Sixty-first General Assembly

Fifth Committee

44^th Meeting (PM)

BUDGET COMMITTEE CONCLUDES DISCUSSION ON UNITED NATIONS ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE,

AS OFFICIALS RESPOND TO QUESTIONS ON PROCUREMENT TASK FORCE INVESTIGATION

Also Hears Introduction of Texts on Lebanon Force, Future Operation

Of International Research and Training Institute for Advancement of Women

The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) this afternoon concluded its general discussion on one of the main items of its first resumed session -- the administration of justice -- hearing detailed responses by senior United Nations officials to a series of questions raised by Singapore’s representative at an earlier meeting.

United Nations Controller Warren Sach, responding to questions on the status of Singapore national Andrew Toh, appointed in 2003 as Assistant Secretary-General for Central Support Services, noted that Mr. Toh had been placed on special leave with full pay on 16 January 2006.  His status had been converted to suspension with full pay on 22 December 2006, when he had been charged with misconduct on the basis of a Procurement Task Force report dated 19 December 2006.  Neither status constituted a disciplinary measure.  Mr. Toh had continued to receive all of the benefits to which he was entitled by virtue of his appointment with the Organization, and had remained a United Nations staff member, subject to the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules.

Regarding his current status, he said it was not correct to say that Mr. Toh had not yet been charged.  Mr. Toh had been charged with misconduct on 22 December 2006, following the issuance on 19 December 2006 of the Procurement Task Force’s report concerning Mr. Toh’s involvement in certain procurement activities.  In accordance with the Organization’s established disciplinary procedures, Mr. Toh had been provided with a copy of the documentary evidence of the alleged misconduct, informed of his right to counsel and afforded the opportunity to submit his comments on the charges.  Mr. Toh had availed himself of that opportunity and had provided two submissions in response to the allegations against him, which were under review.  A decision would be made as to how his case should proceed by the end of the month.

Describing the genesis of the Procurement Task Force, Under-Secretary-General for Internal Oversight Services, Inga-Britt Ahlenius, said the Task Force had been created in January 2006 as a result of perceived problems in procurement, identified by the Independent Inquiry Committee into the “oil-for-food” programme and further substantiated through the comprehensive management audit of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations by OIOS in 2006 at the Assembly’s request.  Reporting directly to the Under-Secretary-General for Internal Oversight Services, its remit was to investigate all procurement-related cases, including all matters involving procurement bidding, staff and vendors doing business with the United Nations.  The Procurement Task Force’s terms of reference had not been expanded and remained in force as originally issued in January 2006.

Following those explanations, Singapore’s representative said the Management Department’s responses seemed to have missed the crucial question as to why Mr. Toh, though cleared of criminal wrongdoing but subject to allegations of mismanagement, had not been reinstated like the two other staffers pending further process.  If administrative leave and then suspension was not considered disciplinary measures, he wondered if the Department thought it had been a 15-month “holiday” for Mr. Toh.  He also wondered why there had been a delay of almost a year from the time Mr. Toh had been placed on administrative leave and the time he had supposedly been charged on 22 December 2006. 

On the issue of Mr. Toh’s appeal to the Joint Appeals Board, he said Mr. Sach’s response only reinforced the point that management was doing its utmost to deny Mr. Toh due process and justice.  Arguing that he had been late in filing his formal recourse with the Board came across as a rather lame excuse.  Mr. Toh, moreover, had been placed on administrative leave on the basis of a draft OIOS audit report on peacekeeping procurement.  To date, that draft had not been provided to him.  In short, administrative action had been taken against Mr. Toh based on one document.  Certainly that was not due process and justice. 

Regarding the Procurement Task Force, he said many were in the dark as to what the Task Force did and how it operated, including its terms of reference, which he had still not seen.  There was clearly a lack of scrutiny on the Task Force’s authorization and expenditure patterns. 

The Committee also heard the introduction of draft texts on the financing of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) and the future operations of the International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (INSTRAW).

