Fifty-sixth General Assembly

Fifth Committee

47^th Meeting (AM)

ACABQ RECOMMENDS $450-MILLION BUDGET FOR UN MISSION IN DRC -–

$87 MILLION LESS THAN FIGURE REQUESTED BY SECRETARIAT

Several Speakers Express Disappointment

At Lack of Data to Justify Secretariat’s Demands

The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) this morning took up the financing of the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC). 

The recommendation of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) was to appropriate some $450 million -- $87 million less than the $537 million requested by the Secretary-General.  That amount, said ACABQ Chairman Conrad S.M. Mselle, as he introduced the Advisory Committee’s report, included some $393.23 million already appropriated and assessed on Member States.

Introducing the Mission's budget, Jean-Pierre Halbwachs, Assistant Secretary-General for Programme Planning, Budget and Accounts and United Nations Controller, said some $537.05 million gross was needed to cover the requirements for phase II of the deployment of MONUC and the initial stages of phase III.  Since last November, however, the revised estimates could be reduced to

$533.88 million.  With some $393.23 million already appropriated, the General Assembly was being asked to appropriate an additional $140.6 million.

[When the Committee last considered the financing of MONUC, in May 2001, it approved only a partial budget for the Mission.  Pending the submission of a full budget for the period 1 July 2001 to 30 June 2002, the Assembly, by its resolution 55/275 of June 2001, authorized some $200 million gross for the period 1 July to 31 December 2001.]

Several speakers stressed the importance of providing adequate resources for the Mission, but expressed disappointment at the lateness and lack of focus of the budget documents before them.

The representative of Spain, speaking on behalf of the European Union and associated States, strongly supported the Secretary-General’s efforts to bring lasting peace to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).  The formidable tasks envisioned for the Mission under the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement required careful preparation and financial support.  While recognizing numerous geographical and infrastructure constraints affecting the Mission, he expressed disappointment with

the budget document and called upon the Secretariat to improve shortcomings in the presentation of the next one.  In general, there was poor justification for most new posts and, in several cases, there was no direct relation between their number and the workload.

Speakers also expressed concern at the decision to award a contract for air services to a company that was not the lowest bidder.  The representative of Ghana was seriously concerned by the reports of an overrun of outsourcing policies and procurement procedures carefully laid down for tendering and selecting bids.  At a time when the international community was asking for more resources for United Nations peacekeeping operations, it was a sad commentary to witness such a gross dissipation of resources.  He did not accept the Secretariat's explanations of “operational necessity” and failed to understand the exigencies of the circumstances, especially as the lower bid –- some $24.5 million –- had been ignored for the much higher bid of some $34 million.  He was also concerned with the integrity of the document before the Committee, as the air-services contract issue had not been mentioned in the list of contract services.

The Committee then turned to the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) follow-up investigation into allegations that defence counsel at the International Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia had either been solicited for or had accepted fee-splitting requests from detainees.  The United States representative welcomed the fact that the Tribunals were implementing the recommendations of the OIOS and taking further steps to prevent abuse in the future.  However, she was concerned with the new findings:  at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, conclusive evidence had been found of fee-splitting and related abuses.  She was extremely dismayed that a staff member who had admitted receiving kickbacks was still on the payroll.  At the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, a person who had successfully claimed indigence, and was represented by a defence team funded by the Tribunal, had purchased real estate while in detention.

Also introduced this morning were reports on the estimates in respect of matters of which the Security Council was seized in the context of good offices, preventive diplomacy and post-conflict peace-building.  The Director of Programme Planning and Budget Division, Warren Sach, recalled that in December, the Assembly had taken only provisional measures on the funding of 17 special political missions under the programme budget for 2002-2003.  Two additional missions -- the Expert Panel on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of the DRC, and the Monitoring Mechanism concerning Afghanistan -- now brought the total number of Council-authorized missions to 19, with consolidated requirements amounting to some $41.46 million, inclusive of $11.11 million approved by the Assembly in its resolution 56/255.

The Committee also returned to the issue of recently announced cutbacks in services, which was initially discussed last week (see Press Release GA/AB/3495 of 6 March).  Responding to several delegations’ concerns, Mr. Halbwachs said that those measures were not in contravention of the budget resolutions adopted by the Assembly at the end of its regular session.  In fact, they had been taken to comply with those texts.  The Assembly had adopted a budget that was $75 million

(page 1b follows)

lower than the requested amount, and it had been explicit as to where the reductions should be applied:  travel of staff, contractual services, general operating expenses, supplies and materials, furniture and equipment, consultative services, regional commissions’ budgets, and information technology.

He added that the Fifth Committee had spent 40 informal meetings on the budget and presented some 490 written questions, to which the Secretariat had provided extensive responses.  The budget documents contained detailed information regarding the cuts, and that information had been available to the Committee when it took its decision.

Speaking on behalf of the "Group of 77" Developing Nations and China, the representative of Venezuela said he recognized the importance of the Secretary-General’s concerns about fulfilling many important functions within a reduced budget.  The Group’s basic priority was to fulfil the United Nations programme of work.  However, countries with limited resources would suffer the consequences of a reduction in an unbalanced way.  Many of the permanent missions that used information technology would have great difficulties with the reductions.  Objecting to the ban on night-time and weekend meetings, he said that some missions had problems covering meetings with a limited number of staff.  While he would like to see all diplomats work an eight-hour day, in reality, some worked up to 18 hours a day. 

