UNITED STATES CALLS FOR REVISION IN PEACEKEEPING SCALE OF ASSESSMENTS, AS FIFTH COMMITTEE TAKES UP PEACEKEEPING BUDGETS, ADMINISTRATION

Press Release
GA/AB/3371

UNITED STATES CALLS FOR REVISION IN PEACEKEEPING SCALE OF ASSESSMENTS, AS FIFTH COMMITTEE TAKES UP PEACEKEEPING BUDGETS, ADMINISTRATION

Other Speakers Stress UN Financial Problems Not Linked to Peacekeeping Scale

Peacekeeping was a collective responsibility and, unless Member States acted, it would fail, crippled by an organizational and financial system that could not support increased demands, the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) was told this morning, as it took up a number of issues under its agenda item on administrative and budgetary aspects of peacekeeping.

Part of that reform was in peacekeeping financing, the representative of the United States told the Committee. The current system of paying for missions put the United Nations in a potentially fatal financial straightjacket and was at odds with common sense and the best interest of Member States, and the principle of “capacity to pay”. All Member States must agree that reform was a priority.

The United States did not have a concrete plan for that reform, he added, but there was merit in proposals to create a new tax bracket for middle-income countries, for reviving the special responsibility of permanent Council members through a floor mechanism, for reducing dependence on a single contributor and for establishing mechanisms to allow rates to change as economic circumstances did. All those could be accomplished without sacrificing the interests of States that were unable to pay more. Whatever changes occurred, the United States would remain the Organization’s largest donor, he added.

Discussions on the peacekeeping scale must not be held under time pressure and no decision should be made until changes were comprehensively examined by all Member States, the representative of Nigeria, speaking on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China, told the Committee. Peacekeeping operations were very important and should be adequately funded, but the financial problems of the United Nations were not linked to the peacekeeping scale and could be resolved if all Member States settled their arrears and honoured their existing obligations.

The representative of New Zealand, speaking also on behalf of Canada and Australia, said that the United Nations could only discharge its responsibilities if Council members had sufficient political will to give missions the mandate and resources they required. It had sometimes delivered too little, too late -– and never more so than lately. Peacekeeping mandates must not be shaped by aversion to

Fifth Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/AB/3371 65th Meeting (AM) 16 May 2000

risk and avoidance of necessary expenses, but must reflect requirements on the ground. Financial constraints had damaged the collective responsibility for maintaining international peace and security, and that would continue as long as some members, notably the largest contributor, failed to fulfil their Charter obligations.

In 1974, the five permanent members of the Security Council were responsible for 63 per cent of the peacekeeping budget, the representative of Mexico told the Committee, but by 2000 their responsibility had dropped to 47 per cent. It was a real concern that, while the individual and collective financial responsibility of the five Council members with veto power had declined, their privileges had not diminished. Some even called for a further redistribution of their financial obligations under the peacekeeping scale, but they were not ready to give up those privileges. The principle of the special responsibility of permanent Security Council members could not be changed, and any action on the scale must reaffirm that principle.

The representatives of Portugal (on behalf of the European Union and associated states), South Africa, Cyprus, Pakistan, Japan, India, Singapore, Egypt, Senegal, Brazil, Côte d’Ivoire and Croatia also spoke.

C.S.M. Mselle, Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ), introduced that body’s comments on the Secretary- General’s reports, which were introduced by the United Nations Controller, Jean- Pierre Halbwachs. The Director of the Office of Internal Oversight Services’ Audit and Management Consultant Division, Esther Stern, introduced the Oversight Office’s report on its audit of reimbursement to troop- and equipment-contributing countries.

[The peacekeeping scale of assessments is the formula by which responsibility for the financing individual peacekeeping missions is divided among Member States. The scale determines the percentage of a peacekeeping budget each State will be charged. It was originally developed to determine responsibilities for funding the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) mission in the Middle East, and its use has been extended to cover most other missions, on an ad hoc basis. It differs from the scale used to determine responsibility for the normal (regular budget) expenses of the Organization.]

The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. Wednesday, 17 May, when it will hear from the more than 30 speakers remaining on this agenda item.

Fifth Committee - 3 - Press Release GA/AB/3371 65th Meeting (AM) 16 May 2000

Committee Work Programme

The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) met this morning to begin consideration of aspects of the administrative and budgetary aspects of peacekeeping, including the support account used to fund Headquarters support activities for peacekeeping operations, reimbursement of Member States for troops and equipment used in United Nations missions, and the United Nations Logistics Base in Brindisi, where goods for missions are stored, repaired and supplied. It also planned to discuss the category to which South Africa would belong for the assessment of peacekeeping funding.

The Committee had before it the Secretary-General's financial performance report for the support account for peacekeeping operations for 1 July 1998 to 30 June 1999 (document A/54/797).

It notes the General Assembly authorized $34.4 million for peacekeeping support requirements for that period. Some $32.82 million was spent, leaving a balance of about $1.58 million. The balance is largely due to savings on staff. The Secretary-General recommends the Assembly apply the balance, interest income of $597,000 and miscellaneous income of $4,000 to support account requirements for 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001.

Also before the Committee was the Secretary-General's report containing estimates for the support account for 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001 (document A/54/800). He estimates resource requirements for that period will be some $51.74 million gross (about $44.19 million net). This represents an increase of some $16.8 million. Proposed staffing would be 471 posts, including four new posts.

Amounts approved for the support account are prorated over the budgets of peacekeeping missions. Should the Assembly accept the estimates and decide to apply the unencumbered balance for 30 June 2000 of $2.179 million to the account, the report notes this would mean some $49.56 million would be prorated against peacekeeping missions.

Of the increase proposed, some $7.55 million is a first-time provision for staff assessment, as recommended by the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) in April 1999. The rest is due to 67 new posts approved in December 1999 and related common services costs, four new posts (a P-5 and a General Service post for the Rapid Deployment Management Unit, and a P-3 and a General Service post for the Training Unit), and some temporary assistance money to meet surge requirements.

The level of resources proposed takes into account the establishment of the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC) and the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET), and the expansion of the activities in Sierra Leone with the formation of the United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL).

Also before the Committee was the related report from the ACABQ (document A/54/832). The ACABQ notes improvement in the presentation of the financial performance report and welcomes descriptions of the activities, developments and improvements. However, its asks for greater consistency in presentation of reasons for budget variances, and that monitoring of budget performance be refined to identify causes of such changes more accurately. Precise information on training activities should also be included in future reports, along with the reasons for inability to comply with Member States' requests for training.

It recommends the General Assembly apply the unencumbered balance and ancillary amounts for 1 July 1998 to 30 June 1999 to 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001, as the Secretary-General requested.

Regarding the Secretary-General's cost estimates for 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001, the ACABQ recommends acceptance of the proposed new posts in the Training Unit.

It notes that proposals on the Rapid Deployment Management Unit have not yet been submitted to the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations, and suggests the Assembly might wish to invite that Committee to review the concept of the Rapid Deployment Management Unit. The ACABQ would revert to proposed administrative resources and posts following action on such a review. The proposal to reclassify the D-1 regular budget post of the Director for the Europe and Latin America Division of the Office of Operations is irregular, and it recommends that it be resubmitted in the next proposed programme budget.

