Sixty-first General Assembly

Fifth Committee

28^th & 29^th Meetings (AM & PM)

FIFTH COMMITTEE CONSIDERS BUDGET IMPLICATIONS OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY TEXTS

ON DAMAGE REGISTER, DISABILITIES CONVENTION, LAW OF SEA

 

Vote Required -– 116 – 6 - 1 –- for Budget Statement on Register

Of Damage Caused by Construction of Wall in Palestinian Territory

The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) today expressed its opinion on the programme budget implications of three draft resolutions before the General Assembly, following a day of discussions and suspensions.  The texts considered by the Committee concerned the creation of a Register of Damage caused by the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory; the establishment of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; and the law of the sea.

Under its rules of procedure, the Assembly can’t vote on any draft on which expenditures are anticipated until the budget Committee “has had an opportunity” to state the effect of the proposal upon the Organization’s budget.

The most controversial decision was a statement of budget implications on an Assembly draft resolution calling for the establishment of a Register of Damage caused by the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.  Acting by a vote of 116 in favour to 6 against (Australia, Canada, Israel, Nauru, Palau, United States) with 1 abstention (Republic of Moldova) (see annex), the Committee decided to inform the Assembly that the adoption of the text would require an appropriation of up to $3.1 million of the 2006-2007 budget for the establishment and maintenance of the Register.

The vote was requested by a representative of Israel, who said that the technical nature of the Fifth Committee’s decision was tainted by political considerations.  Evidence of the political nature of the budget implication statement was demonstrated by the startlingly detailed description of the Registry, as well as the exorbitant figure and large staffing requested.  He was also concerned about duplication, as a mechanism for compensation already existed in Israel, with 140 cases reviewed and more than $1.5 million paid by Israel to individuals and organizations.  Another mechanism, paid for by the taxpayers of the Member States, would be a waste of money.  A solution to the conflict would only be settled through negotiations of the two parties.  If the technical Fifth Committee had not accepted the infiltration of politics in its debate, the current debate would not have been necessary.

The United States representative said his Government opposed the Register as contemplated by the draft before the Assembly, saying that its clearly political mandate diverted attention from the goal of achieving peace and security between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples.  The text on the budget implications would allow the use of scarce financial resources for a political statement at a time when the Organization was failing to institute reform and the world faced many challenges that were not being addressed.  Similar sentiments were expressed by the representative of Australia, who said that her country did not support either the draft resolution, or the required resources.

Speaking on behalf of the European Union, Finland’s representative said that the Union had supported the draft budget implication decision.  She noted that the discussions on the substance of the draft resolution on the Register of Damage was still ongoing, and the position on the budget implications statement was without prejudice to those deliberations.  Any substantive changes to the text would give rise to the application of rule 153 of the rules of procedure.

The representative of South Africa, who spoke on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China, reiterated the Group’s longstanding position that the Committee was a technical, not a political body.  The Group had supported the current budget implications statement as it would any other.  It also strongly supported rule 153 of the rules of procedure, whereby the Committee had to report to the Assembly on resource requirements as a result of draft resolutions.

The Committee also adopted, without a vote, an oral draft decision on the budget implications for the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, by which it would inform the Assembly that the adoption of the new instrument and its Optional Protocol would give rise to no immediate financial implications.  Any additional resources, as may be necessary, would be reported in the context of the second performance report for the biennium 2006-2007, and continuing requirements would be considered in the context of the proposed programme budgets of the related biennium.

Also without a vote, the Committee adopted an oral draft decision regarding programme budget implications of a draft resolution on oceans and the law of the sea, by which the Assembly would be informed that adoption of that resolution would not give rise to additional requirements.  The Committee also decided that any additional resources would be reported in the context of the second performance report for the biennium 2006-2007.

In that connection, the representative of Japan -– who also spoke in explanation of vote on the Register –- said that he trusted that the costs regarding the resolutions on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and on the ocean and law of sea would be absorbed within existing resources.  He also noted that the budget implication statement for the Disabilities Convention resolution would not prejudge the outcome of the proposed budget for the biennium 2008-2009 and that, at the current stage, costs would be absorbed through prioritization.