Also introducing reports before the Committee and responding to comments and questions from the floor were the Under-Secretary-General of the OIOS, Dileep Nair, and the Assistant Chief of the Safety and Security Service, Joseph Martella.

Statements were also made by the representatives of Syria, Botswana, Namibia, India, Australia, Jamaica and Egypt.

The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. tomorrow, 12 March, when it is scheduled to continue its consideration of matters of which the Council is seized.

Background

The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) this morning was expected to begin its consideration of the report by the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) on the investigation into fee-splitting arrangements between defence counsel and indigent detainees at the two International Tribunals.  It was also scheduled to consider estimates in connection with matters of which the Security Council is seized, and take up the financing of the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC).

On the first of these issues, the Committee had before it a note by the Secretary-General transmitting to the Assembly the report of the Office of Internal Oversight Services on the follow-up investigation in connection with the allegations on possible fee-splitting between defence counsel and indigent detainees at both Rwanda and Yugoslavia Tribunals (document A/56/836).  The report advises the Assembly of the key findings of the investigation, which demonstrated that several defense counsel in Rwanda have received detainees’ requests for fee-splitting.  One such counsel has subsequently resigned. 

Having received a request from his client for a monthly sum of

$2,500, according to the report, another counsel initially agreed to the solicitation, but claims that the agreement was never implemented.  His client refuted the allegation and filed a motion for withdrawal of counsel.  New evidence in the case, however, clearly shows that the counsel had, in fact, engaged in misconduct by inflating his billings to the Tribunal.  As a result, the Registry has decided to discharge the counsel from the case.  [Indigents accused in both Tribunals are entitled to have counsel assigned to them by the Registrars, with legal fees and costs borne by the Tribunals.

Yet another counsel informed the Registrar that he had declined a solicitation from his client who had asked him to provide $5,000 monthly as part of a fee-splitting arrangement.  The Registry is currently investigating the matter in consultation with OIOS.  One staff member of the Rwanda Tribunal has admitted to repeatedly requesting and receiving kickbacks from several defence team members in order to process their claims in an expeditious manner.  Also according to the report, in October 2000, one accused person at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, who had successfully claimed indigency and was represented by a defence team funded by the Tribunal, purchased real estate while in detention. 

According to the document, the OIOS will continue to pursue these issues in consultation with the Registries.  The OIOS was pleased to note that both Tribunals have implemented most of the recommendations contained in its previous report, and additional steps have also been taken to prevent abuse of the legal aid system in the future. 

Also before the Committee was a report of the Secretary-General on estimates in respect of matters of which the Security Council is seized (document A/C.5/56/25 and Add.3).  The issue was first taken up during the Assembly’s regular session.  The reports were submitted in the context of actions taken by the Council in 2001 regarding good offices, preventive diplomacy and post-conflict peace-building missions.  The report itself contains proposed resource requirements of 15 political missions pertaining to matters of which the Council is seized, the mandates of which extend into the biennium 2002-2003.  The total estimated requirement amounts to some $29.52 million.

[At the conclusion of its regular session, the Assembly adopted a decision on estimates in respect of matters of which the Security Council is seized, approving the charge of some $8 million for the period 1 January to 31 March 2002 for 15 special political missions dealing with Council matters.  It also concurred with the recommendation of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) that further action on the matter should be deferred to the first resumed session in March 2002 as a result of late submission of the proposal, which totaled some $29 million.]

Addendum 3 contains resource requirements for two recently established political missions, the mandates for which extend into 2002-2003 -– the Expert Panel on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of the DRC and the Monitoring Mechanism concerning Afghanistan.  The total estimated requirements amount to some $3.6 million, to be charged against some $98.34 million approved by the Assembly for special political missions under section 3, Political affairs, of the budget for 2002-2003.

The ACABQ recommendations on the matter are contained in a series of related reports (documents A/56/7/Add.5-8).  The December reports of the Advisory Committee (addenda 5 through 7) were dealt with in the context of the regular session of the Assembly.  They recommended taking interim action on various missions, pending detailed review of the matter in February 2002 and deferring action on overall requirements until the first resumed session of the Assembly.

The latest report of the Advisory Committee is dated 4 March 2002 (document A/56/7/Add.8).  It explains that in December, the ACABQ recommended approval of a charge of $8 million for the missions dealt with in document A/C.5/56/25 for the period 1 January to 31 March 2002, pending detailed review in February and subsequent action by the Assembly.  For the United Nations Office in Burundi, the ACABQ recommended approval of some $1.7 million, under the same terms.  For the Special Adviser on Cyprus, an amount of some $1.41 million was recommended for the period from 1 January to 31 December.  In its resolution 56/255 of 24 December 2001, the Assembly approved the amounts recommended by the Committee. 

Following the February review, the Advisory Committee recommends approval of a charge of some $41.46 million, inclusive of $11.11 million approved by the General Assembly in its resolution 56/255 against the provision for special political missions requested under section 3, Political affairs, of the programme budget for 2002-2003.

In the “general considerations” part of its report, the Advisory Committee states that closer coordination is needed between the Departments of Political Affairs, Peacekeeping Operations and Management to facilitate the submission of estimates for special political missions early in the sessions of the Assembly.  The presentation of reports on such estimates requires improvement, and in the future, adequate information should be provided on the performance of the missions.  It is necessary to fully justify resource requirements in documentation submitted to the Assembly. 