Introducing the draft resolution on UNIFIL, Pakistan’s representative, on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China, expressed deep concern that Israel had failed to implement previous resolutions, which called on it to pay for damages resulting from an Israeli assault on the UNIFIL base at Qana in southern Lebanon on 18 April 1996.  The draft would call on that country to pay for the damages incurred in Qana and request the Secretary-General to report on the matter during the Assembly’s next session.

By the terms of the text on INSTRAW, which was submitted by Mexico and Pakistan, on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, the Assembly would authorize the Secretary-General to enter into commitments in an amount up to $857,800, and request the Secretary-General to report on related expenditures in the context of the second performance report of the 2006-2007 programme budget.

Following Mexico’s introduction of that text, Japan’s representative, supported by Germany, on behalf of the European Union, Australia, on behalf of Canada and New Zealand, the United States and the Russian Federation expressed deep concern, saying the move to introduce the draft without a report by either the Secretary-General or the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) went entirely against the Committee’s established practice.  Given the seriousness of the situation, he urged the Chairman to bring the situation to the immediate attention of the Assembly’s President and the Secretary-General. 

Pakistan’s representative, however, said the situation was not as regretful as it had been portrayed.  The Institute had certain core activities in its mandate, which it had been unable to realize due to inadequate financial support.  The draft had been presented in line with the Assembly’s rules of procedure, so that the Institute should not face a dire financial situation.  It was important to remember that INSTRAW was facing a very serious situation.  He was prepared to look at all the facts and figures and engage with other delegations to address the concerns.

Sharon Van Buerle, Director of the Programme Planning and Budget Division, made a brief statement on INSTRAW.

The Committee will meet again Friday, 30 March, when it is expected to conclude its first resumed session.

Background

The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) met this afternoon to take action on a draft decision on the financing of the International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (INSTRAW), continue its consideration of the administration of justice, and hear the introduction of a draft resolution on the financing of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL).

Administration of Justice

United Nations Controller WARREN SACH, speaking on behalf of the Department of Management, responded to a 22 March statement by Singapore’s representative on the administration of justice, including questions concerning Andrew Toh and the Procurement Task Force budget. 

Regarding Mr. Toh, he noted that, of the eight staff members placed on special leave with full pay pending the completion of the Procurement Task Force’s investigations into their involvement in certain procurement activities, three staff members had been cleared of wrongdoing and had been returned to work in their original functions.  One staff member had been summarily dismissed, and had since been indicted on a number of criminal offences.  Three staff members had been charged with misconduct and their cases were currently under review.  Two of those staff had been returned to work, but had been assigned functions not directly related to their previous functions.  The third staff member had been placed on suspension with pay pending the conclusion of his case.  Finally, one staff member had been returned to work in functions not directly related to his previous functions, and his case was currently under review.

Continuing, he said Andrew Toh had been placed on special leave with full pay on 16 January 2006, and his status had been converted to suspension with full pay on 22 December 2006, when he had been charged with misconduct on the basis of a Procurement Task Force report dated 19 December 2006.  Neither status constituted a disciplinary measure.  During the relevant period, Mr. Toh had continued to receive all of the benefits to which he was entitled by virtue of his appointment with the Organization, and had remained a United Nations staff member, subject to the Staff Regulations and Staff Rules.

Regarding the statement that the previous administration had prevented Mr. Toh from lodging a complaint to the Management Performance Board against the former Under-Secretary-General for Management, he noted that, in February 2006, Mr. Toh had submitted a complaint to the Management Performance Board.  He had been informed by the Deputy Secretary-General that the Board would not be in a position to consider the matter, as the facts had not been fully established.  Subsequently, Mr. Toh had filed an appeal with the Joint Appeals Board.  Mr. Toh’s submission had been lodged outside the time limits stipulated in the Staff Rules.  The panel constituted to consider the case, however, had found that there were exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the time limit, deciding to find the appeal receivable.  The panel had made no findings concerning the appropriateness of the decision that had been the subject of the appeal, nor did it make findings concerning the propriety of the actions taken by senior management.