It also recommends that a more realistic vacancy rate factor of 8 per cent for Professional staff be used in estimating costs for the support account. As a consequence of using this higher vacancy rate, the estimates could be reduced by $590,300.

Considerable increases in general temporary assistance are sought without full justification, the report states. It recommends $330,000, instead of $569,400, be provided general temporary assistance for the Department of Peacekeeping Operations. It further recommends that the provision for general temporary assistance for the Department of Management Account Division be reduced to $210,000.

In view of its recommendations above, the ACABQ recommends that the General Assembly approve total requirements of some $50.7 million gross (about $43.24 million net) for the support account for 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001.

The report of the Phase V Working Group on reform procedures for determining reimbursement of contingent-owned equipment was also before the Committee (document A/C.5/54/49). It contains the Working Group’s detailed and specific recommendations and comments on performance standards and reviews of reimbursement rates, on major equipment, self-sustainment categories, medical support services, and on the proposed establishment of a post-Phase V Working Group.

The report states that the major achievement of the Working Group were the adoption of the reimbursement rates for medical services, as proposed by the Secretariat, a methodology for future regular review of the rates and performance standards and a number of improvements to the definition of standards for major equipment and self-sustainment. The report stresses the importance of collecting the national data on contingent-owned equipment before any further gathering of Member States to adopt improvements to the standards.

Also before the Committee was a note from the Secretary-General on the Working Group's recommendations (document A/54/795). The Secretary-General proposes that the Assembly approve Phase V Working Group recommendations, including: the adoption of a triennial review of rates using indices for generic categories for major equipment and self-sustainment equipment categories; amendment of the performance standards for catering, furniture and welfare; inclusion in the soldier's kit of a basic flak jacket; convening of an expert group to review and specify rates for medical support services; and of experts to review pre-deployment immunization and post-repatriation medical examination costs. He also recommends the Assembly approve the convening for 10 days in January 2001 of a post-Phase V Working Group open to all Member States to complete the mandate of the Phase V Working Group.

Also before the Committee was a report from the Office of Internal Oversight Services on its audit of contingent-owned equipment procedures and payments to troop-contributing countries (document A/54/765). In the note transmitting the report, the Secretary-General advises he concurs with its recommendations.

Significant findings from the Oversight Office include: that the Department of Peacekeeping Operations needs to develop a plan to convert all contingents to the revised contingent-owned equipment procedures; that negotiation of memoranda of understanding with troop-contributing countries is often protracted, requiring input from several divisions in the Department of Peacekeeping Operations and elsewhere, the focal point for which is the Peacekeeping's Finance Management and Support Service; procedures used for reimbursement for inland transport and equipment preparation costs led to non-compliance with financial and procurement rules; and payments were often made on the basis of claims submitted by the troop- contributing countries. For example, one claim of $2.6 million, for painting and repainting equipment, was not adequately documented, and was overstated by approximately $750,000, according to the Department's own assessment.

Other findings include the following: procedures for missions to verify and report on equipment use were overly complex and did not add significant value; adequate administrative arrangements for processing claims had not been established; at the time of audit, some $463 million in claims had not been finalized for payment; and payments for troop contributions were based on troop- strength reports that had not been certified by peacekeeping missions.

The Oversight Office makes nine recommendations, and the report includes notes on their implementation status. The recommendations that the Department establish procedures and time frames for contingents in current missions to convert to the revised contingent-owned equipment procedures, and that uniform self- sustainment arrangements be made to avoid the costly need to provide different levels of service for some contingents, are being implemented, the report notes.

The Department of Peacekeeping Operations has also taken adequate steps to implement the recommendation that all contingent-owned equipment negotiations with troop-contributing countries be fully documented through minutes of meetings and other records, the report notes. Action has been taken to ensure implementation of the recommendation that reimbursements for inland transport and preparation costs are made in accordance with relevant United Nations financial and procurement rules, and a proposal on the establishment of standard costing schedules for reimbursement of those costs has been made to the Phase V Working Group reviewing contingent-owned equipment procedures and rates. Efforts are also under way to streamline the current reporting requirements, by developing an exception reporting system, as recommended by the Oversight Office, the report states. In addition, the Department of Peacekeeping Operations has taken adequate steps to implement the recommendation calling for processing of some $463 million in backlogged claims and to clear the related unliquidated obligations as soon as possible. Further, steps have been taken to implement the recommendation that staff should be recruited, standard operating procedures developed, necessary training provided, and records properly maintained to ensure that claims are processed quickly and efficiently, the Oversight Office notes.

The Department of Peacekeeping Operations has similarly taken steps to implement the recommendation that missions establish systems and procedures for reporting troop-strength figures and that troop-strength reports are regularly monitored, the report states. And, the recommendation that the Office of Programme Planning, Budget and Accounts require contingent troop-strength reports to be certified by Chief Administrative Officers before claims are accepted is being reviewed by that Office.

Comments from the ACABQ on the reports of the Phase V Working Group were also before the Committee (document A/54/826). It states that the recommended convening of a post-Phase V Working Group should be contingent on receipt of sufficient data from Member States, and it, therefore, recommends that the Secretariat be instructed to collect data from Member States and report on the extent of its success in that regard. The ACABQ also recommends that the 1995 rates be used until sufficient replies and data are received for the review.

The Contingent-owned Equipment Manual should be revised immediately after the Assembly has taken action on Phase V Working Group recommendations and should be translated into the United Nations working languages, the ACABQ recommends. Given that delays by troop-contributing countries in signing memoranda of understanding persist, the ACABQ is concerned that deployment of contingents and equipment before a memorandum is signed is somewhat risky, the report notes. However, it notes no reimbursement is made for equipment until a signed memorandum of understanding has been returned. Annexed to the report are the recommendations of the Phase V Working Group and the Secretariat's response, and material on estimated financial implications of the implementation of the Working Group recommendations.

The Committee also had before it a report of the Secretary-General on the review of rates of reimbursement to the governments of troop-contributing States (document A/54/763). It explains that in 1987 the General Assembly decided that the rates of reimbursement to the governments of troop-contributing States should be reviewed by the Secretary-General, in consultation with troop-contributing States, if, in the light of inflation and currency-exchange fluctuations or other factors brought to his attention, the current rates appreciably affected the absorption factor of two or more of the troop-contributing States. [The portion of the cost which is not compensated for by the standard rates of reimbursement is absorbed by the respective troop-contributing State. That amount, expressed as a percentage of the total cost incurred by each government for providing troops, is referred to as the absorption factor.]

The report goes on to say that in 1997 the Assembly requested the Secretary- General to carry out a new survey of troop-contributing States, as suggested by the ACABQ. Cost information based on military salary scales as of December 1996 was requested from the 64 Member States providing troops and military observers and 26 Member States providing troops and 11 Member States providing observers at that time made cost information available. Based on the information provided, the overall average absorption factor for 1996 was 53.9 per cent, which reflects an increase of 21.1 per cent above the average absorption factor of 32.8 per cent reported for 1991. The Secretary-General concludes that an adjustment to the current rates may be warranted.

The Secretary-General advises the General Assembly may wish to consider the increase in the average overall absorption factor and to decide whether an adjustment to the current standard rates of reimbursement for troops is warranted.