The ACABQ further recommends giving more consideration to outsourcing of support costs, wherever feasible.  Proposals for new missions should be accompanied by an analysis of whether they represent the best option under the circumstances.  The Advisory Committee also expresses concern about possible duplication between special missions, pointing out the multiplicity of advisers, envoys and offices dealing with African issues.  Not questioning the need for any of the above, the Committee stresses the importance of complementary efforts and activities, to the extent possible.

On the financing of MONUC, the Committee had before it a report of the Secretary-General containing the budget for the Mission for the period 1 July 2001 to 30 June 2002 (document A/56/660).  The budget, which amounts to some

$537.1 million gross (about $528.5 million net), is based on an authorized strength of 5,537 military personnel, including 810 observers, as authorized by Security Council resolution 1355 of June 2001.  Of the total budget, some 13 per cent of resources relate to civilian personnel, some 59 per cent to operational costs and about 25 per cent to military personnel.

When the Committee last considered the financing of MONUC, in May 2001, it approved only a partial budget for the Mission.  The full budget was not available at the time for several reasons, including circumstances underlying the United Nations involvement in the Congo.  In the meantime, the Assembly, by its resolution 55/275 of June 2001, authorized some $200 million gross for the period 1 July to 31 December 2001, pending the submission and review of a full budget for the period 1 July 2001 to 30 June 2002.

In the report, the Assembly is requested to appropriate some $337.1 million gross (about $333.71 million net) for the Mission's maintenance from 1 July 2001 to 30 June 2002, in addition to the $200 million gross (about $194.8 million net) appropriated for 1 July to 31 December 2001.  The Assembly is also requested to assess an additional $68.53 million gross ($69.42 million net) for the maintenance of the Mission from 1 July to 31 December 2001.  The Assembly is also asked to assess some $246.15 million gross (about $242.24 million net) for 1 January to

15 June 2002, and some $22.4 million gross for the period from 16 June to 30 June 2002 should the Council decide to continue the mandate of the Mission beyond

15 June 2002.

The Committee also had before it two related reports of the Advisory Committee.  In the first report (document A/56/688), the ACABQ offers preliminary views on the Mission's budget, saying that it had not been given sufficient time to thoroughly examine the estimates.  The Advisory Committee recommends that the Assembly approve appropriation with assessment of some $193.24 million gross ($190.72 million net) for the period from 1 January to 31 March 2002.  It recommends that funding be granted without prejudice to recommendations that the Advisory Committee might make to the Assembly in the spring of 2002, and any decision that the Assembly might take thereon regarding budgetary and administrative matters, including posts.

In a later report (document A/56/845), dated 27 February 2002, the ACABQ notes that the current appropriation authorized by the Assembly for the Mission for the period 1 July 2001 to 31 March 2002 amounts to some $393.24 million gross.  Of that amount, some $200 million gross relates to the period from 1 July to

31 December 2001, as authorized by the Assembly in its resolutions 55/275 of June 2001 and 56/252 of December 2001.  For the period from 1 July to 31 December 2001, expenditures amounted to some $189.24 million gross, including some $89.9 million in unliquidated obligations.  For the period from 1 January to 30 June 2002, the Advisory Committee was informed that the estimated requirements amounted to some $344.65 million gross.  Taking into account the expenditure as of 31 December 2001, the revised estimates for the financial period from 1 July 2001 to 30 June 2002 amount to some $533.88 million gross, reflecting a reduction of some

$3.2 million gross from the estimates of $537.1 million gross contained in document A/56/660.

Commenting on the budget's format and presentation, the ACABQ says that the budget document is poorly organized, duplicative and confusing.  The presentation of the administrative component is particularly confusing.  Regarding the structure of the Mission, while recognizing the geographical and infrastructure constraints affecting MONUC, the Advisory Committee observes that the present cost of logistic, administrative and other support for the Missions appear to be out of proportion to the cost of its substantive activities.  Every effort must be made to ensure that the establishment and expansion of MONUC’s support capacity is at least commensurate with the level, extent and intensity of the peace process in the Democratic Republic of the Congo as mandated by the Security Council. 

Bearing in mind the fluidity of the current situation, the Advisory Committee does not, in most cases, recommend specific reductions in post levels at the current time.  New positions, however, should be filled with prudence and the number and level of posts requested in the next submission should be fully supported with a convincing analysis of what can be realistically carried out in the budget period.  A clear indication should be given of the relationship between the level of support staff and the level of contractual services.

The substantive civilian component comprises 441 posts, including 325 new posts, the report says.  The ACABQ notes a lack of clear explanation for new posts proposed for the Office of Political Affairs (67), the Office of Humanitarian Affairs (39), the Office of Human Rights (39), the Office of Child Protection (8) and the Office of Public Information (72).  Regarding the newly proposed Gender Issues Unit, the ACABQ feels the proposed functions of the Unit are too vague and appear not to be directly related to the Mission's substantive mandate and its administrative support structure requirements.  Regarding proposals for the Division of Disarmament, Demobilization, Repatriation, Resettlement and Reintegration, the ACABQ notes it is a priority function for the peace process in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.  The number of individuals to be disarmed, demobilized, repatriated, resettled and reintegrated, however, should be estimated before the Advisory Committee can form a judgement on the adequacy of the resources requested.  The Advisory Committee recommends acceptance of all the posts requested for the Division. 

The Advisory Committee is of the opinion that some $450 million is adequate to cover the requirements of MONUC for the period from 1 July 2001 to 30 June 2002.  Taking into account the appropriations authorized by the General Assembly in its resolutions 55/275 and 56/252 amounting to some $393.24 million, the ACABQ recommends that the Assembly appropriate the additional amount of $56.75 million for the period from 1 July 2001 to 30 June 2002.