The Committee will take up a comprehensive review of the United Nations governance and oversight system at 10 a.m. tomorrow, 12 December.

Background

The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) today was expected to take up programme budget implications of several resolutions before the Assembly.

According to the statement on programme budget implications of draft resolution A/ES-10/L.20 on the establishment of the United Nations register of damage caused by the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (document A/C.5/61/13), an additional appropriation in the amount of some $3.1 million would be required, should the text be adopted.  No provision has been made in the 2006-2007 budget in relation to the activities that would be requested under the draft and, at the current stage, it is not possible to identify activities that could be eliminated, deferred, curtailed or modified in order to absorb the additional requirements.

The additional requirements relate to the establishment and maintenance of the Register of Damage, as requested in the draft, for a one-year period from 1 January to 31 December 2007.  The amount of almost $3.1 million would cover the salaries and common staff costs for members of the Board, to be engaged on a “when actually employed” basis, and 14 Professional and 11 General Service staff, as well as official travel of the members, requirements for facilities and infrastructure, a community outreach programme, and equipment and communications charges.

The Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ), in a related report (document A/61/614) notes the additional estimated requirements for the programme budget for 2006-2007 in connection with the draft.  According to the report, the ACABQ was informed that these cost estimates reflect the application of a 50 per cent vacancy factor for 2007.  Upon request, it was provided additional information on the estimated annual requirements at full cost, which are currently estimated at some $3.92 million.  The Advisory Committee also received additional information on the proposed organizational structure and, in this regard, the resources for the Verification and Assessment Unit, the rationale for the establishment of a position of a Coordination Officer at the P-4 level in the Office of the Executive Director and the need for a P-4 level post in the Claims Processing Unit.

Since information on the assumptions as to how soon the Verification and Assessment Unit could become operational, and justification of each Professional post, as well as confirmation of whether the functions to be established had been classified by the Office of Human Resources Management, could not be provided in time for the issuance of the ACABQ report, the Advisory Committee requests that it be provided to the Fifth Committee at the time of its consideration of the budget implications statement.  The ACABQ trusts that staff will be brought on board consistent with operational requirements as they arise.

In connection with the estimate of 2007 non-staff costs totalling $799,300, the Advisory Committee states that every effort should be made to draw upon existing available resources to the maximum extent possible.  Such savings in respect of 2006-2007 as may be identified should be reflected in the performance report for the biennium.  The Advisory Committee proposes that ongoing requirements, including the numbers and grade levels of posts, as well as the need for non-staff resources, be fully justified in the 2008-2009 budget proposal.

The Advisory Committee recommends that the Fifth Committee report to the Assembly that, should it adopt draft resolution A/ES-10/L.20, an additional appropriation of up to $3.1 million would be required under section 3, Political affairs ($2,812,000), and section 35, Staff assessment ($286,700), to be offset by the same amount under Income section 1, Income from staff assessment, of the programme budget for the biennium 2006-2007, for the establishment and maintenance of the Register of Damage.

According to another budget implication statement (document A/C.5/61/16), the adoption of draft resolution A/61/L.30 on the law of the sea by the Assembly, would give rise to additional resources $108,100 under section 2, General Assembly and Economic and Social Council affairs and conference management ($92,100), and section 28D, Office of Central Support Services ($16,000), of the programme budget for 2006-2007.  However, it is envisaged that those requirements would be accommodated from within the appropriation for those sections of the budget.  Accordingly, no additional appropriation is sought over and above the level of funding approved in the 2006-2007 budget.  Should the actual requirements for implementing the resolution exceed the absorptive capacity of the aforementioned sections, the additional requirements would be reported in the context of the second performance report for the biennium 2006-2007.