In a related report of the ACABQ (document A/54/859), that body notes that in the Secretary-General's analysis, some expenses of the Organization, such as direct payments to military personnel of $1.28 per day per contingent member, and a leave allowance of $10.50 per day for up to seven days, have not been reflected. The ACABQ says that the current methodology for calculating the standard rates of reimbursement should be adjusted to include the direct payments to military personnel. The ACABQ believes that there is a strong argument in favour of deducting those amounts from the reimbursements to troop-contributing States.

The ACABQ also points out that there appears to be a number of inconsistencies in the data provided by troop-contributing States, making a comparative analysis difficult. It asks the Assembly in future reviews to provide further guidelines for refining the methodology used to ensure that more timely and comprehensive data is provided to establish whether a change in the standard rates or reimbursement to troop-contributing States is warranted.

The Committee also had before it the Secretary-General's financial performance report of the United Nations Logistics Base at Brindisi (document A/54/711) for 1 July 1998 to 30 June 1999. In 1998, the Assembly approved the costs estimates of $7.14 million for the financing of the Logistics Base. That amount includes $829,900 for the completion of two start-up kits.

The Secretary-General explains that the Assembly decided to apply an unspent balance of some $2.03 million from the period 1 July 1996 to 30 June 1997 to the resources required from 1 July 1998 to 30 June 1999, and to prorate the balance of about $5.12 million among the approved appropriations of the individual active peacekeeping operation budgets to meet the financing requirements of the Logistics Base.

The Secretary-General goes on to say that expenditures totalled $6.7 million, resulting in an unspent balance of $451,800. The unspent balance resulted mainly from vacancies among the international staff and reduced requirements under transport and other programmes, offset by additional requirements for other equipment. He asks the Assembly to apply the unspent balance of $451,800, interest income of $114,000 and miscellaneous income of some $1.2 million (about $1.73 million in total) to the resources required for 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001.

The Committee also had before it the Secretary-General's proposed budget for the United Nations Logistics Base at Brindisi (document A/54/733) for 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001. He proposes some $9.32 million gross (about $8.5 million net) be made available. Of the total budget, some 48 per cent relates to civilian personnel costs. Operational costs account for 43 per cent of the budget, while staff assessment comprises 9 per cent of the total. Less than 1 per cent of the total related to other programmes.

The Secretary-General requests the Assembly approve the cost estimates for the Logistics Base amounting to some $9.32 million gross ($8.5 million net) for 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001. He also requests a decision on the unspent balance of $451,800, interest income of $114,000 and miscellaneous income of some $1.2 million (about $1.73 million in total) to the resources required for that period. He also asks that balance of some $7.6 million gross (about $6.74 million net) be prorated among the individual active peacekeeping budgets to meet the financing requirements of the Base.

In a related report of the ACABQ (document A/54/841/Add.8), that body welcomes the idea to explore the potential capacity for wider use of the Brindisi Base. The ACABQ recommends that the potential of the Base for use as a regional procurement centre be explored with the missions in the area. Regardless of the source of funding, there was a need for more transparency regarding the total cost of the operations of the Base. It recommends accepting the Secretary-General's proposal to apply the unencumbered balance of $451,800, as well as the interest income of $114,000 and miscellaneous income of $1.2 million to the resources required for 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001.

Regarding cost estimates for 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001, the ACABQ recommends accepting the Secretary-General's proposal to increase staffing of the Base from 103 to 106. While the Advisory Committee welcomes the use of the Base as a training centre, criteria must be clearly set for determining training priorities. Central, regional or local facilities should be used whenever deemed cost-effective.

The ACABQ notes that despite the passage of time and reiterated requests, inventory management remains a cause of concern. Standard inventory management procedures are still not in visible operation. Without a standardized system, it is impossible to track inventory or cases of mismanagement or avoidable loss. Given the new surge in peacekeeping operations and the high inventory values involved, the Committee states that such a system must be implemented as soon as possible.

The Advisory Committee welcomes the Office of Internal Oversight Services evaluating the use of the system of peacekeeping missions. The ACABQ requests that the findings of that review be taken into consideration in the preparation of the report on the use of field assets control system and its effect on procurement and the management of peacekeeping assets. Finally, the Advisory Committee recommends the approval of the Secretary-General's proposed budget for the Base.

A note verbale from the Government of South Africa was also before the Committee (document A/53/1009). It draws attention to the need to move South Africa from group (b) to group (c) in the scheme for the apportionment of the costs of the United Nations peacekeeping operations, in accordance with a recent decision of the Non-Aligned Movement.

It states that South Africa's placement in the more heavily obligated group (b) of the scheme is an historical anomaly attributable to a misguided policy by the apartheid Government to project South Africa as an economically developed Member State. Rather, it is a developing country, the note states, with an average per capita gross national product (GNP) of $3,400 per annum -- lower than those of many countries in category (c) -- and can ill afford the added burden that results from its allocation into the higher paying group.

Finally, the Committee has before it a letter from the Permanent Representative of the United States concerning the current system for apportioning peacekeeping expenses (document A/C.5/54/55), dated 1 May. The letter states that the system is “outmoded and in need of review and revision”. The system, he states, was never intended to operate as a long-term mechanism for determining peacekeeping contributions. It concentrated a great deal of responsibility for peacekeeping finance in a small group of Member States and did not take into account changes in Members’ financial circumstances, as well as the addition of any new Member States.

He goes on to say that it is his strong view that the General Assembly should embark on a process aimed at creating a more up-to-date scale, “one that will provide a stronger foundation for the financing or peacekeeping operations”. He proposes that a review be discussed during the current resumed session, with a view to completing deliberations at the fifty-fifth session of the Assembly.

Statements

The United Nations Controller, JEAN-PIERRE HALBWACHS, introducted the Secretary-General's reports on all matters under consideration this morning. Regarding the support account for peacekeeping operations, he explained that the budget for the previous period was $34.4 million. Expenditures were some $32.82 million, leaving a balance of about $1.58 million. The savings were largely due to less than expected staff costs. Post vacancies were a result of the transition from gratis personnel to established posts and of the fact that the Department of Peacekeeping Operations experienced constant turnover of staff to peacekeeping missions.

During the reporting period, Mr. Halbwachs explained, further inroads were made concerning the treatment of death and disability claims. As of 19 May 1997, a backlog of 564 death and disability claims existed. At the end of June 1999, an additional 1,219 new claims were received. A total of 1,498 claims were processed, leaving 285 claims awaiting processing. He expected the backlog to be eliminated by 30 June 2000.

The speeding up of processing of death and disability cases during the period led to a corresponding increase in the workload of the Medical Services Division in review and certification of claims, he said. In order to allow that Division to process the backlog, temporary assistance funds were included in the budget. Temporary assistance funds were also included for the Accounts Division to overcome a backlog situation in inter-office vouchers and reconciliation of statements, and by 30 June 1999 sufficient progress had been made so the continuation of general temporary assistance resources was not requested.

A self-evaluation mechanism was designed in the reporting period to review the budgetary preparation and reporting process, as well as the content, format and presentation of the performance reports and proposed budgets for all peacekeeping missions, he said. Two significant outcomes emerged. First, the budget submission and review process was streamlined and provided, for the first time, for direct participation of mission chief administrative officers. In addition, greater weight and emphasis was placed on field submissions. Subsequent feedback received form chief administrative officers indicated that they felt they had more ownership of and accountability for their budgets and also had a better understanding of how the budget review process worked.