The report also includes reference to a contract for provision of airfield services to MONUC.  In March 2001, the Field Administrative and Logistics Division conducted two technical evaluations of bidders and recommended award of the contract to Pacific Architects and Engineers Inc./Daher.  The ACABQ finds that the role played by FALD (FALD) in awarding the contract contradicts the basic "conflict of interest" principle, by which departments that prepare requisitions for services are barred from recommending providers of those services.  The contract, which is valid until 30 June 2002, was awarded owing to "operational necessity" for an amount not to exceed $34.22 million for one year. 

The choice of PAE/Daher over the lowest bidder raises troubling questions, the report continues.  The lowest bidder appears to have been rejected because of several factual and interpretation errors made during the technical evaluation.  The Advisory Committee understands that MONUC had serious reservations regarding the contract, indicating that works costing up to $14.8 million were not needed since MONUC staff and a South African service provider were providing airfield services.  After consulting with the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, however, MONUC withdrew its reservations.  It appears that the role of MONUC officials in monitoring and controlling expenditures may have been undermined. 

The Advisory Committee offers several solutions for remedying the situation, including requiring the contract to be resubmitted to tender at the end of the first year (by June 2002).  Another option would be to award a series of contracts to more than one provider.  This option would protect MONUC from the consequences of depending solely on one service provider for an area of operation as large as the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Statements

The Under-Secretary-General of the Office of Internal Oversight Services, DILEEP NAIR, introduced the report of the Secretary-General to the Committee, saying that the follow-up investigation had been conducted in October 2001-January 2002.  The initial investigation into allegations of fee-splitting had found evidence that the legal aid system fee-splitting of both Tribunals had been abused, and that some former and current defence counsel had either been solicited and/or had accepted requests for fee-splitting.  The report on the follow-up investigation had provided additional information in that regard.  Today, both Tribunals had implemented most of the report’s recommendations.  Given the importance of the matter, the OIOS would continue to actively pursue it in close consultation with both Registries. 

ELIZABETH A. NAKIAN (United States) thanked the OIOS for its investigation and said that her delegation was pleased that the Tribunals were implementing the recommendations of the OIOS and taking further steps to prevent abuse in the future.  However, she was concerned with the new findings.  At the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, conclusive evidence had been found of fee-splitting and related abuses.  She applauded action taken in that respect.  She was extremely dismayed, however, that a staff member who had admitted wrongdoing was still on the payroll.  She demanded explanation of that situation, which showed lack of accountability. 

At the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, she continued, a person who had successfully claimed indigence and was represented by a defence team funded by the Tribunal had purchased real estate while in detention.  Both Tribunals should formulate the definition of indigence and take measures to prevent a similar situation in the future.  Both Tribunals should also assign full-time investigators to look into the matter.  While appropriate action had been initiated, the Tribunals should keep the matter among their priorities and impose sanctions for breaches of the rules.  She urged both Tribunals to take immediate steps to implement all the recommendations of the OIOS. 

Mr. NAIR explained that disciplinary action was being taken regarding the ICTR staff member who had been found to have received kickbacks.  The staff member had since been suspended. 

As the Committee turned to the estimates in respect of matters of which the Security Council was seized, the Director of the Programme Planning and Budget Division, Warren Sach, introduced the report of the Secretary-General to the Committee.  He said that initial requirements for the 17 missions involved had been presented to the Committee in the fall.  The requirements for two additional missions -- the Expert Panel on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of the DRC, and the Monitoring Mechanism concerning Afghanistan -- were being presented in addendum 3 to the initial report.  The requirements for those missions amounted to some $3.6 million.  The addition of those two missions would bring the total of Council-authorized missions to 19 and consolidated requirements would amount to some $41.46 million, inclusive of

$11.11 million approved by the Assembly in its resolution 56/255 as a partial provision for the first 17 missions against the provision for special political missions requested under section 3, Political affairs of the programme budget for 2002-2003.  The balance pending approval amounted therefore to some $30 million.

The Chairman of the ACABQ, Conrad S.M. MSELLE introduced its related reports, saying that the Advisory Committee had now investigated the initial reports which had been presented rather late.  The ACABQ had offered a number of suggestions to improve further reporting on the Mission, pointing in particular to the need to provide full justification for the amounts requested.  The ACABQ recommended approval of some $41.46 million for special political missions, as requested in the Secretary-General’s report.

ABDOU AL-MOULA NAKKARI (Syria) noted that the report of the ACABQ contained important recommendations, requesting in particular that more clarifications should be made concerning the missions and the amounts requested.  The Advisory Committee had also recommended increasing cooperation between the United Nations and other actors in the field.  His delegation wanted to know how the ACABQ interpreted the expression “other actors in the field”. 

In paragraph 13 of its report, he said, the Advisory Committee had indicated that in its first report on the matter, it had requested further information from the Department of Political Affairs and the Department of Peacekeeping Operations regarding their role in the administration of funds for special political missions.  No response had been received so far, and he asked why information had not been provided to the ACABQ.  It was important that the statement of the Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs to the ACABQ was annexed to the report, for transparency was of utmost importance.  

Another interesting aspect of the matter was that certain missions were headquartered in New York, he continued.  However, his impression was that the special political missions were to operate in the field.  He asked for clarifications in that regard.

