FIFTH COMMITTEE INFORMED SUFFICIENT FINANCING RECEIVED FOR UN CIVILIAN SUPPORT MISSION IN HAITI

Press Release
GA/AB/3374

FIFTH COMMITTEE INFORMED SUFFICIENT FINANCING RECEIVED FOR UN CIVILIAN SUPPORT MISSION IN HAITI

Committee Also Considers Increased Use of Nairobi Office, Approves Decision on Guidelines for Internal Control Standards

The United Nations Controller told the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) this morning that as of yesterday some $11.5 million had been received to support the United Nations International Civilian Support Mission in Haiti (MICAH).

Jean-Pierre Halbwachs said that more was expected shortly, which would bring the total available to $13.2 million of the $14.7 million needed to run the Mission. In a letter on the Mission’s funding to the General Assembly dated 31 March, the Secretary-General had proposed the Assembly consider closing MICAH, because no voluntary contributions had been received to pay for it. Now, however, there was no problem with MICAH’s financing. Rather than consider closing it, the Assembly might wish to keep it under review.

The representative of Portugal, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that, because nothing had been contributed for MICAH at the time of the Secretary-General’s letter, that important mission had only half the personnel it needed and its mandate could not be fully implemented. The Union had expressed concern about funding such missions from voluntary contributions. In future, such missions should be adequately financed from the regular budget of the United Nations.

The Committee also commenced consideration of a proposal that the United Nations Committee on Conferences –- the body charged with recommending an annual calendar of United Nations conferences and meetings to the General Assembly -- hold its substantive session this year at the United Nations Office in Nairobi. The suggestion to hold the session was warmly welcomed by many delegations. Others called for more information, and one suggested acceptance of such a proposal, without knowing what it would cost, might be an abdication of the Fifth Committee’s role of overseeing proper use of United Nations’ resources.

Also this morning, the Committee approved, without a vote, a draft decision whereby the Assembly would take note of a Secretary-General’s report on the use of the Guidelines for Internal Control Standards, approved by the International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions.

Fifth Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/AB/3374 68th Meeting (AM) 19 May 2000

Under other matters, an explanation of conditions attached to candidature for the post of Arabic Language Coordinator was sought, and questions were raised about a notice concerning electronic distribution of United Nations documents, and about the provision of interpreters for meetings of regional groups on Member States.

The representatives of the United States, Canada, Syria, Uganda, Japan, Cuba, Republic of Korea, Iran, Namibia, Egypt, Zambia, Algeria, Sudan and Morocco also spoke. The Assistant Secretary-General for General Assembly Affairs and Conference Services, Federico Riesco, and the Chief of the Department of Management’s Oversight Support Unit, Farrena Mahmud, answered questions.

The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. on Monday, 22 May, when it will discuss management irregularities, the liquidation of the United Nations Transitional Administration in Cambodia (UNTAC), financing the United Nations Iraq-Kuwait Observation Mission (UNIKOM) and the United Nations Verification Mission in Guatemala (MINUGUA), and administrative and financial issues concerning the Secretariat’s Non-Governmental Organization Section.

Committee Work Programme

The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) met this morning to consider the financing of the International Civilian Support Mission in Haiti (MICAH), a letter from the Chairman of the Committee on Conferences, and to take a decision on the question of the use of the Guidelines for Internal Control Standards.

The Committee had before it a letter from the Secretary-General to the Assembly President on the International Civilian Support Mission in Haiti (MICAH) (document A/54/819). The Mission was launched on 16 March 2000 to assist the Haitian people in their goal of attaining development and democracy. It was decided that funding for MICAH would come from both the regular budget (some $9.2 million) and from voluntary contributions (some $14.7 million). Regular budgetary resources cover MICAH core staff and administrative personnel. Substantive positions in the three pillars of the Mission -- justice, human rights, and police -- were to be covered by voluntary contributions. A Canadian donation of some $600,000 is anticipated shortly, the Secretary-General states, and a United States contribution of some $1.9 million is earmarked for helicopter services.

