was followed, discussions like the present one would not take place.

The Chairman, Ms. WENSLEY (Australia), said it was clear there could be no decisions taken on the matters today, and the Committee Bureau would, therefore, schedule informal consultations on them.

KHALID ABDALLA (Libya) said he supported the statement made by Cuba’s representative. He thanked the Secretariat for its innovative proposals to finance the events. Both events were important, and every effort should be made to support least developed countries. He did not think that using exchange rate gains was wise. It was not really possible to determine whether currency fluctuations had resulted in gains or losses until the end of a financial period, as current gains might be eradicated by subsequent losses. It would be wiser to revert to use of the contingency fund to pay for the General Assembly decision.

Financing development had been on the agenda of the United Nations for a long time, he said, and now, for the first time, there was agreement to hold a meeting on the subject. The mechanisms of the meeting were agreed to by consensus among Member States. The arrangements would have to be supported with adequate resources, including travel for the Bureau and other stakeholders. The contingency fund could easily accommodate it.

The Chairman, Ms. WENSLEY (Australia), said consideration would continue in informal consultations.

She then advised the Committee that some documentation had been circulated by the Committee secretariat on the peacekeeping scale of assessments, in response to a request from the European Union. She had consulted with the United Nations Legal Counsel and had determined that, as the documentation had been previously issued, its distribution was legally appropriate.

EDUARDO MANUEL DA FONSECA FERNANDES RAMOS (Portugal), speaking on behalf of the European Union, thanked the Bureau for the distribution of the documentation on the peacekeeping scale.

Ms. BUERGO RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) thanked the Chairman for the information on the documentation that had been circulated. She appreciated the information on the peacekeeping scale, but did not believe that the distribution of it was timely. She thanked the Chairman for her explanations on the distribution of the documentation. It was a decision that the Bureau had not participated in at all. Because of the sensitivity of it, and the fact that it did not fall under any specific item, it was not, perhaps, the best way to introduce that information to the Committee.

ABDOU AL-MOULA NAKKARI (Syria) also thanked the Chairman for the information on the paper distributed on the budget of peacekeeping operations, in accordance with request of the European Union. Syria was of the view that, given the sensitivity of the matter at hand, the manner in which it was distributed was not appropriate. He hoped that there would be a note at the end of the paper, saying that it had been presented by the European Union. As of late, many papers had been presented that carried the United Nations logo. That had left the impression that such papers reflected the views of the Fifth Committee Bureau or the Secretariat. He hoped such matters would be very accurately reflected.

MUHAMMAD YUSSUF (United Republic of Tanzania) said that he expressed his delegations’ concern on the manner in which the distribution had been done. They had not asked for the information. Some delegates saw it as an attempt to open up discussion on that issue. Unless information was asked for, it should not be imposed upon the Committee. It was wrong, unethical, and it should not be done in the future.

* *** *