Responding to the issues raised, Mr. SACH said that in paragraph 13 of its report, the Advisory Committee recalled that it had requested clarification from DPA and DPKO on the administration of funds for special political missions.  Any large special political mission was given support from those Departments.  Small and easy-to-administer missions in the field received support from DPA.  In the field, it was important to avoid duplication in terms of political support.  The current arrangements were working reasonably well, but it was important to ensure continued coordination between the two departments involved. 

Regarding the location of the missions, he said that most of them were field-based, but not exclusively so.  That had been the case in 2000-2001, the first biennium when current arrangements for such missions were introduced.  In some cases, missions had been authorized by the Council to be based at Headquarters, although connected with the field. 

Mr. MSELLE added that in referring to the outsourcing of the support functions in its report, the Advisory Committee did not in any way imply that it was recommending contracting out the political mandate of the missions.  In outsourcing support, such functions as payroll processing could be outsourced, presenting opportunities for the Secretariat to use facilities in the mission area that might be provided other specialized agencies of the United Nations.  The same applied to recruitment.  Political reporting could not be outsourced, he added. 

The report had also mentioned actors in the field, he said.  That meant funds and programmes and specialized agencies.  With respect to the exact mandate of the missions as authorized by the Council, it was not up to the ACABQ to authorize the mandate.  The mandate determined the level of resources requested, however, and it was important to indicate in the resource requests the nature of the mandate under which the funds were sought. 

THOMAS REPASCH (United States) said that since the report of the ACABQ had just been issued, he had not had a chance to read it thoroughly.  However, in paragraph 9, the Advisory Committee noted that the ratio of support/logistic personnel to substantive personnel was rather high.  The Advisory Committee seemed to believe that costs on support personnel could be lowered.  Did it have any proposals to reduce the amounts? 

Mr. NAKKARI (Syria) agreed with the statement of the ACABQ on the need for clear mandates for special political missions.  He, too, was not questioning the mandates of the various missions.  Was paragraph 17 of the ACABQ’s report a recommendation?  It was an important paragraph and he fully agreed with it.

Responding to the comments from the floor, Mr. MSELLE said that by their nature, small missions had high administrative and management costs.  There came a time, however, when it was not possible to make reductions.  Regarding the special political mission for West Africa, for example, only 5 posts were substantive out of a total of 19.  Transportation, communication and support staff, for example, were needed.  The ACABQ had not, therefore, recommended reducing the amounts.  The ACABQ’s comments on the need to establish missions only after careful analysis of the various options might provide the Secretary-General with opportunity to ensure that special political missions did not spend so much money supporting themselves but rather on supporting the overall goal of the peace process.

The Committee then turned to the financing of the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC).

JEAN-PIERRE HALBWACHS, Assistant Secretary-General for Programme Planning, Budget and Accounts and United Nations Controller, introduced the Secretary-General’s report, saying that a resource level of some $537.05 million gross was being sought.  That covered the requirements for phase II of the deployment of MONUC and the initial stage of phase III.  When the ACABQ reviewed the budget a few weeks ago, the Secretariat informed it that since last November, the revised estimates could be reduced from $537.05 million to $533.88 million.  The amount currently appropriated for MONUC was $393.23 million.  At the current stage, the General Assembly should appropriate an additional $140.6 million.

Mr. MSELLE then introduced the ACABQ’s related report.  The Advisory Committee would report to the Committee during its May session.  It recommended an overall appropriation of some $450 million for the Mission, including some

$393.2 million already appropriated and assessed on Member States.  The ACABQ was aware that the various elements of the peace process in the DRC had reached the stage where the full resources requested would be required during the last six months of the current financial period.  Under-expenditures arose during the first or second formative periods of peacekeeping missions, he said. 

Regarding air services, he said the ACABQ believed that the issue required the Committee’s immediate proactive attention.  In its report, the ACABQ offered some options for when the present contract expired at the end of June 2002.

DANIEL SOTO (Spain), speaking on behalf of the European Union and associated States, reiterated the Union’s concern at the recurring lateness in the submission of the peacekeeping budget reports, and urged the Secretariat to address the situation without delay.  The Union strongly supported the Secretary-General’s efforts to bring lasting peace to the Democratic Republic of the Congo.  The formidable tasks envisioned for the United Nations under the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement required careful preparation and financial support.  While recognizing the geographical and infrastructure constraints affecting the Mission, he shared the ACABQ’s disappointment with the report. 

Clear mandates were important for Member States to evaluate budget proposals and take the right budgetary decisions, he said.  He shared the ACABQ’s comments on that issue, and trusted that its advice would be taken into consideration for the Committee’s May session.  He noted that there was in general poor justification for most new posts and that, in several cases, there was no direct relation between their number and the workload.  But in view of the fluidity of the situation in the field, he was inclined to accept the ACABQ’s recommendation not to reduce posts.  The Group called upon the Secretariat to ensure that every effort be made to improve shortcomings in the presentation of the next budget document.

The European Union was greatly concerned at the reported mismanagement of the evaluation and award of the air service contract to PAE/Daher, he added.  The Union would like a full explanation of the matter, including why the contract was awarded to a company which did not produce the lowest bid.  He asked that the information requested by the ACABQ be provided now and not with the next budget.  It was necessary to explore ways and means to protect the Organization from such mismanagement.  The ACABQ’s deliberations on MONUC’s budget had revealed a number of issues which the Union thought had improved, including verification of contingent-owned equipment and the whole question of gender-mainstreaming.  In that regard, the budget proposal showed that significant improvements had not taken place. 