Increased use of institutional contract agreements for procurement for peacekeeping operations had led to significant savings in mission budgets, he said.

Towards the end of the reporting period, the Secretariat had to plan for potential new and expanding peacekeeping missions in East Timor, Kosovo, Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The tasks involved in the planning process for the possible start-up of those missions led to a significant surge in the work of the Secretariat during that period, particularly in the Department of Peacekeeping Operations.

Regarding the budget estimates for the support account, he said that some $51.7 million was sought. That would provide for 471 posts -- a proposed increase of four posts, Mr. Halbwachs explained. That was an increase of about $13.35 million, mostly due to the first-time provision for staff assessment, the cost of the additional 67 posts approved by the Assembly last year, provision for four new posts and provision for general temporary assistance.

The current financial period for support to peacekeeping had been marked by a dramatic increase in peacekeeping activity, he said. As a result, requirements for backstopping peacekeeping operations had increased substantially. He noted that when the budgets for peacekeeping operations were approved last May, for 1999-2000, the support account requirements were some 5.6 per cent of total peacekeeping budgets. Currently, the amount sought was some 3.6 per cent of total peacekeeping budgets.

A review of rapid deployment mechanisms had been undertaken in the light of the recent evolution of peacekeeping, he said. Its conclusion was that the original concept of the rapidly deployable mission headquarters, which assumed only one mission would be established at a time and included only a limited range of expertise, clearly did not meet today's requirements. The Secretariat, therefore, decided to adjust the concept.

The revised system would use the expertise of the Secretariat and agencies and programmes, Member States and non-governmental organizations, he said. It would include political, military, civilian police and a broad range of civilian experts and logistic and administrative personnel. Responsibility for it would attach to the Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations. Its modus operandi would be based on arrangements with Member States and others for the immediate release, upon the establishment of a peacekeeping operation, of pre- selected personnel, who would be deployed for a period of 60 to 90 days. More permanent personnel would replace them as soon as they could be deployed.

The Secretary-General was proposing to reclassify the D-1 post of the Director for the Europe and Latin American Division of the Office of Operations to D-2 level, he said, to correct an anomaly whereby that Division was the only one headed by a D-1. With the establishment of the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), there has been a significant increase in the workload of the Division, so there was a need to correct the anomaly now, rather that wait for the proposed 2002-2003 programme budget. On the reform of the procedure for determining reimbursement to Member States for contingent-owned equipment, Mr. Halbwachs said that, for future rate reviews to be meaningful, a methodology needed to be established and it invited Member States to address the issue in August 1999. The Secretariat would collect the data from all troop contributors and consolidate it, to establish an average index to be applied to each category.

For the review of the self-sustainment rates, he said the mechanism proposed included adjustments for inflation, currency fluctuations and economic factors, made nationally. Troop contributors would submit data to a central database managed by the Secretariat, which would delete the highest and lowest rates from consideration and, using the remaining rates, calculate an average figure for each category.

Introducing the Secretary-General's report on the review of the rates of reimbursement to the governments of troop-contributing States, he noted that standard rates of reimbursement were initially established by the General Assembly in November 1974. They attempted to provide equal treatment to Member States and fix the level of reimbursement to be made. Those rates were reviewed by the Assembly in 1977, 1980, 1985, 1987, 1989 and 1991 and were revised in 1977, 1980, 1991.

Three points were considered, he explained. Troops serving side by side should be reimbursed on the same basis for identical services. No government should receive a higher reimbursement than its actual cost. Some governments would, therefore, not be fully reimbursed, but they should be reimbursed at least the amount that was paid to their troops as actual overseas allowance.

Sixty-four Member States were surveyed in the review, he advised, and 38 replies were received. Seven of those replies were not in conformity with the guidelines and, therefore, could not be used. Thirty-one States -- 26 contributors – therefore, submitted comparable data. The average of the 26 reported costs for pay and allowances for troops in December 1996 ranged between $774 and $10,778 per person, per month, with an overall average of $3,806 and a median of $2,812.

The overall average absorption factor for 1996 was 53.9 per cent, compared to the previous average of 32.8 per cent from the 1991 review, he said. It would appear, therefore, that an upward adjustment to the current rates might be warranted.

On the performance report concerning financing of the United Nations Logistics Base at Brindisi, he said that the 1998-1999 budget was some $7.14 million. Expenses were some $6.69 million, leaving a balance of 451,800, mostly due to civilian vacancies among international staff and reduced requirements under transport and other programmes, offset by additional requirements for other equipment.

On the budget proposed for Brindisi for 2000-2001, he said some $9.32 million was sought -- a 25 per cent or some $1.86 million increase.

That reflected a 6 per cent increase in civilian personnel costs, and a 24.1 per cent increase in operational costs, he said. The proposed staffing would be 106 staff, including 23 international posts, and 83 locally recruited staff. Additional resources were also sought for the planned installation of fire safety systems through the premises of the Logistics Base, for moving satellite equipment, for maintenance services, supplies and utilities, and for a fibre optic network to upgrade the network infrastructure at the Base. Reductions were proposed for transportation.

The concept of base's operations was currently under review, he said, with a view to expanding its scope. The result of the review would be reflected in the budget for the next period.

The Director of the Audit and Management Consulting Division, Office of Internal Oversight Services, ESTHER STERN, then introduced the Oversight Office's report on reimbursement. She said that matters discussed in the report were of interest to the Member States and the Secretariat alike. She said the post-Phase V Working Group on reimbursement might benefit from consideration of the Oversight Office's recommendations.

C.S.M. MSELLE, Chairman of the ACABQ, then introduced that body's reports. On the support account estimates, he said the ACABQ had observed that the non- implementation of the rapidly deployable mission headquarters had not yet been reviewed by either the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations or the General Assembly. The Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations might be invited by the Assembly to review the concept after which the ACABQ would examine resource proposals.

Regarding the estimates for the Brindisi Base, he said that the ACABQ recommended acceptance of the Secretary-General's request. It said the Base was becoming a vital instrument in the management of peacekeeping. The review proposed by the Secretariat was welcome. In procurement training, it welcomed the trend to explore wider use of the Base. Various matters on transshipment, asset management and procurement needed to be addressed. The overall benefits the Field Asset Control Mechanism was yet to be achieved and it welcome the proposed review of that by the Oversight Office.

He drew attention to the ACABQ recommendations regarding reimbursement for contingent-owned equipment. On reimbursement for troops, he said the ACABQ recommended the absorption factor should be considered in deciding whether there was a need for rate changes. It called on the Assembly to provide further guidance on refinement of the methodology of that rate.

The Chairman, PENNY WENSLEY (Australia), welcomed the large number of permanent representatives of Member States present in the Committee this morning.

ANTONIO MONTEIRO (Portugal), speaking on behalf of the European Union, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Cyprus, and Malta, began by extending his condolences to the people of Japan for the passing of former Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi.

Turning to peacekeeping, he said it was one of the core functions of the Organization, and such operations were undergoing a massive upsurge. It was essential that the most effective administrative, budgetary and financial arrangements for peacekeeping operations be in place. On the support account, the Union’s commitment to United Nations peacekeeping operations called for an effective Department of Peacekeeping Operations, structured efficiently, staffed adequately, informed properly and well prepared to plan, deploy and manage current and future missions. The Union concurred with the ACABQ report that the establishment of 67 additional/temporary posts to be funded from the support account, over and above the 400 approved by the General Assembly, as well as the establishment of two new posts in the Training Unit, be authorised.