He said it was not correct that Mr. Toh had not yet been charged.  The Procurement Task Force had issued an investigation report concerning Mr. Toh’s involvement in certain procurement activities on 19 December 2006, and Mr. Toh had been charged with misconduct on 22 December 2006.  In accordance with the Organization’s established disciplinary procedures, Mr. Toh had been provided with a copy of the documentary evidence of the alleged misconduct, informed of his right to counsel and afforded the opportunity to submit his comments on the charges.  Mr. Toh had availed himself of that opportunity and had provided two submissions in response to the allegations against him, which were under review.  A decision would be made as to how his case should proceed by the end of the month.

Concerning the statement that Mr. Toh had been suspended by the former Under-Secretary-General for Management based on a draft Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) report, he said the findings contained in the draft OIOS report had placed the Organization on notice that there had been a serious risk that its resources might have been compromised by neglect, fraud or corruption.  The Organization was, accordingly, under an obligation to address the findings systematically and to take action by initiating a further fact-finding investigation into certain procurement exercises, in accordance with OIOS recommendations.  To preserve the integrity of the investigations, it had been decided to place eight staff members on special leave with full pay until the relevant facts had been properly established.  Mr. Toh had been given an opportunity to submit comments on the final OIOS report.

Turning to the Procurement Task Force budget, he said the apportionment of Procurement Task Force charges was based on the related coverage of procurement activities and took into account caseload and historic data on procurement value and purchase orders.  Information on the distribution of procurement value and purchase orders between peacekeeping and other offices had been previously reported to the General Assembly in documents A/60/846/Add.5, A/59/216 and A/57/187.  Annex II of those documents covered the distribution of procurement value for 2004, 2002 and 2001, respectively.  Expenditure related to the OIOS Procurement Task Force had been absorbed within existing provisions for the regular budget and peacekeeping budgets and no additional appropriation had been required.  Annual Procurement Task Force-related charges incurred during 2006 had amounted to some $3.7 million.  Year-to-date expenditure through 25 March 2007 was some $1 million.

INGA-BRITT AHLENIUS, Under-Secretary-General for Internal Oversight Services, said that, following the Organization’s decision to put Mr. Toh and seven other staff members on administrative leave in January 2006, the Procurement Task Force had submitted its report to the programme manager, the Under-Secretary-General for Management, in December 2006, for appropriate action.  Since then, OIOS had received a response from the programme manager accepting the recommendations to take appropriate action.  Having reviewed Mr. Toh’s comments and responses, the Procurement Task Force had stated that nothing said or provided by Mr. Toh in his comments necessitated a revision of the Procurement Task Force’s report or its conclusions.

The Task Force had been created in January 2006 as a result of perceived problems in procurement, identified by the Independent Inquiry Committee into the “oil-for-food” programme and further substantiated through the comprehensive management audit of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations that OIOS had carried out in 2006 upon the Assembly’s request.  The Procurement Task Force operated as part of OIOS and reported directly to the Under-Secretary-General of OIOS.  Its remit was to investigate all procurement-related cases, including all matters involving procurement bidding, staff and vendors doing business with the United Nations.  The terms of reference of the Procurement Task Force had not been expanded and remained in force as originally issued in January 2006.  The Assembly had been informed about the terms of reference in a report from the Secretary-General on 1 December 2006.

The Task Force had not removed or suspended any vendors, she continued.  It did not have and had not sought to exercise such authority.  However, and naturally so, the Procurement Task Force had provided information concerning vendors who had engaged in misconduct, illegality and unethical behaviour, upon request, to the Department of Management and the Procurement Service.  As a unit within OIOS, the Procurement Task Force had the authority to recommend to the Organization that it take action against vendors who had committed fraud and corruption, breached United Nations rules, or acted corruptly or unethically.  To state, as the Singaporean delegate did, that the Procurement Task Force went about “pressuring individuals and vendors to cooperate in investigations” was completely unwarranted as it insinuated that the Procurement Task Force was abusing its authority.  The Procurement Task Force sought the cooperation of vendors, individuals and staff members with its investigations under the regulations governing investigations in the United Nations.