He understood that the figure of some $450 million for 1 July was a gross figure.  What was the net figure?

HAROLD ADLAI AGYEMAN (Ghana) said the political and security challenges confronting MONUC were serious.  It was the hope of his delegation that necessary resources for the operational needs of MONUC would be provided by the Assembly, to empower it to effectively assist in the restoration of peace and stability in the Mission area, and enable the DRC to devote its energies to the task of nation-building. 

Regarding the airfields service contract, at a time when the international community was calling for more resources to enable the United Nations to play an effective role, it was a sad commentary to witness such a gross dissipation of resources, he said.  Ghana was seriously concerned by the reports of an overrun of outsourcing policies and procurement procedures carefully laid down for tendering and selecting bids –- an action that had resulted in costly implications for the Organization.  He did not accept the explanations of “operational necessity”, especially when a period of over nine months existed between the expression of the contract need by FALD in May 2000 and the initiation of firm action by the Procurement Division in February 2001.  He failed to understand the exigencies of the circumstances, especially as the lower bid –- some $24.5 million -– had been ignored for the much higher bid of some $34 million.

While economy should certainly not be the sole criterion for the selection of bids, in the present case he believed that economy would also have coincided with effectiveness and efficiency.  To remedy the situation, he supported the ACABQ recommendation that the current contract term, which would end on 30 June 2002, not be renewed and that a comprehensive review of the entire contract for airfield services be undertaken.  He urged the Board of Auditors to ensure that the implementation lapses of the MONUC contracting-out process were not a systemic concern for all other missions.  Ghana was still studying the ACABQ’s recommendation that the airfield contract be broken up into manageable units, considering the geographical expanse of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the need to assure that MONUC did not become operationally over-reliant on a single contractor. 

He shared the view of the ACABQ that the presentation of the budget lacked focus in certain areas, and he looked forward to improvements in future presentations.  Beyond that, he was concerned with the integrity of the documents submitted for the Assembly’s consideration, in light of the fact that the air-services contract issue in the amount of $34 million had not been mentioned in the list of contract services.  He noted with concern that the ACABQ, when requested, had not been provided with MONUC-related service contracts, thereby limiting its advisory role to the General Assembly.

He agreed with the ACABQ that the level of support services proposed in the budget appeared excessive in comparison with the level of the Mission’s substantive activities.  He urged clear linkages between requested posts and workload indicators.  Ghana encouraged MONUC to implement the ACABQ’s recommendations on cost-savings measures.  It looked forward to the outcome of the ongoing inter-Congolese dialogue, which, if positive, should provide a firm platform for establishing a forward base for the full deployment of phase III of the Mission in the eastern region of the DRC.  He endorsed the recommended additional resources of some $56.75 million for the operations of the Mission for the period 1 July to 30 June 2002.

Mr. NAKKARI (Syria) said that the report had not been introduced by the Secretary-General.  According to the summary records, reports on peacekeeping missions had been submitted by the Secretary-General.  He would speak further on the matter later on. 

The Committee Chairman said that the Controller had introduced the report of the Secretary-General before the representative of the ACABQ had introduced the related report. 

Mr. NAKKARI (Syria) said the report raised many questions concerning the preparation of the budget document and asked for clarifications on a number of posts.  In order for the Committee to receive more coherent reports in the future, official replies by a representative of the Secretary-General were needed on related reports.  He supported the Mission and anything that would contribute to its success. 

The Chairman assured him that appropriate people from the Secretariat would be available to answer delegates’ questions.

COLLEN VIXEN KELAPILE (Botswana), coordinator of informal consultations on the matter, said he attached great importance to peacekeeping efforts in the DRC and would work towards the final, full deployment of MONUC and seek to ensure that it was provided with necessary funding on a timely, predictable basis, as required by General Assembly resolutions.  He also subscribed to the need to accord equal treatment to all peacekeeping missions regarding financial and administrative arrangements.  Botswana had great interest in the inter-Congolese dialogue, and welcomed the efforts in the present resources requirements to strengthen the Office of the Neutral Facilitator.  The effective implementation of the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement needed adequate preparedness and reliable resources support.

He was encouraged by a recent statement of the European Union on its commitment to the Mission in the DRC, and its pledge that during the current review of MONUC’s budget, they would advocate that the Mission be provided with adequate financial resources.  He agreed with most of the ACABQ’s recommendations, including the need to improve the format of future budget presentations.  He noted the intention of the ACABQ to offer additional comments in its general report on peacekeeping.  He expected that several matters, especially those relating to quick-impact projects and gender issues, would be clarified in the future.  He attached great importance to those two matters inasfar as enhancing the credibility of peacekeeping missions and effectively mainstreaming gender issues in peacekeeping policy formulation were concerned. 

On the air service contract, while he agreed that MONUC was a complex Mission, and that the situation in the DRC was desperate, that could not justify what appeared to be a clear contravention of due process governing procurement and awarding of contracts.  He regretted the irregularities, which could result in significant financial losses for the Organization.

HOWARD STOFFER (United States) said that his delegation fully supported the comments by the representatives of Spain and Ghana with respect to the Mission, which was possibly the fastest-growing one of all that the United Nations was undertaking.  It was extremely difficult to implement the Lusaka Accords, but in such a complex situation, it was particularly important “to get it right” as far as the Mission was concerned.  He fully agreed with the concerns expressed with respect to the administrative component of the Mission.  He was also concerned over the poor justification for new posts, for in the context of the inter-Congolese dialogue, it was particularly important to put the right people in place. 