One of the important tasks of the session was to consider measures to improve backstopping arrangements, he said. There were many good ideas already under discussion, such as those contained in the Secretary-General’s draft budget on the support account and the ACABQ’s observations. The Secretary-General’s proposals contained a valuable analysis of the changed resource requirements imposed by the most recent generation of the peacekeeping operations. Military capability was very often no longer the central component. There was an increasing requirement to identify and deploy rapidly a wider spectrum of capabilities. Civilian administrators were also a valuable resource. The Union believed that the Secretary-General’s proposal for a Rapid Deployment Management Unit was the right response to that changed requirement. The Secretary-General’s draft proposal that the Unit should substitute for establishment of the rapid deployable mission headquarters was an important conclusion, not least for the Union, which had long accepted the case for latter.

On the issue of reimbursement of contingent-owned equipment, the Union welcomed the progress made with regard to the implementation of the reformed procedure for determining reimbursement to Member States for such equipment. The reformed procedure was far superior to the old one in terms of planning, monitoring and budgeting. There was a long-standing requirement for the Department of Peacekeeping Operations to establish procedures and time frames for contingents in current missions to convert to the revised contingent-owned equipment procedures.

Regarding reimbursement to troop-contributing countries, the Union welcomed the fact that, due to the relatively improved financial situation of the Organization, recent reimbursements had reduced the amounts due, he said. Nevertheless, the high level of unpaid assessed contributions for peacekeeping operations remained an issue of particular concern. The methodology used by the Secretary-General in defining the adequacy of rates of reimbursement was in need of substantial improvement. On the Logistics Base in Brindisi, the Union welcomed the recent positive developments on the utilization of the Base.

On the peacekeeping scale, the Union believed that the structural oranizational issues could not be divorced from the core responsibility of Member States to finance peacekeeping. The Union believed that the peacekeeping scale had long needed a comprehensive revision. One of the main concerns of the Union was that the group system contained significant anomalies in its present state. The system needed to be reviewed in order to take into account the level of economic development of Member States. The group structure should be based on objective criteria, in particular per capita income, without prejudice to the principle of the special responsibility of permanent members of the Security Council. There was a great need to address seriously, and for the first time, the methodology that underpinned Member States contributions to peacekeeping. The ideas put forward by the Union four years ago remained valuable.

ARTHUR C.I. MBANEFO (Nigeria), speaking on behalf of the "Group of 77" developing countries and China, said it was significant that peacekeeping financing was under discussion while events in Sierra Leone had drawn world attention to those operations. The Group supported the reclassification of South Africa for the purposes of assessment of peacekeeping dues, which should not be made contingent on discussion of the peacekeeping scale.

Regarding the peacekeeping scale, the Group said that peacekeeping operations were an important function of the United Nations and, therefore, should be provided with adequate resources, he said. It repeated its position that the financial problems of the Organization were not linked to the peacekeeping scale and could be resolved if Member States, in particular the major contributor, took concrete action to settle their arrears and honour their obligations. It rejected any attempt to modify the scale for peacekeeping through the imposition of unilateral conditions, and emphasized that the apportionment of expenses approved by the Assembly in 1963 and 1973 must be permanently institutionalized.

The Group stated that economically less-developed countries had limited capacity to contribute to peacekeeping operations, he said, and emphasized that any discussion of the scale must take into account the economic conditions in developing countries, and must not adversely affect the position of those with the lowest assessment levels. All Member States in the Non-Aligned Movement and the Group of 77 should be classified no higher than the third level.

The scale must also take into account the special responsibilities of permanent members of the Security Council, he said. No new element of a floor on ceiling on payments should be included in the scale, as that would be contrary to the principle of capacity to pay. Discussions on the peacekeeping scale must not be conducted under time pressure, and no decision should be taken until the issue was fully and comprehensively examined by all Member States.

MICHAEL JOHN POWLES (New Zealand), speaking also on behalf of Canada and Australia, conveyed those countries’ condolences on the death of the former Japanese Prime Minister. Continuing, he said those countries had always supported the United Nations’ role in maintaining international peace and security. As the Secretary-General pointed out, traditional peacekeeping activities, such as monitoring ceasefires, had increased over the last decade to include much more complex tasks of institution-building and conflict prevention. Thus, the institutional arrangements for launching new missions were structurally and operationally inadequate. He, therefore, welcomed proposals to establish a high- level panel to review all aspects of peacekeeping operations.

For the United Nations to discharge its responsibilities, he continued, there must be sufficient political will from the Council to give missions the mandate and resources they required. The Council had been guilty of delivering too little, too late -– and never more so than lately. Peacekeeping mandates must not be shaped by an aversion to risk and avoidance of necessary expenses, but must reflect requirements on the ground. Financial constraints had seriously impaired the collective responsibility to maintain international peace and security, and that would continue to be the case as long as some Member States, notably the largest contributor, failed to fulfil their Charter obligations.

Financial requirements for peacekeeping had vastly increased, he said, such that estimates for the next 12 months would be twice the United Nations regular budget. The period had seen an upsurge in the number and complexity of missions. He encouraged continued improvements in the administration and management of peacekeeping missions, particularly regarding over-budgeting and high vacancy rates in certain missions. There was an urgent need to streamline bureaucratic procedures to avoid duplication. Improvements leading to more user friendly performance reports and budget documents were welcome.

On reimbursement for contingent-owned equipment, he welcomed the work of the Phase V Working Group, notably the development of a methodology for future rate reviews, he said. The Secretary-General’s proposed establishment of a new Rapid Deployment Management Unit had certain merits, but he agreed that the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations should review the concept. Discussion should be informed by other comprehensive reviews of peacekeeping requirements, and he believed in a comprehensive approach to providing sufficient resources and an appropriate structure for the administration and management of peacekeeping.

The countries he spoke for had long supported a revision of the ad hoc peacekeeping assessment as part of an overall reform of United Nations financing, he said. The scale was 25 years old and needed comprehensive reform. Proposals for that, presented by the three Member States, were still on the table. The system must be made more transparent and equitable, and less arbitrary. The scale should continue to be based on the regular budget scale and capacity to pay, and a substantial surcharge should continue to apply to permanent members of the Security Council, with resulting benefits flowing to less developed countries. There should be no predetermined floor or ceiling to the peacekeeping scale.

He said reform of the scale should address: anomalies between and within groups of Member States; the absence of an automatic mechanism for movement between groups in response to economic circumstances; the lack of objective criteria for locating Member States in groups; the overall decline in the special responsibility for financing of peacekeeping that applied to permanent Council members; and the need for automatic and periodic review. Comprehensive review should be undertaken at regular intervals. Thus, while sympathetic, changes like that requested by South Africa should not be made in a piecemeal fashion.

