FIFTH COMMITTEE DISCUSSES REIMBURSEMENT TO STATES FOR PEACEKEEPING TROOPS

Resumed Fifty-fifth General Assembly

Fifth Committee

63^rd Meeting (AM) 

FIFTH COMMITTEE DISCUSSES REIMBURSEMENT TO STATES

FOR PEACEKEEPING TROOPS

As the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) continued its discussion on contingent-owned equipment, speakers focused on a recommendation about an ad hoc arrangement that would incrementally increase the standard monthly rate of reimbursement to Member States for troops.

Regarding the proposal of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) to temporarily increase the rate by some 4 to

6 per cent, the representative of Australia, also speaking on behalf of Canada and New Zealand, said in the absence of objective, empirical figures, it would be difficult to agree to such an increase.  Since the ACABQ's proposal had not been costed, the merits of a one-time increase, of a size to be determined, could be considered, however.  That figure should be reviewed when the methodology was agreed upon.

An ad hoc increase, not grounded in empirical data and calculated in an irrational and obscure manner, would be insufficient, the representative of the United States said.  One country might benefit while another might be left behind.  Reimbursement represented one side of an agreement.  Rates of reimbursement must be fair and equitable to contributing countries as well as to the Organization as a whole.  By accepting the contribution of troops and allocating the requisite funds, the Organization was entering into an agreement with that country -- reimbursement for troops who were adequately trained and equipped to do the job they were offering to do.

The expectation that soldiers be well-equipped and trained was fair, the representative of Pakistan said.  However, when reimbursement was not made, it defeated the purpose of providing good soldiers.  For ongoing missions, the troop contributors faced uncertainties regarding expenditures on their soldiers and equipment.  It would be fair to demand that, when reimbursement was delayed beyond a reasonable period, a penalty be paid by the United Nations so that the troop- contributing country did not suffer a loss on its expenditures for soldiers or equipment.

Several delegations shared the concern that, for nearly 20 years, the Assembly had been unable to give clear guidance on the issue of reimbursement for troop- contributing costs.  The representative of Poland acknowledged, however, that past debates on the issue had shown that identifying “the cost of a soldier” meant different things to different Member States, and therefore coming up with a

comprehensive methodology might take time.  In that regard he welcomed the ACABQ’s recommendation to commission a group of qualified individuals to study and make proposals on the methodology of establishing troop costs and the elements on which it was based.

Statements were also made by the representatives of Japan, Egypt, Denmark and India.

The Director of the Peacekeeping Financing Division of the Office of Programme Planning, Budget and Accounts, Bock Cheng Yeo, responded to questions from the floor.

The Committee will meet again at a time to be announced in the Journal.

Background

As the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) met this morning, it was expected to continue its general discussion on reformed procedures for determining reimbursement for contingent-owned equipment.  (For more information, see press release GA/AB/3444 dated 14 May 2001.)

Statements

ANDRZWJ T. ABRASZEWSKI (Poland) said that since thousands of Polish soldiers, specialists and support staff had served under the United Nations flag for more than a quarter century -– some even giving their lives -– it was understandable that his country was strongly committed to strengthening the Organization’s peacekeeping functions.  Poland was equally committed to the fair treatment of Member States participating in peace efforts, namely reimbursement for troop contribution.  In that regard, he was satisfied that the post-Phase V Working Group had been able to successfully complete its mandated tasks of reviewing and updating the standards and reimbursement rates for major equipment and logistic support categories.  He was also pleased that the Group had reached agreement on the reformed procedures for determining reimbursement for contingent-owned equipment.

At the same time, Poland noted with concern that the Group had been unable to reach consensus on the subject of calculating standard rates of reimbursement to troop-contributing countries, he continued.  In its report, the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) had made a number of pertinent recommendations on the matter, namely, that pending a comprehensive review of the methodology for such reimbursement, the Assembly might wish to consider an ad hoc arrangement increasing the standard monthly rate of reimbursement by 4 to 6 per cent.  Those rates were currently set at $988 per soldier and a little over $291 extra for a limited number of specialists.  Poland also welcomed the ACABQ’s recommendation for commissioning a group of qualified individuals to study and make proposals on the methodology of establishing troop costs and the elements on which it was based.