She said that, under the Organization’s rules and regulations, United Nations staff were required to cooperate with investigations.  Furthermore, in accordance with the OIOS mandate relating to investigations and under the terms of their contract, vendors were expected to cooperate with investigations being conducted by OIOS and, by reference, the Procurement Task Force.  In a large majority of instances, staff members had been cooperative with the Procurement Task Force.  In one case, the Task Force had been required to invoke Regulation 1.2 (r) to obtain cooperation.  In that instance, however, the staff member still did not cooperate fully, and the Procurement Task Force had described that issue in its report.  In one case, the Procurement Task Force had informed the Procurement Service that a vendor had not cooperated in an important investigation involving fraud and alleged waste of significant United Nations funds.  The Procurement Service had temporarily suspended the vendor, after he had been given several opportunities to cooperate with the investigation.

The Procurement Task Force had completed many cases to date and a number of additional cases had been referred to it since its inception, she said.  Currently, the Task Force had an active inventory of more than 100 cases, including 15 to 20 active, large-scale investigations of high-value contracts.  Many of those cases involved allegations of significant waste, mismanagement, violations of rules and fraud.  The Procurement Task Force had been extended until 31 December 2007 to complete its important work and aspired to complete all its work by the end of the year.  The date of extension had been determined by the Controller’s Office.  At the expiration of the Procurement Task Force, the outstanding cases and investigations would be referred back to the OIOS Investigation Division.

RAZIFF ALJUNIED ( Singapore) thanked the Department of Management and OIOS for their responses.  In the Department of Management’s responses, he wanted to know why Mr. Toh had not been reinstated.  The responses seemed to have missed that crucial question.  The explanation given by the Department of Management did not shed light as to why Mr. Toh, though cleared of criminal wrongdoing but subject to allegations of mismanagement, had not been reinstated like the two other staffers pending further process.  The Management Department had stated that administrative and suspension with pay were not disciplinary measures.  How could de facto and then de jure suspension not be considered disciplinary measures?  Did the Department think that had been a 15-month “holiday”? he asked.

He said he would also like to know whether the Department of Management or the Procurement Task Force had charged Mr. Toh.  How could Mr. Toh be charged on 22 December 2006, just three days after receiving the Task Force report, when Mr. Toh should be given 30 days to respond to the report before any charges could be made?  What was the correct procedure?  He also noted that Mr. Toh had been placed on administrative leave on 16 January 2006.  What was the basis of that decision and on what charge?  As far as he knew, he had not been charged then, yet he had been placed on administrative leave.  It had taken almost a year from the time he had been placed on administrative leave and the time he had supposedly been charged on 22 December 2006.  Why had there been a delay?  The Task Force report had cleared him of criminal wrongdoing and fraud.  Could the Task Force confirm that?  He wondered why that point had not been publicly highlighted. 

Regarding then Deputy Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown, he asked what facts he had been referring to, noting that it was the job of the Management Performance Board to determine the facts and to see whether Mr. Toh had a right to seek recourse.  Why had Mr. Toh been prevented from taking such a recourse by the Deputy Secretary-General?  Who was the former Deputy Secretary-General trying to protect and what had he been trying to cover up?  Why had there been a concerted effort on the part of the former Deputy Secretary-General and senior management to deprive Mr. Toh of recourse to the Board?  As far as he knew, the Board’s key role was to judge the performance of Under-Secretaries-General.  That role required the Board to determine fact from fiction.  Mr. Toh’s attempted complaint to the Board had been specifically directed at the performance and conduct of the former Under-Secretary-General for Management, Christopher Burnham. 

On the issue of Mr. Toh’s appeal to the Joint Appeals Board, he said the response only reinforced the point that management was doing its utmost to deny Mr. Toh due process and justice.  Arguing that he had been late in filing his formal recourse with the Joint Appeals Board came across as a rather lame excuse.  He also wondered what motivations had prompted management from taking such an action, to deny Mr. Toh recourse to the Joint Appeals Board.  The Management Department’s response was a classic example of ducking the question.  The Department had conveniently attempted to only address the last part of the question and not the first.  Why had Mr. Toh been placed on administrative leave in January 2006 even before investigations had been launched and before he had been charged? 