He continued to oppose unilateral attempts to change rates of assessment, he said, and, therefore, supported discussion that would lead to genuine reform. Some countries had presented the problems with peacekeeping financing as if they were solely of the United Nations making and a result of lack of scale revision since 1973, but that was not the whole story. Difficulties had been mainly caused by Member States, in particular the United States, not paying their assessments on time, in full and without conditions. Arrears totalled some $2 billion at the end of March 2000, causing hardship to all troop- and equipment-contributing countries. The high level of unpaid assessments was unsustainable, and he urged all Member States to pay. The blunt instrument of conditionality should not be used, as it could only put the United Nations at further risk, at a time when peacekeeping was more necessary than ever.

DUMISANI S. KUMALO (South Africa), noting that his delegation was currently the Chair of the Non-Aligned Movement, relayed the Movement’s latest position on the peacekeeping scale, which had been made in Cartegena, Colombia, in April. Citing the statements of the foreign ministers present at the meeting, he said the scale of assessments for the period 2001-2003 must take into consideration the economic conditions of developing countries. Any unilateral attempt to modify the scale through conditionalities was unacceptable, and any significant modification would be considered only if it spread the burden of payment, in accordance with capacity to pay, more broadly among the major contributors, without adversely affecting the Movement and other developing countries. The ministers had also stated that the special responsibility of the permanent members of the Security Council in the financing of peacekeeping operations must be taken into account, he said. They had also reiterated their previous position that Movement members and other developing countries should be classified in a category no higher than group (c).

As a developing country, South Africa had an average per capita GNP of $3,200 per annum, making it the only economically less developed Member State to find itself in group (b) of the peacekeeping scale, he said. It had placed before the Committee a compelling argument for its reclassification to a scale for developing countries and was asking for nothing more than for the General Assembly to be consistent in the application of its existing guidelines and principles.

He said South Africa had for years displayed flexibility on the question of assessments. However, at a time of escalating peacekeeping costs within the Organization, and due to its own pressing national developmental priorities, it could ill-afford to wait long for an eventual revision of the scale. As the reallocation of South Africa from group (b) to group (c) was supported by the members of the Group of 77 and China, as well as by the Movement, he hoped that other Member States and groups would be willing to assist in finding a speedy consensus solution to the issue.

SOTIRIOS ZACKHEOS (Cyprus) expressed his condolences to the people of Japan for the death of former Prime Minister Obuchi. Continuing, he said peacekeeping was a major instrument of the international community in the pursuit of the objectives of the United Nations Charter, and it had changed over the years. The scope and mandates of peacekeeping missions had moved beyond the traditional functions, from conflict prevention to peace-building. The Department of Peacekeeping Operations was faced with a great challenge in fulfilling its responsibilities with its limited human resources and funding. He supported the strengthening of the Department, including its planning capacity. Delays in the deployment of troops only tarnished the image of the United Nations and complicated efforts to reach just and viable solutions to conflicts.

Good intentions did not and could not substitute for strength, he continued. There was a need for greater interaction and fine tuning between the Department of Peacekeeping Operations and the Department of Political Affairs. There was also a need for a personnel policy that focused on continuing training, as well as a need to rotate personnel between posts and Headquarters. It was the responsibility of governments to ensure that the Secretariat could access on short notice the special expertise warranted to respond adequately to the emerging needs. A revitalized Department would enhance the safety and security of peacekeepers in the field. Cyprus was concerned with the unwillingness of the international community to respond to peacekeeping demands in Africa with the same zeal and urgency exhibited in other regions of the world.

Cyprus supported the review of the methodology of the peacekeeping scale of assessment, even though his Government would bear a substantial increase in its contributions, he added. Cyprus had set an example by agreeing to bear one third of the budget of the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP), and it would give up voluntarily the discount entitled to it under the present system as its contribution to that issue. The financing of peacekeeping operations must be based on the capacity to pay and should be reviewed periodically. It should take due consideration of the special needs of small States, as well as those of the least developed countries.

MANUEL TELLO (Mexico) also extended his condolences to the people of Japan on the passing of Prime Minister Obuchi. Continuing, he said in 1963 the General Assembly had set forth two principles that were to be the basis for the financing of all peacekeeping operations. The first recognized that less developed countries had a limited capacity to contribute to peacekeeping operations. The second principle recognized that the special responsibility of the permanent members of the Security Council should be borne in mind in determining contributions for the financing of operations for peace and security.

In 1973, the General Assembly reaffirmed both principles, he said. He believed that, in determining the financing of activities, the principle of capacity to pay was essential. That principle applied to most countries. A universal organization should not depend excessively on a single contributor. In any consideration of the reduction of the maximum assessment, it must be clear that the points would be distributed among Member States. With respect to the special scale, a group of Member States had expressed interest in revising the ad hoc agreement, the basis for the allocations of funds for peacekeeping operations. Most States, however, had spoken out in favour of institutionalizing that scale.

In 1974, the permanent five covered 63 per cent of activities, he said. In 2000, the contributions of the permanent five had dropped to 47 per cent. Between 1973 and 2000, the world had changed more politically than in the distribution of wealth. No account had been taken of the fact that the conditions that prevailed that called for a change in category were more disadvantageous. A principle concern was that, while the individual and collective financial responsibility of the permanent five would decline, their privileges would not diminish in any way. Some countries had said that the financial burden of the special scale was inequitable and should be redistributed. Yet, those countries were not ready to give up their privileges. The principle of special responsibility could not be changed and must be reflected in a clear fashion. Any exercise that the Assembly might undertake must reaffirm those principles.

RICHARD HOLBROOKE (United States) said that what began today in this room must culminate in true reform, in the way that peacekeeping was financed and in the way the Department of Peacekeeping Operations functioned. Despite all the other important activities the United Nations undertook around the world, the Organization would be judged by its peacekeeping scorecard. That record had many successes, but was again under serious challenge in widely dispersed parts of the world.

The recent Security Council mission to the Democratic Republic of the Congo confirmed that peacekeeping must be fixed to be saved, he said. Unless there was decisive movement, those that threatened peacekeepers might draw the conclusion that the United Nations lacked the will, cohesion and resources to challenge them. The United States knew that States and regions where violent conflicts were under way or threatened were depending on the United Nations. Having visited many major peacekeeping areas, he was convinced that for the operations to succeed, all Member States, including the United States, must do more.

The United States took its responsibility seriously, he said, and was in the midst of a high-level examination of how to strengthen peacekeeping. But what mattered more was what occurred in the Fifth Committee in coming months. Peacekeeping was a collective responsibility and, unless Member States could act together, peacekeeping would fail, crippled by an organizational and financial system that could not support increasing demand from Member States. The United Nations’ peacekeeping record should not be judged by the worst cases alone, and Sierra Leone was not Africa. However, the sight of United Nations peacekeepers taken hostage in Sierra Leone almost exactly five years after a similar situation in Bosnia forced the question, what had been learned?

The United Nations had experienced peacekeeping successes, he observed, including in Namibia, El Salvador, Mozambique, and even Cambodia, East Timor and Kosovo, where improvements had followed United Nations involvement. However, failures like Sierra Leone would cast shadows over the successes, and, thus, current operations must succeed. In the long term, peacekeeping must be reformed bureaucratically, conceptually and financially. Distinctions must be drawn between peacekeeping and peacemaking. Since the 1990s, the term “peacekeeping” had been used to refer to activities that were different in scope, magnitude, complexity, and difficulty from what came before. The way the United Nations operates must be reformed and the current method of financing missions overhauled.