He said that it was essential for the elaboration of an agreed methodology on troop costs to be based on timely, comprehensive and transparent data.  That would bring about a fair and lasting solution to this important issue.  He acknowledged, however, that past debates on the issue had shown that identifying “the cost of a soldier” meant different things to different Member States, and therefore coming up with a comprehensive methodology might take time.  He said that the rate of reimbursement, set in 1973 and revised periodically, had been last adjusted in 1991.  During the last 10 years, costs had risen considerably. The Secretary-General had also expressed the opinion that an upward adjustment of reimbursement rates was warranted.  He was concerned, however, that the proposed incremental increase in rates, while fully warranted, was merely symbolic as it would only compensate for a fraction of cost increases.

HENRY FOX (Australia), speaking also on behalf of Canada and New Zealand, emphasized the importance of peacekeeping operations being conducted efficiently and effectively, and the need for simple, transparent and equitable systems of reimbursement for both troop and equipment costs.  It was important to develop common standards for service delivery.  As a step in that direction, he welcomed the proposed measures for pre- and post-deployment inspection.  He agreed on the need for effective procedures to ascertain the capacity of troop contributors to meet the requirements for wet-lease and self-sustainment provisions of the contingent-owned equipment arrangement. 

On contingent-owned equipment, he appreciated the valuable work of the post-Phase V Working Group.  Regarding the proposal of the ACABQ that the General Assembly approve the recommendations of the Working Group, he noted that the proposal was not costed.  The proposal to increase the standard monthly rates of reimbursement for troops by 4 to 6 per cent was also not costed.  He welcomed further information on the basis of those figures.  In the absence of an objective empirical basis, he would find it difficult to agree to an increase.  They were prepared, however, to consider the merits of a “one off” increase, of a size yet to be determined, that would apply until a new methodology was put in place.  That figure should be reviewed when the methodology was agreed upon.

Before agreeing to a figure, the more fundamental issue of methodology must be addressed, he continued.  It was of concern that the General Assembly had not been in a position to provide necessary guidance to the Secretariat on the guiding principles that should inform a comprehensive review.  That guidance should now be provided.  Once that happened, an expert process to undertake a comprehensive review should be initiated.  Neither the Secretary-General’s report nor the report of the ACABQ addressed the issue of the overall impact on the peacekeeping budget of contingent-owned equipment or troop proposals.  Noting the ACABQ’s suggestions for when the increases -– if agreed -– should be reflected in future peacekeeping budgets, he was uneasy about the wisdom of signing up to proposals without knowing the financial consequences. 

SHINICHI YAMANAKA (Japan) said his country attached importance to a methodology for calculating standard rates of reimbursement to troop-contributing States.  It was a critical issue that would bear on the decision of Member States to commit troops to future peacekeeping operations.  Standard rates of reimbursement had remained unchanged for many years.  The absorption factor of 53.9 per cent in the 1996 survey was much higher that the 32.8 per cent in the 1991 survey.  Japan had participated in the January meeting of the Working Group and was ready to accept a reasonable increase of the standard rates with a reasonable methodology.  Japan regretted that the Working Group did not reach a consensus on methodology.  The Committee should continue its efforts to establish a clear methodology by consensus.

Accountability was most important for reforming the methodology, particularly for Member States under current financial difficulties, he added.  The ACABQ’s recommendation to increase the standard monthly rates of reimbursement by 4 to 6 per cent as an ad hoc measure was a good basis for further discussion.  The suggestion regarding a comprehensive review of the methodology was interesting.  Japan would need further clarification, however, if the Committee decided to go along with the ad hoc arrangement recommended by the ACABQ.