He added that Mr. Toh had been provided with the charges not from the Department of Management, but from the Procurement Task Force on 22 December 2006, 11 months after he and his colleagues had been placed on administrative leave.  Call that disciplinary or administrative measures, but either way it was a form of mental punishment.  Justice was based on allegations or charges, rebuttals and litigation and then, if necessary, punishment.  In Mr. Toh’s case, punishment had been meted out 11 months before the charges had been filed.  In any event, he gathered that management had now decided to refer Mr. Toh’s case to the Joint Appeals Board for review.  If so, the punishments meted out to the staff members appeared to be pre-emptive and prejudicial. 

He said Mr. Toh had been placed on administrative leave on the basis of the OIOS draft audit report on Department of Peacekeeping Operations procurement, which had not involved him or anyone from his office.  To date, the draft had not been provided to him.  Instead, he had been given a final report that had been amended and abridged.  Details contained in the draft OIOS report had not been available in the final report.  In short, administrative action had been taken against Mr. Toh and his colleagues based on one document, and they had been given the opportunity to rebut a different document.  Certainly that was not due process and justice. 

On the Procurement Task Force, he said it was crucial to raise the questions that he had, as it would compel the Task Force to provide responses and shed more light on their activities.  Many were in the dark as to what the Task Force did and how it operated, including its terms of reference, which he had still not seen.  On the budget of the Procurement Task Force/OIOS, the Committee had been informed by the Secretariat that it was to be absorbed within existing provisions for the regular budget and peacekeeping operation budgets.  Under which section of the budget did they come from and had the Fifth Committee and the Assembly approved them?

He also noted that the Secretariat was able to absorb an unforeseen and, to date, close to $5 million for Task Force expenses.  That raised questions on how budgets were presented to the Fifth Committee and the Assembly.  Was it the practice of the Secretariat to inflate budget requests to take care of such a large amount of spare cash?  Was the Secretariat hiding information from the Assembly?  If there was no over-budgeting, then there must have been an opportunity cost involved in that large unforeseen expenditure.  What other budgeted items had been sacrificed in order to fund the Procurement Task Force?  There was clearly a lack of scrutiny on the authorization and expenditure patterns of the Task Force.  Why was that so?  That was indeed alarming and raised serious questions.  Lastly, he wanted to know the breakdown of the expenditure of the Task Force especially the $3.7 million for 2006 and now the $1 million up until March 2007.  He would like the Task Force/OIOS to account for it.

Responding to questions, Mr. SACH said that the decision to return a staff member to work was normally based on the nature of charges pending and responsibilities of the staff member concerned.  The nature of Mr. Toh’s case was such that it was believed that he could return to duties before the charges were cleared.  The Department of Management did it best to protect the confidentiality of the individual concerned, and there was a limit of information to be shared, in the interests of due process.

As to why the process of administrative leave and suspension were not considered disciplinary proceedings, he said that those were defined by staff regulations and rules.  Mr. Toh had been charged with misconduct on 22 December 2006 after the review of the Procurement Task Force report, in accordance with relevant administrative instructions.  Based on that, he had also been provided an opportunity to provide comment on the charges, which he did submit.

Regarding the Management Performance Board, he said that it was not a fact-finding body.  The facts were investigated by OIOS.  Regarding the budget of the Procurement Task Force and OIOS and the matter of absorption, it was important to consider that, with the total peacekeeping budget approaching $5 billion and the regular budget of some $2 billion, it was imperative to investigate those items.  Certain surpluses in peacekeeping and certain possibilities under the regular budget had allowed for absorption to take place.  Regarding the breakdown for the Task Force, he said that the money had gone towards salaries, travel and related costs, as well as rental costs for the Task Force.  The expenses would be reported in the accounts for the financial period concerned.

Ms. AHLENIUS stressed that, on several occasions, OIOS had provided information in informal meetings on the Task Force.  There was “nothing particular” regarding the Task Force -– it was only the second investigation division set up for specific reasons on procurement issues.  Its terms of reference had been submitted in the Secretary-General’s report on 1 December 2006 and there had been no change in what had been drafted when the Task Force had been initially set up.  It was operating under the regulations and rules guiding OIOS activities.  OIOS never made public statements on ongoing investigations, and the Task Force did not do that either, in the interests of due process in investigation procedures.