According to the report, some of the meetings requested in the text have already been included in the calendar of meetings and conferences for 2007.  Those include the meetings of the States parties to the Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Consultative Process requested in operative paragraphs 22 and 120 of the draft resolution, respectively, as well as the nineteenth and twentieth sessions of the Commission, from 26 to 30 March 2007 and from 27 to 31 August 2007, respectively (called for in operative paragraph 45 of the draft).  However, the extension of the nineteenth session by four days, from 2 to 5 April 2007, would constitute an addition to the calendar and consist of eight additional meetings with simultaneous interpretation in all official languages.

It is also envisaged that the Ad Hoc Open-Ended Working Group would meet, as requested in operative paragraph 91, for five days in New York in 2008, for a total of 10 meetings with interpretation in all languages and the required pre-session, in-session and post-session documentation.  The requirements for servicing those meetings in 2008 are estimated at $264,300 and would be considered in the context of the proposed programme budget for 2008-2009.

Also before the Committee was document A/C.5/61/15, which relates to programme budget implications of draft resolution A/AC.265/2006/L.8/Rev.1 on the Ad Hoc Committee on a Comprehensive and Integral International Convention on the Protection and Promotion  of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities.  Under the terms of operative paragraphs 2, 4 and 5 of the draft, the Assembly would adopt the Convention and its Optional Protocol; request the Secretary-General to provide the staff and facilities for effective functioning of the Conference of the States Parties and the Committee under the Convention, as well as dissemination of information on the new instrument; and request the Secretary-General to implement the guidelines for accessibility of United Nations facilities and services.

According to the document, as the activities foreseen in the draft have already been addressed under relevant programmes of the 2006-2007, no immediate additional changes would be required, should the text be adopted.  Additional provisions of $10.03 million would be requested in the context of the budget for the next biennium.  Should the Convention enter into force, and the Conference of States Parties and the first session of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities be held in 2007, the Secretariat would return to the Assembly on meeting the conference servicing requirements in accordance with established procedures.  It is envisaged that, to the fullest extent possible for the current biennium, estimated expenditures attributable to the implementation of proposed activities under the Human Rights and Management and Support Services sections of the budget would be met from existing resources.  Any additional expenditures would be reported accordingly, in the context of the second performance report for the biennium.

Introduction of Documents

SHARON VAN BUERLE, Director of the Programme Planning and Budget Division, introduced the statements of programme budget implications before the Committee.  On the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities, she said that two scenarios had been presented by the Secretariat, depending on when the Convention would enter into force and become operational.  However, none of those versions required immediate additional financing.

Presenting related oral reports of the ACABQ, RAJAT SAHA, Chairman of the Advisory Committee, said that, in connection with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the ACABQ recommended reporting to the Assembly that the adoption of the draft would have no immediate financial implications.  The ACABQ also noted that the statement of programme budget implications was unusual in the level of detail it provided concerning resources that might be requested for the item in the context of the 2008-2009 budget.  The Advisory Committee stressed that the adoption of draft resolution A/AC.26f5/2006/L.8/Rev.1 should not be seen as prejudging in any way the outcome of consideration of the proposed budget for the next biennium.

Regarding draft resolution A/61/L.30 on oceans and the law of the sea, he said that the Advisory Committee noted, as indicated in paragraph 11 of the statement, that it was envisaged that the additional requirements would be accommodated from within the appropriation for sections 2 and 28D of the 2006-2007 budget.  Should the actual requirements for implementing the provisions of the draft exceed the absorptive capacity of those sections, additional requirements would be reported in the second performance report for the biennium.

On draft resolution A-ES-10/L.20, he recalled that, in document A/61/614, the ACABQ recommended that the Fifth Committee report to the Assembly that, should it adopt the draft, an additional appropriation of up to some $3.1 million would be required for 2006-2007.

Statements

HITOSHI KOZAKI ( Japan) said he trusted that the costs regarding the resolutions on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and on the ocean and law of sea would be absorbed within existing resources.  He also noted that the budget implication statement for the resolution contained in document A/AC.265/2006/L.8/Rev.1 would not prejudge the outcome of the proposed budget for the biennium 2008-2009 and that, at the current stage, costs would be absorbed through prioritization.  He asked whether existing procedures had been abided by.