The letter says that, to date, the MICAH Trust Fund has received no contributions. As a result, MICAH began its mandate on 16 March 2000 with only core staff in the Mission area. Without substantive staff, the mandate cannot be fulfilled. The Secretary-General asks the Assembly to consider closing the Mission and transferring its substantive activities to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). He also notes that the United Nations has increasingly been given mandates without the necessary financial resources to carry out the mandates.

Also before the Committee was a letter from the Chairman of the Committee on Conferences (document A/C.5/54/62). In the letter, the Committee on Conferences advises that it wishes to hold its 2000 substantive session at the United Nations Office at Nairobi, as that would enhance its understanding of Secretariat-wide issues on the implementation of the calendar of conferences and meetings and would increase awareness of Assembly directives on conference services. It also wishes to consider holding future sessions at other duty stations.

To ensure full attendance by representatives with a high level of expertise, a measure of financial support would be needed, the letter notes. Therefore, a decision from the Assembly on the applicability of travel and subsistence allowances would be required and seeks early Fifth Committee consideration.

[For background on the use of the Guidelines for Internal Control Standards, see Press Release GA/AB/3370 of 15 May.]

Statements

The Assistant Secretary-General for Programme Planning, Budget and Accounts and United Nations Controller, JEAN-PIERRE HALBWACHS, said he was pleased to report, as an update to the Secretary-General’s letter, that as of yesterday some $11.5 million had been received to support the Mission and that $1.7 million was expected shortly from Canada. Thus, $13.2 million of the $14.7 anticipated was now available. Thus, there was no problem with MICAH’s financing. He suggested the Mission be kept under review and a further report be presented at the next session of the Assembly.

EDUARDO MANUEL DA FONSECA FERNANDES RAMOS (Portugal), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that when the resolution establishing the Mission was passed, the Union had supported it fully. The new Mission was to consolidate what had been achieved previously. It particularly welcome that human rights, justice and the police were to be supported by it. The Union had said the Mission should be financed mainly from the regular budget. More than half the funding for the earlier mission had come from voluntary contributions, and the Union had stated then that that should not be a precedent, and asked the Secretary-General to bring inadequate contributions to the attention of the Assembly.

The Secretary-General’s letter said that nothing had been paid in for MICAH, he said. It had begun with very limited personnel -- half of what had been asked for -- and that meant the mandate could not be implemented fully. He was pleased that more had been paid and, therefore, the Mission could do what it was mandated to do. He hoped that in future such missions would be adequately financed.

THOMAS REPASCH (United States) said that the United States was strongly committed to supporting MICAH, the successor to a series of United Nations operations in Haiti. The United States also remained committed to providing voluntary contributions. He regretted that the funding pledged had not flowed as quickly as hoped, but he was pleased to hear that much of the amount pledged was now in place and that the Mission could, therefore, operate effectively. He added that the United States had provided more funding in voluntary contributions for United Nations operations in Haiti than any other country.

JOHN ORR (Canada) said that he had taken note of the Controller’s report in respect to the amount of funds pledged by his country. Canada’s second contribution was forthcoming. The exact amount of the pledge would depend on the exchange rate of the day, since the money was pledged in Canadian dollars. He asked for an indication of the number of countries that had actually pledged and paid into the fund. How many friends of Haiti had come forth with money?

Mr. HALBWACHS said that they had received pledges and contributions from two countries, the United Sates and Canada.

ABDOU AL-MOULA NAKKARI (Syria) thanked the Secretariat for reacting to the Assembly’s resolution that called for it to explore the possibility of holding sessions at various duty stations. Syria approved the proposal and hoped it would be possible to take a decision on the matter. Nairobi in some way represented developing countries and, therefore, had a certain representative value. He had some other concerns about the calendar of conferences, which he would raise later.

BERYL BENTLEY-ANDERSON (United States) said the proposition was not just about Nairobi. It was also about the functioning of the Fifth Committee and of the Committee on Conferences. She asked if the proposal meant that Member States could not rely on the Secretariat to increase the use of the Nairobi conference centre in an effective and responsible manner. She asked if the Fifth Committee was abdicating its primary role as guardian of the budget, by discussing issues without any idea of budgetary implications. Was it calling for abdication of the role of the Committee on Conferences, which was mainly concerned with activities in New York?