CHRISTOPHER WITTMANN (United States) said his country had always recognized that one of the fundamental goals of the United Nations –- preserving international peace and security –- was enhanced by the contributions of Member States to the Organization's peacekeeping operations.  The United States had supported that goal throughout the years and supplied military observers and troops, some of whom had made the ultimate sacrifice in furtherance of that goal. His country, therefore, understood the considerations that a State made before offering, and then committing, troops to a peacekeeping operation.  There were costs involved, even in the smallest deployment.  Member States could not be expected to contribute troops solely on the basis of goodwill, and at the same time, States, including his own country, should realize that not all of the extra costs associated with peacekeeping operations would be reimbursed. 

Moreover, he considered it unfair to other Member States not to provide fair and equitable reimbursement for their contributions to this fundamental responsibility of the United Nations.  His delegation believed, therefore, that rates of reimbursement must be fair and equitable to contributing countries as well as the Organization as a whole.  In order to set such a rate, it was vital that the process of determining the appropriate level be transparent and based on clear empirical data.  An ad hoc figure, not grounded in empirical data and calculated in an irrational and obscure manner, would be insufficient; one country might benefit while another might be left behind.

He believed that reimbursement represented one side of an agreement.  By accepting the contribution of troops and allocating the requisite funds, the Organization was entering into an agreement with that country -- reimbursement for troops who were adequately trained and equipped to do the job they were offering to do.  The United States shared the concern of others that for nearly 20 years, the Assembly had been unable to give clear guidance on this issue.  And while commending the work of the post-Phase V Working Group on a number of its conclusions, which had been subsequently endorsed by the ACABQ, he still felt that the recommendations before the Committee were inadequate.  His delegation believed that the method in which the data was collected and processed did not answer the needs of the Organization. 

He further believed that it was important not to rush to conclusions which were not based on common sense.  Moreover, it was inappropriate and unreasonable for the Committee, which was not composed of experts in the field, to dictate reimbursement methodology.  He urged Member States to ask the Secretary-General to commission a panel of experts to settle the matter once and for all.  Until a more complete picture emerged of just how the issue would be resolved, the United States was uncomfortable with establishing a new rate as outlined in the ACABQ report.

REDA BEBARS (Egypt) said Egypt had always acknowledged that peacekeeping operations were at the centre of the Organization’s important work.  Consequently, it would like to reaffirm its interest in all peacekeeping matters, especially since it had spared no efforts in providing personnel and equipment for peacekeeping over the years.  As for elaborating a methodology for reimbursement to troop contributors, he said such matters should be fair and equitable above all else.  Further, preparation and submission of records to the Security Council, and the ways in which the Council subsequently elaborated or revised peacekeeping mandates, should also be considered closely.  In the interest of fairness, there was also a need to consider how troop-contributing countries were chosen.  Moreover, all States should acknowledge the Organization’s precarious financial situation and should pay their arrears in full and without conditions.  That way, the Organization would be able to reimburse troop-contributing countries without further delay.  This was especially important for developing countries, who made up the bulk of the troop-contributing nations. 

He went on to say that the Secretariat must also restructure the way it handles participation of Member States in peacekeeping operations, as well as the procedure for the drawing up memoranda of understanding.  Egypt welcomed the reports of the Secretary-General and the ACABQ.  He supported the good work done by the post-Phase V Working Group, but was unsure whether the prescribed method of calculating the standard deviation of equipment costs had been appropriately reflected.  The report’s accounting methods seemed to implicitly call into question the data presented by Member States.  It might be more important to leave the methods of calculating such costs up to the group of experts that met yearly on that issue.  Egypt welcomed recommendations on, among other things, major equipment rates, reimbursement for painting major equipment, consideration of autonomous logistic maintenance and various medical initiatives.

He also agreed with the ACABQ recommendation to increase the rate temporarily until a comprehensive review of the methodology for reimbursement could be completed.  However, the Committee should look carefully at some suggestions made by some Member States in that regard.  What was the objective, he asked, of linking evaluations of performance to peacekeeping reimbursement?  That would only lead to deadlock.  As for the insistence of some on the need to establish a link between the costs of forces and their composition, those were questions that should be considered by the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations, if any consideration was deemed necessary at all.  The major Western States, he said, must review their positions of refusing to participate in peacekeeping activities, particularly on the African continent.