Mr. ALJUNIED ( Singapore) sought further clarifications and stressed that the confidentiality clause should not be used as an excuse for relevant information not being provided to Member States when they asked for it.  Had the provisions that the Controller referred to been approved by the Fifth Committee or the General Assembly?  A clearer response should be provided to explain what authorization and on whose authority that had been done.  He also had further questions regarding the activities of the Task Force and its terms of reference.  What he was asking for was a more comprehensive report on what the Task Force was doing.  In terms of the money being spent, he wanted a more exact breakdown.  “Let me see the figures, let me see what kind of travel this is for,” he said.

Mr. SACH said the provisions related to the regular budget and peacekeeping operations.  In each case, the budget had been the subject of presentations to the Committee with Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) reports and appropriations provided for each purpose.  Regarding the section devoted to OIOS and the subprogramme related to investigations, he noted that they were not earmarked for a particular investigation.  The authority had been given to the Secretary-General to spend money on investigations to pursue allegations regarding misuse of procurement funds.  All funds were a matter of risk for the Organization in terms of their disposal and proper use in the context of the financial rules and regulations.  The role of the Procurement Task Force was to pursue allegations of improper processes in procurement areas.  The Secretary-General was well justified in pursuing investigations in respect of those items. 

All were aware of the concerns that had existed, he said.  The expenditure of funds for the Procurement Task Force would be subject to the same auditing processes as all other funds appropriated by the General Assembly on the Fifth Committee’s recommendation.  When account periods closed, there would be performance reports and a full review of the items.  Separate cost plans had been put together before the Procurement Task Force had spent any of the money.  He would not directly address the suggestion that travel money would be used to finance investigations. 

Ms. AHLENIUS added that the Task Force was nothing different from the first investigation division in OIOS and worked under the same mandates and regulations as OIOS.  It was part of the Office and followed the same rules and procedures which regulated its activities.  The only difference was that it had been set up for a special reason following major concern raised from management about procurement services and the audit report requested by the Assembly on peacekeeping management.  It was an investigation division set up to deal with procurement issues.

The Investigation Division’s reports were not subject to the General Assembly, she said.  OIOS reports were available to Member States.  The Procurement Task Force had submitted 12 reports to programme managers, 9 of which pertained to the 8 persons.  None were yet available to Member States, as they were waiting for administrative procedures to take place in the Organization.  The Secretary-General’s report to the Assembly on 1 December 2006 did not report on the activities of the Procurement Task Force, but only provided a reference and summary of the Task Force’s terms of reference.  She recommended that the Committee read the OIOS annual report on peacekeeping, document A/61/264, Part II.  Members would find it interesting reading, as to Procurement Task Force investigations in the peacekeeping operations.  An annual report from the Task Force was still being prepared, which OIOS would submit to the Assembly.  The Task Force did not report to the Assembly.  In principle there were no secrets. 

Mr. ALJUNIED ( Singapore) said he would look into the clarification provided by the Controller.  The bottom line was that the Task Force’s work needed more scrutiny.  Noting that $3.7 million had been spent in 2006 and up to $1 million in 2007, what was the projected expenditure for the whole of 2007?  When and where could they find the breakdown of the $3.7 million?  The 12 reports were pretty expensive.  He hoped they were good.  It was his intention to scrutinize the expenditure patterns at a later date. 

Mr. SACH said that expenditures would be very much on the basis of the experience of the first three months of this year.  There were no plans to expand the operation, which would spend at the same rate, at around $4 million for the calendar year.  He did not have more of a breakdown at the current time.

Ms. AHLENIUS said she was all for transparency, but was restricted by the Organization’s administrative procedures.  Work had started on redacting the report, which were not minor documents, but detailed investigations.

Mr. ALJUNIED ( Singapore) said he understood that the Controller could not pull a breakdown out of thin air.  He appreciated the point on the need for transparency.  Transparency with details would be a wonderful combination. 

Mr. SACH said he would endeavour to provide the information requested bilaterally within the next day or two.