She did not know what the eligibility criteria were for the use of Nairobi conference services by other organizations, or what marketing had been done to promote its use, she said, and asked why the Committee was considering proposals to spend the United Nations’ precious resources without asking the Secretariat to explore options that had not yet been considered. Why was the Committee acting so rashly? The United States was not opposed to the use of Nairobi, and its questions were not opposed to its interests. Her country supported improved use of the facility. However, if Nairobi was the test case for all underused centres, and she thought it was, then action should be cautious, documentable and responsible.

NESTER ODAGA-JALOMAYO (Uganda), also speaking on behalf of Kenya and the United Republic of Tanzania, said he entirely supported the views expressed by the representative of Syria on the item. He thanked the Committee on Conferences and the Secretariat for their farsightedness in implementing that part of the Assembly’s resolution. It was a good way to implement the decision, and he hoped that such positive and concrete steps would be taken in future on all other Assembly resolutions. Thus, he supported the proposal contained in the letter from the Committee on Conferences that its next substantive session be held in Nairobi, and would support agreement with it. Regarding the questions that had been asked, they reminded him of the discussion at last December’s session of the Fifth Committee. He would prefer not to look backwards.

Mr. RAMOS (Portugal), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that the Union would like during informal consultations to have more specific information on why the meeting should be held in Nairobi. They would pursue the matter further in informal consultations.

ARATA FUJI (Japan) said that he would like to obtain recent information on utilization of the Nairobi Centre by the United Nations Office in Nairobi and the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat), which were mainly expected to utilize the Centre.

Mr. ORR (Canada) said that Canada had no problem with the Committee holding substantive sessions at other United Nations conference centres. It was his understanding, however, that the Committee on Conferences was a committee of Member States and not individual experts. Canada would like confirmation that it was indeed a committee of Member States, in which case there would be no reason for payment of their travel expenses.

DULCE MARIA BUERG0 RODRIQUEZ (Cuba) said that on the letter now under consideration, Cuba reaffirmed its complete support for enhancing the use of all United Nations conference centres. Cuba was pleased that the Committee on Conferences gave positive consideration of the Assembly’s request and hoped that the Committee would take a positive decision in that respect.

PARK HAE-YUN (Republic of Korea) said that his delegation was not against holding the session in Nairobi. Some delegations had raised special reasons for holding the session there. He would like to hear an explanation of those reasons during informals.

MORTEZA MIRMOHAMMAD (Iran) said that being a former representative to the Committee on Conferences, he had some knowledge of the issue of utilization of conference services in Nairobi. Iran was supportive of any initiative to use that important conference centre. The Assembly requested the Committee to provide a proposal. The proposal was before them, and they had to be positive on it.

GEBHARD KANDANGA (Namibia) aligned his country with the views expressed by the representatives of Uganda and Syria on the issue of holding the next substantive session of the Committee on Conferences in Nairobi. That had been extensively discussed in December, resulting in Assembly resolution 54/248. He was happy about the Secretariat’s initiative, and could not agree that any decision would be hasty, given the extensive discussions in December.

AYMAN M. ELGAMMAL (Egypt) associated Egypt with those countries that had called for a decision in favour of the good initiative. Such a decision would be in accordance with the Assembly’s encouragement. Recently, it had been decided to encourage increased use of the Conference Centre in Nairobi and Member State should support that decision.

MATHIAS DAKA (Zambia) said he recalled the previous discussion on the matter, and the proposal was in accord with it. He welcomed the proposal and endorsed those Member States that called for its acceptance.

ABDELMALEK BOUHEDDOU (Algeria) said, as a member of the Committee on Conferences, he supported the decision to hold that body’s next session in Nairobi, in accordance with the Assembly’s encouragement. He would revert to the matter of travel costs, should the session be held in Nairobi, in informal consultations.

SIVIG ABDALLA (Sudan) associated his country with those supporting the holding of the Committee on Conferences’ next substantive session in Nairobi, for the reasons put forward by the previous speakers.

Acting Chairman AHMED DARWISH (Egypt) advised that answers would be provided to the questions that had been raised in the Committee’s informal consultations.