Member States had put greater demands on peacekeeping, he said, but had declined to make the increased investment necessary to ensure the desired result. The demands of civilian administration and ambitious administrative and military objectives had been placed on structures designed to manage truce supervision and border patrols. Systems were desperately overstretched and the string, if not reformed, would snap.

The reform of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations should, in the abstract, be the hardest to achieve. With a shoestring budget, a small staff and resources that must be reconstituted with every mission, the Department had achieved an admirable measure of success. However, now, with five big missions in Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kosovo, East Timor and Lebanon and 10 more missions at various stages of activity, it faced “mission impossible”. Staff did their utmost, and the Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations recently risked his life to over-fly dangerous areas to provide the Council with information.

He hoped the Secretary-General’s expert panel would clarify what must be done, he said, but its report would only be a beginning, and indeed Member States should not wait for that report to start. To accomplish meaningful reform, all Member States must reconsider long-held positions. The gaps in planning, deployment, staffing and procurement must be addressed, and staff must be bolstered to streamline logistics and procurement. A pool of qualified staff available at short notice were needed. An obvious step would be the approval of the Secretary- General’s proposal for the Rapid Deployment Management Unit. Brindisi should be equipped with state-of-the-art equipment and procedures must be streamlined so missions could get what they needed.

The Department’s organizational structure must be changed to handle current demands, he said. It must be able to expand and contract according to levels of activity, and the Secretary-General must be authorized to direct resources where they were most needed. The United States would consider proposals for more staff for the Department that did not put unnecessary pressure on the budget. Until Member States were ready to endow the Peacekeeping Department adequately, they would be putting both lives and the United Nations’ credibility at risk.

The second part of reform was reform of financing, he said. The current system was designed for a single $30 million operation in the Sinai. It put the United Nations in a potentially fatal financial straightjacket. Since 1973, 54 new countries had joined the United Nations -– some had grown richer and some poorer –- yet, the scale remained the same. The system was at odds with common sense and the best interests of Member States, and also at odds with the United Nations’ sacred principle of “capacity to pay”. The principle of collective responsibility was undermined by a scale that concentrated 98 per cent of financial responsibility on 30 Member States, and the special responsibility of the Council’s permanent members had been undermined.

He stressed that the United States did not have a concrete plan to address the problems, but was prepared to work with others to consider ideas, including those put to him during his meetings with more than 100 permanent representatives with whom he had discussed the matter. He had heard the comments today about the United States’ failure to pay, but it was, and would remain, the Organization’s largest contributor.

He said several steps that warranted consideration included proposals to create a new tax bracket to ensure middle-income countries paid their share, reviving the special responsibility of permanent Council members through a floor mechanism, reducing dependence on a single contributor and establishing mechanisms to allow rates to change as States’ economic circumstances changed. All those could be accomplished without sacrificing the interests of States that were unable to pay more. The United States would not advance any proposal that would increase peacekeeping rates for low per-capita income countries. In addition, revision of the scale would allow troop-contributing countries to be reimbursed.

To make peacekeeping financing more equitable, all Member States must agree that it was a priority, he said. He said consideration of whether the system could be kept in business must be accompanied by consideration of whether Member States could afford not to keep it in business. Those that said peacekeeping should remain the province of the same small group of States as in 1973, and those that insisted that procedural niceties should stand in the way of stable financing, set the United Nations up for failure.

He praised Cyprus for its stated intention to move from group (c) to the higher assessed group (b) for peacekeeping. South Africa clearly acknowledged that the 1973 scale must be revised, and he could also see no reason why its request to be moved to a category with lower assessments should not be accepted. On the statement made by the representative of Nigeria, he said there should not be a decision guaranteeing that the assessments of a whole group of States would not rise, when clearly some members of the Group of 77 should pay more. He had private assurances that some of those States would be prepared to pay more.

SHAMSHAD AHMAD (Pakistan) said Pakistan supported peacekeeping, had participated in many missions, and its troops had contributed and had suffered human and material losses. It, therefore, supported any effort to augment the financial and operational capacity of the United Nations to cope with growing peacekeeping demands. The nature of conflicts had changed qualitatively and quantitatively, and the upsurge in demand for United Nations involvement had given rise to unprecedented demands for financial resources. It was regrettable that, at such a time, the United Nations found itself in an uncertain and precarious financial situation, which threatened the solvency and stability of peacekeeping operations. He was pleased to note that borrowing among peacekeeping missions had stopped. He hoped that all attempts would be made to reduce the huge peacekeeping arrears and to check further depletion of peacekeeping funds.

The inordinate delay in reimbursement for troops and equipment caused serious difficulties for developing countries, he said. Some $800 million was owed to troop contributors, and that was aggravated by the fact that the current standard reimbursement rates did not fully compensate States for their troops’ participation. Other elements also, like the Rapid Deployment Management Unit, required deep reflection and comprehensive examination. Pakistan would continue to play an active role in strengthening United Nations capacity to maintain peace and security. If the United Nations was to play its due role, however, a high degree of political commitment to address the reasons underlying the financial predicament must be shown by all Member States. That should be done with an open mind and in a spirit of cooperation and understanding. In that context, Pakistan would participate in any process that aimed to secure a financial foundation for peacekeeping.

In the current circumstances, precedent alone should not be the guide, he said. Innovative and realistic approaches to solve the problems must be explored. Regarding a review of the current ad hoc peacekeeping scale, the principles and guidelines of the Assembly resolutions in 1963 and 1973 must remain central. They recognized that more economically developed countries were in a better position to make higher contributions -- as true now as ever. Discounts for developing countries must remain in the peacekeeping scale.

YUKIO SATOH (Japan) acknowledged the expressions of sympathy for the death of former Prime Minister Obuchi and said that such expressions provided encouragement during the time of national mourning.

Continuing, he said the mandates entrusted to recent peacekeeping operations had become increasingly complex and comprehensive, including a broad variety of activities ranging from conventional peacekeeping activities to humanitarian assistance. Consequently, peacekeeping operations were becoming larger in scale and more costly. The total amount of peacekeeping expenditures was expected to jump from approximately $800 million in the last fiscal year to $1.9 billion this year. Given the prospect of a sharp increase in peacekeeping expenditures, it was important to address the question of how to improve the administrative and financial aspects of the peacekeeping budget. As a part of such efforts, the present system of the scale of assessments for peacekeeping budgets should be reviewed.

The system was outdated, he explained. There had been many changes in the economic conditions of Member States since the basic formula and grouping of current system was fixed in 1973. Accordingly, the current scale of assessments did not reflect the realities of the present world. It was important, therefore, to revise the scale of assessments, both the formula and the grouping, in order to cope with the rising demands of peacekeeping expenditures. A mutually acceptable way of improving the scale of assessments for the peacekeeping budget must be found.

KAMALESH SHARMA (India) associated himself with the statement made on behalf of the Group of 77. He said peacekeeping activities must continue to receive, on a priority basis, the requisite attention, energy and resources. There could be no substitution for the United Nations’ primary responsibility in peacekeeping. Its financing must be addressed in a more concerted, serious and purposeful manner, he stressed.

It was indeed a sad spectacle that, along with other constraints surrounding peacekeeping operations, financial constraints also now determined, circumscribed and often undermined those activities, he said. It was necessary for all to work to see whether peacekeeping activities could be streamlined both administratively and financially, to ensure not only their survival, but also their smooth implementation.