He hoped to receive further explanations regarding the awarding of air contracts, he said.  At the Security Council, his delegation had supported the expansion of the Mission.  The Council had requested MONUC to provide information regarding the number of armed groups and militias on the ground, and he hoped it would do so soon.  Also, without successful implementation of disarmament, demobilization, repatriation, resettlement and reintegration, there would be no success in the area. 

GERHARD THERON (Namibia) said that a few aspects of the issue before the Committee merited special attention.  His delegation shared the observations of the ACABQ that the required resources should be proportionate to the needs of the Mission and fully justified.  Regarding the proposed creation of gender and child-protection units, he said that it was important to ensure effective coordination of the mandates of various entities and to develop a coherent policy with respect to the role of units on gender issues.

The Office of the Neutral Facilitator was key to the peace process in the DRC and should receive proper funding, he said.  He also concurred with proposed solutions for remedying the situation, including requiring the contract to be resubmitted to tender at the end of the Mission’s first year.  Another option would be to award a series of contracts to more than one provider.

Mr. SOTO (Spain) noted a slight contradiction between the English and Spanish versions of the reports before the Committee, and confirmed that the Spanish text was authentic in this case.

RAMESH CHANDRA (India) entirely supported the efforts to bring lasting peace to the Democratic Republic of the Congo.  The Advisory Committee had been very thorough in its analysis of the proposals of the Secretary-General regarding the format and presentation of the requirements, justification of posts and procurement-related problems.  Several other delegations had already provided detailed statements on the matter, and he felt that the recommendations of the ACABQ were the right way ahead.  Regarding air contracts, he said that contracts should be awarded to more than one provider to enhance transparency. 

In conclusion, he concurred with the ACABQ recommendations in all three areas analyzed.  Given the complexity of the situation in the country, and the fact that the details of the Mission were being worked out for the first time, he understood the magnitude of the task.  Regarding the implications of the reduction of the budget by some $85 million, he said that more information should be provided in the informal consultations.

HENRY FOX (Australia) had a question regarding the Mission’s subsistence allowance.  According to the ACABQ report, the Office of Human Resources Management (OHRM) had rescinded the decision to reduce the allowance, and he would welcome some background on that matter and information regarding the impact of that decision.  He would like to receive a response from the OHRM representatives on that matter.

Mr. HALBWACHS said that at the Committee’s forty-fourth meeting, he had replied to some of the concerns expressed by the representative of Cuba, on behalf of the "Group of 77" developing countries and China, regarding the recently announced cutbacks in services.  Those measures were not in contravention of the budget resolutions adopted by the Assembly in December.  In fact, they had been taken to comply with those texts.  It was the prerogative of the Assembly to establish the amount of the budget, and the Secretariat was to take the necessary measures to implement the budget resolution. 

The programme initially proposed by the Secretary-General for the budget stood, after thorough review by the ACABQ, at some $2.7 billion, but the Assembly had adopted a budget that was $75 million lower than the requested amount. Reductions had not been made through abolition of programmes or posts.  Instead, expenditure reductions were made across the board.  The Assembly had been explicit as to where the reductions should be applied:  travel of staff, contractual services, general operating expenses, supplies and materials, furniture and equipment, consultative services, regional commissions’ budgets and information technology. 

Under the budget resolution, vacancy rates should not be used to achieve budgetary savings, he continued, and no room was left for maneuver.  Overspending the budget was not an option.  Increases in productivity had already been achieved to cope with budget reductions in the past, and additional productivity increases were unlikely.  There was no other option but to reduce the services. 

When presenting the budget, the Secretary-General had stated that further budget constraints would seriously undermine the Secretariat’s ability to deliver services, he said.  The Chairman of the ACABQ had warned the Fifth Committee that it was no longer possible to achieve more with less.  Thus, it was impossible to accomplish all the objectives of the budget and reduce the budget at the same time. 

MILOS ALCALAY (Venezuela) speaking on behalf of the Group of 77 Developing Nations and China, said he recognized the importance of the Secretary-General’s concerns about fulfilling many important functions within a reduced budget.  A harmonious response to the problem must be sought.  He was prepared to hold informal meetings to find positive ways for the Group to continue to contribute effectively to the work of the Organization. 

He expressed concern, however, about the reduction of support services, as outlined in the circular of the Secretary-General.  The Group’s basic priority was to fulfil the United Nations programme of work.  Countries with limited resources would suffer the consequences of a reduction in an unbalanced way.  Many of the permanent missions that used information technology would have great difficulties with the reductions.  Some missions with fewer staff had problems covering meetings with just two or three delegates.  While he would like to see all diplomats work an eight-hour day, in reality, some worked up to 18 hours a day.  Imposing inhuman conditions on them would pose serious problems. 

He requested that informal consultations on the subject be held as soon as possible.  While the Group would accept certain constraints, a harmonious solution could be found to carry out the work not only of the Group but also of the United Nations at large.  A large number of countries had expressed their concerns to him. 

Mr. NAKKARI (Syria) asked the Secretariat to provide details on the level of resources adopted under each section of the budget.  He asked for two tables specifying the resources adopted under the programme budgets for the present and the last bienniums.  While the General Assembly had decided to reduce the amounts in certain areas, the reductions were to cover all sections of the budget.  What was the distribution rate of the reductions by section?  Why had the Budget Division not informed the Committee of the direct effects of the reductions during informal consultations on the budget negotiations? 