ABDESALAM MEDINA (Morocco) said that in the informal consultations answers would be provided to questions raised today, and he hoped that a decision could be reached. He wished to avail himself of the presence in the Committee of the Assistant Secretary-General for General Assembly Affairs and Conference Services, Federico Riesco, to ask about a periodic information bulletin (ST/IC/2000/33) on the 2000 competitive examination for an Arabic Language Coordinator. His attention had been drawn to a condition for participation in the examination that said a candidate must have, in addition to Arabic, a working knowledge of English. Knowledge of other official United Nations languages was only listed as desirable.

He asked for a clarification of that condition, which excluded those who were Arabic, but were not fluent in English, although they may have other language skills. If the interpretation was correct, that was a problem and he asked how it could be solved. It was not the first time the problem had occurred, he noted, as a competitive examination scheduled for last year had been cancelled as a result of similar concerns.

Mr. NAKKARI (Syria) said that, under other matters, he wanted to comment on something concerning conferences and conference services. He knew that the Committee always had that item on its agenda. That item made it possible for delegations to explain their views. Syria had a number of comments.

The first was a question of restoring interpretation services for regional groups, he said. In a General Assembly resolution, the Assembly had said that it asked to ensure that regional groups would be provided with interpretation services. The Secretariat, however, had not been responding favourably to that request. He had been in a meeting of the "Group of 77" developing countries and China, and the Secretariat had not provided interpretation services, although there were no workload pressures at the time. Meetings of the Group were held during the lunch period, a time when no other meetings were taking place. Further, for example, the Secretariat did not provide interpretation services for the preparatory meetings on women.

He said that Syria also had a question regarding a document published by the Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention. The document announced the holding of the ninth session on the question of organized crime in June 2000 and the paper indicated that it would be provided electronically in the six official languages. He could only express regret at the method that was being adopted regarding document publication. The Assembly had insisted that electronic means not affect documentation, which should be published through normal channels. Regarding the paper before them on information technology, he wanted to know when they would be having a meeting to examine the issue. It was an item on the agenda for the resumed session.

FEDERICO RIESCO, Assistant Secretary-General, Department of General Assembly Affairs and Conference Services, said that he apologized that he would not be able to answer the question of the representative of Morocco. He would inquire and follow up on his question. On the first point raised by Syria, it was also mentioned in an Assembly resolution that services, particularly interpretative services, to regional groups were provided on an ad hoc basis. They were provided to the extent that services were available.

Notwithstanding that, he continued, the Secretariat had been making special efforts to provide services, despite a record high level of meeting activity in recent weeks. In one week alone, Conferences Services had been able to provide services to 18 meetings of the Group of 77. They had also been providing services on weekends, which was a new development. They would continue to make as much of an effort as possible to ensure that as many requests as possible could be met.

On the second point raised, he said that he was not aware of the document the representative of Syria had mentioned, but would follow up with his colleagues in Vienna. It was his understanding that when documents were provided electronically, they would also be provided in hard copy. Mr. NAKKARI (Syria) thanked Mr. Riesco and the Secretariat for their efforts to provide interpretation services. He understood that the Secretariat was facing difficult conditions. He also understood from the Assembly resolution that the need to provide interpretation services must be met in accordance with requests of groups, and not on an ad hoc basis. Sometimes, the main committees that meet after 6 p.m. had no interpretative services. It was not just a question of regional groups.

He recalled that the Group had had two meetings without interpretation. It addressed a letter to the Secretariat to express its regret at the lack of interpretation. Following that letter, the Secretariat did provide interpretation services, despite workload pressures. As for the Vienna document, he understood that electronic documents did not prevent the documents from being published in hard copy. All that he wanted was for documents to include the announcement that they would also be distributed in hard copy.

The Committee then turned its attention to consideration of the use of the Guidelines for Internal Control Standards.

The Acting Chairman, Mr. DARWISH (Egypt), proposed a draft decision, whereby the Assembly would take note of the Secretary-General’s report on the matter, also taking account of the Guidelines approved by the International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions.

Mr. NAKKARI (Syria) said he had no objection to the decision, which had been shown to Member States in advance. No decision should be adopted by the Committee unless it had been shown to Member States 24 hours prior. Last time the matter had been discussed, the Committee had almost adopted a revised decision containing a reference not approved by the General Assembly. He thanked the Committee Chairman for the intelligent way she had handled the proposed amendment of the decision. He noted that the Secretariat had not sent a letter to the Board of Auditors. He would not ask for an amendment to the draft decision, however, as a demonstration of his flexibility and his insistence about prior information on any draft decisions to be considered. He did not like to see informal consultations undertaken in a formal meeting.