He said the current state of United Nations finances was so perilous that every new approach must be explored. The peacekeeping functions of the Organization should not be threatened with effective collapse from Members not meeting their commitments, as they had been in recent years. He hoped that an amelioration would be found in good time. He stressed his delegation’s willingness to listen to the views of Member States on all aspects of peacekeeping, including the peacekeeping scale.

KISHORE MAHBUBANI (Singapore) aligned himself with the statement made on behalf of the Group of 77. He said any discussion on the scale should address the concerns of all Member States, not just the well-known concerns of a vocal minority. It should be ensured that all sides had an equal opportunity to air their views and had adequate time to reflect on each other’s proposals and to formulate their positions.

Singapore shared the position on the scale of the Non-Aligned Movement and the Group of 77, he said. The existing scale should be institutionalized on a permanent basis, and no developing countries should be classified above group (c); also, the permanent members of the Security Council had a special responsibility. Singapore was, nonetheless, prepared to keep an open mind on the proposal of the United States to reduce its share of contributions to peacekeeping. If the United States was able to convince the other members of group (a) or other developed countries to absorb the reduction in its share, Singapore would be willing to favourably consider any proposal that enjoyed consensus.

The reduction of the United States’ share was an issue to be sorted out among the countries that wielded influence over the direction of the Organization’s peacekeeping activities, he said. While it was not the primary responsibility of the developing countries to solve the problem, they were prepared to help by remaining flexible in their approach. That flexibility, however, should not be exploited.

There had been arguments favouring a more broadly based scale to reduce dependence on a single major contributor, he said. While Singapore would keep an open mind on that argument, it believed that such a broadening should be borne by major contributors of the industrialized world.

He noted that capacity to pay and the entire fairness of the regular and peacekeeping scales were moot if Member States did not respect their obligations to pay their dues in full, on time and without conditions. “Even if we adopt the most fair and equitable scale possible, the only thing that will really prevent a financial crisis in the United Nations is the respectful observance of this obligation by all Member States, particularly the major contributor”, he said.

AHMED DARWISH (Egypt), Vice-Chairman of the Committee, expressed his condolences to the people of Japan for the passing of former Prime Minister Obuchi. Continuing, he said the majority of peacekeeping activities of the United Nations took place on the African continent. The sad events in Sierra Leone showed that financial resource flows for peacekeeping operations should not be hampered in any way. The resolve of Member States must be strong and clear. They should sit together and openly discuss the issue with a view to paving the way for the unimpeded flow of resources. Principles such as apportionment and the responsibility of the permanent five members of the Security Council constituted an excellent basis for such a discussion. While informal discussions on that issue should commence during the session, a final decision should take place at a latter stage, only after consensus had been reached.

IBRA DEGUENE KA (Senegal) said that everyone had agreed that the question of the special scale was important. The scale had not been changed since 1973. It was appropriate to tackle that issue constructively. Priority must be given to measures that will ensure the financing of peacekeeping operations, as was the need to maintain developing countries at group (c). Any change in contributions to the peacekeeping budget should take into account the limited capability of low income countries classified in the (d) group. Senegal supported the position of South Africa. He also supported all issues that will enhance the credibility of the United Nations in terms of collective security. In light of the current increase in peacekeeping operations, all issues relating to financing must be considered. All the questions must be considered together, in a constructive spirit and with great serenity.

GELSON FONSECA (Brazil) said that peacekeeping operations had to be strongly backed. That was a fundamental obligation of Member States. Problems faced by some operations revealed the political and organizational complexities involved in peacekeeping activities. Deep political reflection on how peacekeeping operations were put together was needed, especially given the scare resources available. Current financial difficulties had negatively impacted peacekeeping, as well as United Nations development programmes and activities. That crisis, however, could not be attributed to a flawed methodology in establishing the assessment of Member States. That situation was largely due to the failure on the part of the largest contributor to fulfil its financial obligations in full, on time and without conditions.

On the issue of the special scale of assessments for peacekeeping, Brazil’s position was based on the principles that buttressed the methodology for the peacekeeping scale, namely, that: peacekeeping operations were a core activity of the United Nations and constituted a collective responsibility of all Member States; the permanent five members of the Security Council had special and additional responsibilities in financing peacekeeping operations; and developing countries had a limited capacity to contribute to the financing of peacekeeping missions. The application of those principles should take into account major economic factors over the years. Consensus-building must, however, be the only basis for modifications in the scale. Any modification should be open, transparent, technically sound and should not put into question the validity of the principles themselves.

* *** *

Discussions in either the Committee or the Assembly should be necessarily preceded by a thorough examination by a technical body, such as the Committee on Contributions, or an ad hoc committee for the scale of peacekeeping which would report to the Committee, he said. Regarding South Africa’s request for relocation from group (b) to group (c), it was not a matter of methodological discussion, but rather a corrective measure for a quite particular case on the grounds of fairness and consistency with the main principles of the special scale. Brazil supported the request of South Africa and hoped that the Committee could solve that question during the resumed session.

CLAUDE STANISLAS BOUAH-KAMON (Côte d’Ivoire) said that dynamics and change were at the heart of any social structure. Yesterday’s reality could not be today’s, and data used to construct the scale 27 years ago, therefore, should to be updated. Criteria for the scale must be objective, scientifically valid, and accepted by all. Historically proven use of the GNP as an indicator, and of the capacity to pay as the principle, must be the basis of any reformed scale. Provided change was realistic and did not have an unspoken objective of reducing the level of those who should be paying more, he supported such a review.

Today, Africans and others faced complex contradictions in their development processes, he said. To limit crises, the international community was deploying peacekeeping missions. He paid firm tribute to that form of assistance and expression of solidarity, and did not forget those who had given their lives in the service of peacekeeping. Clearly, any initiative that aimed to improve peacekeeping would have his unconditional support.

The idea of collective responsibility underlay peacekeeping, he said. Today, many South countries participated in those operations. Increasingly, operations in Africa, which were viewed as risky were equipped solely by the South. That was deplorable and only made more so when, in addition, those States were not reimbursed on time. Any decision to revise the peacekeeping scale should be taken by consensus, so that no Member States -– large or small -- would be able to argue that it did not have to meet its commitments under the United Nations Charter.

IVAN SIMONOVIC (Croatia) said that peacekeeping missions were going through considerable changes. Transition from the traditional role of monitoring and just “keeping peace” to a more multidimensional and complex role had led to an increased demand for financial and personnel capacities. There was greater need for professional expertise to appropriately match the timeliness and nature of the tasks being mandated. The high level of unpaid assessed contributions for peacekeeping operations remained an issue of particular concern to the Member States. It put troop-contributing countries in a difficult position, particularly those from the developing world and countries in transition.

He said that Croatia supported the reform of peacekeeping, in general, including the revision of the current scale of assessments for the peacekeeping budget. Although the United Nations membership had grown since the time the current scale was prepared, the principle of capacity to pay must adhere. Assessments should be in conformity with the Charter and apportioned among Member States. An assessment should not be made for a former Member State that had ceased to exist, nor should an assessment be made for a State that had not yet applied for membership. The existing regular procedure should be followed to ensure the equal treatment of all States. Problems could not be solved without discussion. A broader exchange of views was needed.

* *** *