Mr. STOFFER (United States) recalled that when the budget was adopted it had been a consensus budget.  He recognized that some operational cuts were painful and had unbalanced, unintended consequences.  The United States wanted to work with the Group and the Committee to find solutions to the current impasse.  The budget was not a cut, however, but had increased by some 3.5 per cent over the last few years.  It was not a zero nominal growth (ZNG) budget.  All had agreed on the final number.  It was necessary to find the best way to allocate resources.  For example, one way to do that was by identifying programmes with the lowest-priority mandates.  The United States wanted to go into the exercise with an open mind and look for ways to alleviate the problem.  The Secretary-General had told each regional group that he was conducting a comprehensive review of programmes and mandates, with a view to identifying obsolete programmes.  The findings of that report might provide a way forward.  He reminded the Committee that it was only the third month of a 24-month budget.  He, too, offered a spirit of harmony while recognizing the need to keep the budget within its current level.

MICHELLE ANTOINETTE MARSTON (Jamaica) shared the view that given the constraints of the reduced budget, it was necessary to find a solution to the current impasse.  Speaking specifically on the effects of cuts in information technology, she said that access to the United Nations Web site was pivotal to information gathering.  Several missions accessed United Nations e-mail services.  She would have liked someone from the information technology office to inform the Committee of the real impacts of the cuts.

What was the exact amount of the budget dedicated to mission information technology services? she asked.  What services exactly had been cut?  How many staff members were dedicated to that area, and had staff members been terminated?  What was the nature of the work performed by outside contractors, if any?

AYMAN M. ELGAMMAL (Egypt) also asked for clarification on the plan to reduce services, particularly those pertaining to the redeployment of human resources among offices at Headquarters and the services provided to missions.  He noted that water services and coat services continued.  Were the reductions really being implemented?  if so, what had been implemented and what remained to be implemented?

Mr. HALBWACHS said that he shared the concerns expressed by the Group of 77: how to stay within the budget and meet the needs of Member States.  Large reductions adopted by the Assembly now needed to be absorbed.  According to his information, the Fifth Committee had spent 40 informal meetings on the budget and presented some 490 written questions, to which the Secretariat had provided extensive responses.  The budget documents contained detailed information regarding the cuts, and that information had been available to the Committee when it took its decision.  He would provide further information in informal consultations, but at this stage, he could say that no posts had been cut as a result of the reduction.  As for the reduction in services, the measures affected everybody.  They were not directed against Member States.

Mr. NAKKARI (Syria) agreed that much information had been provided to the Fifth Committee when it was considering the budget.  He wondered, however, why the information regarding particular reductions in service had not been provided at the time.  His questions pertained to the way the reductions were distributed.  He hoped the Secretariat had taken note of his request, which would allow the Committee to compare each chapter of the current budget against the budget for 2000-2001.  Also, the United States representative had stated that the new budget was not a reduction but an increase in resources compared with the previous budget.  He found it difficult to accept the fact that services provided under the previous budget would not be provided under the increased budget for 2002-2003. 

His delegation attached great importance to the Department of Conference Services, he continued, and it had made that clear in the budget negotiations.  The circular on Secretariat cutbacks stated that there would be no conference services after 6 p.m. and during the weekend.  While his delegation did not relish such meetings, many bodies were forced to hold late and weekend meetings.  Many other services were now reduced.  Of particular concern was the reduction of some $30 million which would be charged against the current budget.  The matter should be carefully discussed in informal consultations.

Responding to queries posed by the representative of Syria on 8 March regarding access to a meeting in conference room 2, JOSEPH MARTELLA, Assistant Chief of the Safety and Security Service, said that it was the United Nations security service that controlled access to all conference rooms, as was the case on Friday.  On that day, there was a meeting in celebration of International Women’s Day with great attendance.  The room was of inappropriate size, considering the interest in the event.  Regarding “non-United Nations security guards”, he said that no such personnel had been posted near conference room 2 on Friday.  All directions had been given by uniformed and un-uniformed United Nations security personnel.  There were about 200 reserved seats in the front of the room.  The room was crowded, and in compliance with fire regulations it had been decided to allow only Permanent Representatives into the room.  Many people were turned away out of concerns for safety.  Many people watched the meeting on the monitors outside the room. 

Mr. NAKKARI (Syria) said that he appreciated the fast response to his comments.  However, United Nations security officers always wore well-identifiable uniform.  Was Friday an exception to the rule?  Did the security officers now have a different uniform?

Mr. MARTELLA replied that it was common and routine for a certain number of officers to work out of uniform, in particular when they provided personal

protection to dignitaries.  His understanding was that the officers had identified themselves as United Nations employees.

Mr. NAKKARI said that when he was asking his questions last Friday, he had not been aware of the level of representation at the meeting.  However, dignitaries, including a large number of heads of State, attended every session of the Assembly, as well as special sessions and such events as the Millennium Assembly.  Even in those circumstances, Member States and their representatives were not denied entry to meeting halls.  On 8 March, a ban was imposed on representatives of Member States without any prior warning or notification.  It was not clear at the time that the security personnel outside of the room were United Nations security officers, and they did not identify themselves as such.  Perhaps the meeting should have been organized in the plenary hall.  However, he did not believe the situation last Friday was so unusual as to warrant the measures that were imposed last week. 

At the conclusion of the meeting, the representative of Cuba spoke regarding the Committee’s organization of work for the current week.

* *** *