Mr. ODAGA-JALOMAYO (Uganda) said he would like some clarification of the decision. He asked for an explanation of the options originally considered by the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) and the Secretariat, in particular the difference between publication of the Guidelines, their incorporation into the United Nations financial rules and regulations, and the amendment of those regulations.

Mr. MIRMOHAMMAD (Iran) said, because of the views of the ACABQ and the Board of Auditors on the use of the Guidelines, he did not think he was able to accept a draft decision that would take note of them, but would only be able to approve deciding to take note of the Secretary-General’s report.

FARRENA MAHMUD, Department of Management, then explained that initially it had been proposed that a formal reference to the Guidelines be included in the financial rules and regulations. That would formally recognize what was already being practised by the Secretariat. The ACABQ had discussed the matter and consulted with the Office of Legal Affairs and the Board of Auditors. A rationale for not amending the financial regulations was presented in the ACABQ report to the Fifth Committee’s last resumed session. The Secretariat had accepted the ACABQ recommendation that there be no formal adoption of the Guidelines, since the spirit of the Guidelines was already an integral part of operating procedures. Therefore, the Office of Internal Oversight Services’ recommendation had already been implemented, albeit not formally. The views of the Board of Auditors and the ACABQ were very clear. If the decision to note the Secretary-General’s report was approved, the result would be as the ACABQ recommended.

Mr. ODAGA-JALOMAYO (Uganda) thanked the Department for the clarification. He had no problem with the draft decision.

The Acting Chairman, Mr. DARWISH (Egypt), explained that the draft decision would only note the Secretary-General's report. He then read the draft decision again and it was approved without a vote.

Mr. REPASCH (United States) said that, as previously indicated, the United States believed the Guidelines should be included in the financial rules and regulations. He noted that the Auditors and the ACABQ saw things differently and, therefore, had gone along with the approval of the draft decision. However, it was important to note that, in many instances, such as those mentioned in the Board of Auditors report on peacekeeping, the Organization found itself in difficult positions because of abuse, fraud and mismanagement due to weak internal controls. The Fifth Committee should not abdicate its responsibility to ensure that internal controls were as strong as could be, he said, and he expressed wonder at Member States not accepting the Guidelines, since most of them were also members of the body that had drawn them up.

Mr. BUERGO RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said she had asked for the floor before the decision was taken. The report of the Secretary-General clearly enacted the recommendations of the Board of Auditors and the ACABQ on the matter. The decision should probably, therefore, just take note of his report, rather than refer to the Guidelines.

Mr. ORR (Canada) said he understood that the inclusion or non-inclusion of the Guidelines was fairly moot, given that the Secretariat had almost finalized a revised set of financial rules and regulations, and would present them at the fifty-fifth Assembly session. The reason revisions were needed was that, in some instances, controls were slack and inefficient, while in others they were stifling. The Secretary-General’s acknowledgement of that was a serious admission of failure by the Secretariat. He hoped that, when the new rules were promulgated, they would be consistent with the Guidelines, to ensure they avoided over-control in some areas and under-control in others.

Currently, the Secretary-General had the responsibility for establishing detailed financial rules and procedures for the United Nations. They were totally within his purview, as a consequence of General Assembly delegation. Thus, he could ensure the new rules and procedures were consistent with the Guidelines.

Mr. NAKKARI (Syria) said the issue was raised two years ago in the Fifth Committee. In considering a proposed change, the ACABQ had asked the Board of Auditors for their view on the issue. The Secretariat ought to have done that itself. Neither the ACABQ nor the Board supported the inclusion of the Guidelines in the rules and regulations, he said. The Committee’s understanding in the past was that there was no agreement to incorporate them in the rules and regulations, but that they may be published for reference. In no way did they bind the Secretariat or the General Assembly. Taking note of the report was the ideal way to take up the document. However, if many Member States felt the need to make interventions on the draft decision, then perhaps the best way to resolve the controversy would be in informal consultations.

* *** *