Financing of UNIFIL

ALEXIOS MITSOPOULOS ( Greece), Vice-Chairman of the Fifth Committee, informed the Committee of the results of informal consultations on the financing of UNIFIL, saying that no consensus had been reached. 

Speaking on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China, IMTIAZ HUSSAIN ( Pakistan) then introduced draft resolution A/C.5/61/L.39 entitled “United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL)”.  He said that the Group wanted to express deep concern that Israel had failed to implement previous resolutions, which called on Israel to pay for damages resulting from an Israeli assault on the UNIFIL base at Qana in southern Lebanon on 18 April 1996.  The draft would call on that country to pay for the damages incurred in Qana and request the Secretary-General to report on the matter to the General Assembly during its next session.

Financing of INSTRAW

DIEGO SIMANCAS ( Mexico) introduced a draft decision on future operations of the International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (INSTRAW) (document A/C.5/61/L.38), which was submitted by Mexico and Pakistan (on behalf of the Group of 77 and China).  By the terms of the text, the Assembly would authorize the Secretary-General to enter into commitments in an amount up to $857,800, bearing in mind resolution 60/229 of 23 December 2005.  It would also request the Secretary-General to report on related expenditures in the context of the second performance report of the programme budget for the biennium 2006-2007.

In this connection, the Committee had before it a letter from the Permanent Representative of Spain concerning the budgetary situation of INSTRAW (document A/C.5/61/20).

In his capacity as President of the Executive Board of INSTRAW, Spain’s representative asks the President of the General Assembly to take the necessary steps to ensure the implementation of the budgetary provisions contained in resolution 60/229 “in order to make concrete the support which the General Assembly decided in that resolution to provide to INSTRAW for the biennium 2006-2007”.

He also recalls that, during its third session, held on 18 May 2006, the Executive Board of INSTRAW adopted a decision endorsing the Institute’s workplan and operational budget for 2007, which reflect the mandate set out in resolution 60/229 of 23 December 2005.  By that text, the Assembly decided to provide its full support to the current efforts to revitalize the Institute and, to this end, to provide it with the requisite funds to enable it to carry out its core functions for the biennium 2006-2007.

Aware that the first resumed session was scheduled to close tomorrow and that, even though the draft was fully in compliance with the Assembly’s rules of procedure, it did not fully follow the established practice generally observed by the Fifth Committee, Mexico was not asking for action on the draft today.  His delegation was prepared to work with others to resolve the issue. 

The representative of Pakistan, speaking on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, endorsed the statement by Mexico and assured the Committee that the Group intended to find an amicable solution on the issue and provide any needed clarifications.

HITOSHI KOZAKI ( Japan) said his delegation was deeply saddened by the draft resolution just introduced by Mexico and expressed deepest concern with the move that went entirely against the Committee’s established practice and working method.  The draft raised numerous questions, particularly from a procedural point of view.  Financial questions arising from any decision of the main committees would normally be dealt with by rule 153 of the Assembly’s rules of procedure.  The Committee did not have a report from the Secretary-General or ACABQ.  He had questions whether the draft before the Committee was in line with General Assembly resolutions 41/213 and 42/211. 

More importantly, the move went totally against the established practice and the Committee’s working methods to make all efforts to establish the broadest possible agreement.  It was of the utmost importance that appropriate procedures were followed and the mandate of the various intergovernmental bodies were fully respected.  He attached great importance to the principle of consensus agreement in the Fifth Committee and to the integrity of the intergovernmental process.  While he could ask more questions, he simply appealed to those delegations that had supported the idea of introducing the draft to find a better solution, in line with the Committee’s established practice.  Given the seriousness of the situation and the negative implications to the work of the General Assembly and for the Organization, he urged the Chairman to bring the situation to the immediate attention of the General Assembly President and the Secretary-General.  His delegation was keen to learn their views and appropriate actions to be taken.

PETER WOESTE ( Germany), speaking on behalf of the European Union, expressed surprise and concern at the late submission of the matter to the Committee.  The Union was open to considering the issue, provided the Committee’s established practices were followed.  He requested an explanation from the Secretary-General and, if needed, ACABQ on the issue.  In view of time constraints, the Union was willing to accept such a report orally.