JAVED IQBAL (Pakistan) recalled that the Working Group meeting had been a meeting of experts on the subject.  The Working Group’s mandate was divided into four major segments.  In one of the segments, the Group had reached, by consensus, a methodology whereby reimbursement rates and procedures could be agreed upon for major equipment.  The Group had shown respect for data submitted by Member States, devised a method to deal with any shortcomings, and reached a reasonable rate that was fair to all.  The recommendation had been supported by the ACABQ.  Regarding the issue of troop costs, while consensus had not been reached, the Working Group had made certain recommendations for consideration by the General Assembly.  There was also the issue of collecting data.  In that regard, how much expertise would be considered enough?  What kind of data would be acceptable and when would Member States be satisfied?  If discussion continued, troop contributing countries would continue to suffer and the United Nations would lose out in the end.  Pakistan recommended that serious consideration be given to the issue and relief be provided to the Member States that supplied troops. 

On the issue of delays in the signing of memoranda of understanding, it had been repeatedly stated that delays were due to Member States, he continued.  However, the responsibility lay with both parties.  It was not always the case that the memoranda were not signed due to a lack of data from Member States.  Sometimes it was the result of lengthy procedures on the part of the Secretariat.  He urged the Secretariat to speed up procedures.  On the issue of late reimbursement to troop contributors, the expectation that soldiers be well- equipped and trained was fair.  However, when that was the case and reimbursement was not made, it defeated the purpose of providing good soldiers.  For ongoing missions, the troop contributors faced uncertainties regarding expenditures on their soldiers and equipment.  While Pakistan wanted to be fair, it would also be fair to demand that when reimbursement was delayed beyond a reasonable time, a penalty be paid by the United Nations so that the troop-contributing country was

not left in the position where it started to lose on what it had spent on its soldiers.  He urged Member States to review the issues in their totality, and to keep in mind that the future of United Nations peacekeeping should not be imperilled.

MICHAEL LOLLESGAARD (Denmark) thanked the representative of India who had referred to the “Danish model” in his statement to the Committee yesterday.  At the end of the Working Group’s session, it had been obvious that it would not be possible to reach consensus on troop costs.  Instead, the Group had agreed to present different models for deliberation in the Committee.  The “Danish model”, or proposal two in the Working Group’s report, was one of several suggestions.  The model was not meant to be an interim solution.  While a number of countries had found that it could serve as an interim solution, that was not Denmark’s original idea.  Denmark fully aligned itself with the statement of the European Union made yesterday, and supported the idea of conducting a comprehensive review.

RAMESH CHANDRA (India) thanked the representative of Denmark for his clarification.  He felt that there had been a misunderstanding.  However, the thrust of his argument yesterday was made in the context of paragraph 93 of the Group’s report, which said that the General Assembly might wish to note that a vast majority of troop-contributing countries in the Working Group supported the adoption of proposal two as an interim measure.  Yesterday, he had stated that each country was keen to have a standardized methodology in place.  That arrangement was supported as an interim measure.  He would look forward to informal consultations on the subject.  He noted that the ACABQ’s recommendation was not very different.

Responding to questions, BOCK CHENG YEO, Director, Peacekeeping Financing Division, Office of Programme Planning, Budget and Accounts, said there had been several questions through the session on how the Secretariat dealt with old debts that had yet to be paid.  He said that old arrears or liabilities remained on the books for a variety of reasons, and had not been written off or acted on by the Assembly.  The Secretariat recognized that States handled their internal bookkeeping in their own ways, but that did not affect the United Nations accounting of such matters.  He took note of the fact that many delegations had said during open session, and in informal consultations, that information on additional costs was needed before some recommendations could be considered.  He would be able to make available the information that had been given to the ACABQ during informal consultations.

* *** *