As for the statement on the Register of Damage contained in document A/ES-10/L.20, he said that he was aware of the ongoing discussion on the Register and of the fact that the outcome of that discussion might have repercussions for establishing the Register.  He also had to carefully analyse the just provided information, on which he might need guidance.

IAN FLUSS ( Israel) said resolution A/ES-10/L.20 was an expansion of the contents of the Secretary-General’s report A/ES-10/361, which was a politicization of the issue.  The security fence, however, was not a political issue, but one of security, as Palestinian terror was the issue.  The fence saved lives.  The moment there was no longer terror, the fence would no longer be necessary.  Compensation was already regulated by the Israeli judicial system.  The resolution was inconsistent with the intention of “uniting for peace”.

The meeting recessed for consultations.

When the meeting resumed almost two hours later, the Secretary of the Committee, MOVSES ABELIAN, informed the Committee that copies were being made of the latest proposed draft decision on the Register of Damage, by the terms of which the Committee would endorse the observations and recommendations of the Advisory Committee and reaffirm rule 153 of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly (which states that no resolution in respect of which expenditures are anticipated shall be voted by the Assembly until the Fifth Committee has had an opportunity to state the effect of the proposal upon the budget of the United Nations).

It would further appropriate up to $3.1 million under section 3, Political affairs ($2.81 million), and section 35, Staff assessment ($286,700), to be offset by the same amount under Income section 1, Income from staff assessment, of the programme budget for the biennium 2006-2007, for the establishment and maintenance of the Register of Damage.

KAREN LOCK (South Africa), speaking on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China, asked that copies of the draft be distributed in the room prior to the suspension of the meeting, which would resume at 3 p.m. to take action on all three budget implication statements.

The meeting was then adjourned until 3 p.m.

Action

The Committee turned to the oral draft decision on A/ES-10/L.20.

In asking for a vote on the draft decision, DANIEL CARMON ( Israel) stressed it had not been an easy request, as Israel firmly believed in the process of consensus.  The technical character of the Committee had been tainted by politics, however, as the current draft statement on programme budget implications was a political resolution.  That political agenda could be seen in the startlingly detailed description of the Register, as well as the exorbitant figure and large staffing asked for.

He said a mechanism for compensation already existed in Israel, with 140 cases reviewed and more than $1.5 million paid by Israel to individuals and organizations.  Another mechanism, paid for by the taxpayers of the Member States, would be a waste of money.  As the United Nations underwent a process of reform, it was counterproductive to demand financing of such a costly mechanism.  Millions of dollars were already expended on resolutions on the Palestinian issue coming out of the “automatic majority”.  More than 20 resolutions on the issue were adopted annually.  A whole division in the Secretariat was dedicated to manipulating the Palestinian cause, rather than seeking peace.  A solution of the conflict would only be settled through negotiations of the two parties.  If the technical Fifth Committee had not accepted the infiltration of politics in its debate, the current debate would not have been necessary.

The Committee then approved the oral draft decision on the budget implications of draft resolution A/ES-10/L.20 by a recorded vote of 116 in favour to 6 against (Australia, Canada, Israel, Nauru, Palau, United States), with 1 abstention (Republic of Moldova).  (See annex.)

The representative of the Niger said that she had pressed the green button, but the machine was already locked.  She wanted it to be noted that she had voted in favour of the draft.

Armenia’s representative also asked for her vote to be registered as a positive one.

Japan’s representative, in explanation of vote, said that the decision had been taken while discussion on draft resolution L.20 was ongoing and should not be used by delegations for political purposes.  Should the need arise, the Fifth Committee would act in accordance with established procedure.

The representative of Finland, speaking in explanation of position on behalf of the European Union, said that the Union had supported the draft decision on the budget implications statement submitted by the Secretary-General.  It also supported the comments by the ACABQ, particularly in paragraphs 6 and 7 of its report (document A/61/614).  The Union noted that the discussions on the substance of L.20 were still ongoing, and the position on the budget implications was without prejudice to those deliberations.  Any substantive changes to the text would give rise to the application of rule 153 of the rules of procedure.  She added that it was time to restore the working methods of the Fifth and reaffirmed the consensus principle in the Committee.