PETER STONE (Australia), speaking also on behalf of Canada and New Zealand, said the presentation of the draft was not in keeping with the Committee’s established practice.  He was disappointed to see the draft today with only one day left in the session.  The presentation was not in accordance with the Committee’s practice.  Supporting the previous speakers, he also looked forward to such a discussion.

LEROY POTTS ( United States) also shared the concerns expressed by speakers on the significant deviation from the Committee’s established practice, which must be respected and followed faithfully.

ANDREY KOVALENKO ( Russian Federation) said he was surprised that the draft had been introduced at the last minute.  He, too, had doubts about how far it was in keeping with the Committee’s practice and wanted the matter to receive an assessment by ACABQ and comments from the Secretary-General.  He hoped that, before taking a decision, the Committee would receive some breakdown of the figures in keeping with established procedures and the Committee’s working methods.

SHARON VAN BUERLE, Director of the Programme Planning and Budget Division, said that the Institute’s expenditures throughout 2006 had amounted to some $1.3 million.  Voluntary contributions for 2006 had amounted to about $378,940.  The Institute had nine staff members, including one D-2, one P-3, two P2/1 and five General Service staff.  Throughout 2006, the activities of INSTRAW had been sustained through the Assembly subvention in 2005.  While there were some pledges, the Institute had yet to receive any extrabudgetary resources in 2007.  There were only sufficient funds to carry it through the end of April.  On that basis, it was estimated that an amount of $857,800 was needed, and that figure had been included in the draft resolution.

Mr. KOZAKI ( Japan) wanted to know when and where ACABQ comments would be available.

Mr. HUSSAIN ( Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, took note of the concerns expressed and added that he was also concerned about the expression used by some speakers today.  The situation was not as regretful and sad as it had been portrayed.  There was “a fairly good basis” for the Committee to be concerned about the matter.  The Institute had certain core activities in its mandate, which it had been unable to realize due to inadequate financial support, as described in the letter from the representative of Spain.  That explained the current financial situation of the Institute.  The situation had been further explained by the Director of the Programme Planning and Budget Division.  The draft had been presented in line with the rules of procedure of the General Assembly, so that the Institute should not face a dire financial situation.  It was possible to consider other options, but it was important to remember that INSTRAW was facing a very serious situation and the Group was supportive of the Institute.  He was prepared to look at all the facts and figures and engage with other delegations to address the concerns.

Mr. KOZAKI ( Japan) reiterated that the practice followed today was not usual for the Committee.  On previous occasions, there had been long discussion on the matter.  Today, the draft had been presented without any proper consultations with members of the Committee.  That was why he was so surprised and saddened.

Mr. SIMANCAS ( Mexico) said that, when presenting the draft, his delegation had clearly indicated the reasons for such action.  First of all, it concerned implementation of a resolution that had been adopted by the General Assembly.  It was not something that was “dreamt up at the last minute”.  The Fifth Committee had partially complied with that text, and now it was time to comply with the established mandate, in full.  It was inaccurate to state that efforts had not been made to consult on the text, and others had had many opportunities to review the draft.  There was sufficient resolve to find a solution to the matter.  Interested in finding the most satisfactory solution, his delegation would discuss the draft in full transparency and with flexibility.

Mr. HUSSAIN ( Pakistan) reiterated that the draft presented today was a continuation of a process.  By its resolution 60/229, the Assembly had decided to provide its full support to the efforts to revitalize the Institute and, in this regard, to provide it with the requisite funds to enable it to carry out its core functions for the biennium 2006–2007.  The money had been allocated in the past.  There was a legislative basis, but not enough attention to the matter.  Other delegations were fully aware of the situation.  Given the gravity of the situation, the draft was perhaps the only way to go forward.  The Group was prepared to listen to other modalities that would allow the Institute to continue and reach the actual amount allocated to its activities.  The Group’s approach had been consistent and did not undermine the established practices of the Committee.

Mr. KOZAKI ( Japan) stressed that the Committee worked on the basis of consensus and appealed to the delegations that had presented the draft to reconsider and withdraw the text in an effort to find a better solution.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record