The representative of the United States said that his country consistently opposed the Register as contemplated by A/ES-10/L.20.  That clearly political mandate came at a destructive time and diverted attention from practical efforts for achieving peace and security for both the Palestinian and Israeli peoples.  Moreover, the draft decision before the Committee today supported a resolution that went well beyond what had been requested in A/ES-10/15.  The Assembly’s resolution called upon the Secretary-General to establish a Register of Damage.  Now the Committee sought to approve funding for a draft resolution that included the components of verification and assessment that both further politicized the matter and would cost substantial sums to all Member States.

As the report of the Secretary-General stated, the act of registration of damage, as such, would not entail an evaluation or an assessment of the loss or damage claimed, he continued.  In addition to his delegation’s continuing opposition to the establishment of any Register, he strongly opposed the expansion of the mandate of the registry by the action the Committee was taking today.  At nearly $4 million per year, with no provision for the mandate to be either reviewed or concluded, it was committing scarce financial resources for a political statement.  Today’s action continued to raise questions regarding the efficacy of the United Nations at a time when it was failing to institute reform and the world faced so many challenges that went unaddressed.

In conclusion, he said that his delegation voted against the draft decision because the United States opposed the establishment of the Register, the expansion of its mandate in today’s action, and concerns about the large and open-ended financial commitment to that politically charged mandate.

The representative of Australia said her country had opposed the draft resolution on the legal consequences of the building of the wall and continued to oppose the Assembly’s treatment of the matter.  Israel already had a mechanism for settling damages as a result of the construction of the wall.  The proposed registry would not advance the issue of peace.  As Australia did not support the draft resolution, it also did not support the required resources.

The representative of South Africa, speaking on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, thanked the Committee’s Chairman and all delegations who had made today’s action on the budget implication statement possible.  The Group of 77 had the longstanding position that the Committee was a technical, not a political body.  As a rule, the Group supported the budget implication statement before it.  The Group also strongly supported rule 153 of the rules of procedure, whereby the Committee had to report to the Assembly on resource requirements as a result of draft resolutions.  The Group of 77 and China had supported the current statement on budget implications as it would any other budget implication statement.

The Committee then adopted, without a vote, an oral draft decision regarding programme budget implications of a draft resolution before the Assembly, contained in document A/AC.265/2006/L.8/Rev.1, on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, by which it would inform the Assembly that, should the Assembly adopt the draft resolution, no immediate financial implications would arise.  The Committee also decided that any additional resources, as might be necessary, would be reported in the context of the second performance report for the biennium 2007-2008.  Continuing requirements would be considered in the context of the proposed programme budgets of the related biennium.

Also without a vote, the Committee adopted an oral draft decision regarding programme budget implications of a draft resolution (document A/61/L.30) on oceans and law of the sea, by which the Assembly would be informed that adoption of that resolution would not give rise to additional requirements under sections 2, General Assembly and Economic and Social Council Affairs and conference management, and Section 28D, Office of Central Support Services.  The Committee also decided that any additional resources would be reported in the context of the second performance report for the biennium 2006-2007.

Ms. LOCK (South Africa), speaking on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, noted that the Committee had adopted two statements on budget implications that would result in additional amounts for the biennium 2006-2007 to be absorbed within existing resources.  Since last week, four such statements had been adopted that requested the Secretariat to absorb more activities within existing resources.  That would have an impact on the Development Account, as she had stressed in an earlier meeting.  The issue would be pursued further, she said.

The representative of Japan, speaking in explanation of the vote, said he had joined consensus on the last two texts, on the understanding of what he had stated earlier in the day.

ANNEX

Vote on Budget Implications of United Nations Register

The oral draft decision on the budget implications of a draft resolution on the establishment of the United Nations Register of Damage caused by the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory was approved by a recorded vote of 116 in favour to 6 against, with 1 abstention, as follows:

In favour:  Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Australia, Canada, Israel, Nauru, Palau, United States.

Abstain:  Moldova.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Suriname, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record