Sixty-second General Assembly

Fifth Committee

25^th Meeting (AM)

FIFTH COMMITTEE TAKES UP BUDGET IMPLICATIONS OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY

ANTI-RACISM TEXT, INCLUDING 2009 DURBAN REVIEW CONFERENCE

 

The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) this morning discussed the programme budget implications for a draft resolution concerning global efforts to carry out the Action Plan adopted in 2001 at the Durban anti-racism Conference, with many questions raised about how to treat the estimates, due to their preliminary nature.

According to a programme budget implication statement on draft resolution A/C.3/62/L.65/Rev.1, as orally revised (document A/C.5/62/21) -- introduced by Linda Wong, Chief of Service II of the Programme Planning and Budget Division -- adoption of the text would give rise to “preliminary additional resources” of up to some $6.79 million for 2008-2009, over and above the level of resources in the proposed budget for the biennium, representing a charge against the Contingency Fund.

By the terms of the draft resolution, the Assembly would be requested to provide the necessary resources for effective fulfilment of the mandates of the intergovernmental working group on the effective implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, the working group of experts on people of African descent and the group of independent eminent experts on the implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action.  It would request the Secretary-General to provide the Special Rapporteur with all the necessary human and financial assistance to carry out his mandate and to enable him to submit a report to the Assembly’s sixty-third session.

Also by the draft, the Assembly would underline that the Preparatory Committee for the Durban Review Conference, scheduled for 2009, should, at its first substantive session, discuss, among others, the organization of work for the Conference and allocation of funding from the regular budget for convening that event in 2009. The Secretary-General would be requested to allocate adequate funding from the regular budget for expenses not covered in Preparatory Committee decision PC.1/12, to facilitate the participation of all relevant special procedures and mechanisms of the Human Rights Council in the meetings of the Preparatory Committee and regional preparatory conferences.

Ms. Wong said that, although the initial preliminary overall estimated additional requirements amounted to some $7.1 million, following a review, an amount of $266,900 was proposed to be met from the programme budget for the biennium.  The balance of the additional requirements up to some $6.79 million was considered to extend beyond the absorptive capacities of the provisions proposed in the 2008-2009 regular budget.

She added that consultations and negotiations among Member States were still ongoing, as the Preparatory Committee intended to elaborate further on the date, duration and level of participation in the Conference.  With regard to regional preparatory meetings, the Secretariat needed to consult with the regional commissions to determine their absorptive capacity with regard to the requirements for conference services, travel and daily subsistence allowance of interpreters and Secretariat support staff ($3.27 million).  In addition, there would continue to be internal consultations, including with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) with regard to the absorptive capacity in terms of requirements for least developed countries and non-governmental organization representatives’ travel.

Supporting the draft approved by the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural), the representative of Pakistan, speaking on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China, said the Group attached great importance to the Review Conference and its preparatory conferences.  The Group was surprised that the Secretary-General had to resort to rule 153 of the rules of procedure to present related estimates.  The text clearly indicated a request to allocate adequate funding from the regular budget, and the Group wondered why ACABQ had not been able to give a clear recommendation, just as it had on similar requests from other committees.  The Group would follow up to ensure that the resources that had been proposed were transferred to relevant accounts so that the preparations could proceed as planned.  The Conference would make a significant contribution towards eradicating the scourge of racism.

Responding to a query from the representative of the United States whether the document before the Committee was a programme budget implication statement or not, the Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ), Rajat Saha, clarified that the document had been submitted as a formal programme budget implication statement.  Upon inquiry, the representatives of the Secretary-General had informed the Advisory Committee that, in the recent past, the Secretary-General had recommended that the General Assembly take note of preliminary requirements.  Upon conclusion of negotiations and the determination of the structure of the Durban Review Conference, including regional preparatory meetings, detailed information on financial implications would be submitted.  Only then would ACABQ reflect its views on detailed proposals.  The preliminary additional resources amounting up to $6.79 million in the programme budget implication statement submitted today could go down following discussions.

Thus, the Advisory Committee, in its report (document A/62/7/Add.28) recommended that, should the Assembly adopt the draft, estimated additional requirements for 2008-2009 would be up to $6.79 million, he said.  ACABQ recommended taking note of the Secretary-General’s preliminary estimates.

The representative of Brazil reaffirmed the role of the Fifth Committee, supported the programme budget implication statements before it and endorsed the statement by Pakistan on behalf of the Group of 77 in support of important financial implications before the Committee.  That was why the Committee had to act on the documents before it today in the same manner as when dealing with other programme budget implication statements.

The United States representative wanted to know how the preliminary estimates had been calculated.  Had ACABQ ever dealt with preliminary estimates of such sort before?  Was it the position of the Secretariat that there would be no financial implications until the conclusion of negotiations?

Ms. Wong reiterated that the Secretary-General had only requested that, at this time, the Assembly take note of the estimate.  The estimate had been based on the standards used by the Secretariat for calculating the requirements for conferences.  For the preparatory conferences, they reflected the indications that had been received from Governments that had indicated initial interest in holding preparatory meetings in Pretoria, Bangkok, Moscow and Brasilia.  The costings for Vienna, however, were based on the assumption that another country in the region would offer to host one of the meetings.

The ACABQ Chairman said that, in line with the relevant rules of procedure, the Secretary-General normally placed before ACABQ the programme budget implications of any draft resolution to be adopted by the Assembly.  There had been an earlier case, in connection with the 2005 World Summit, where the Assembly had taken note of a preliminary estimate.  Another involved the Office of the President of the General Assembly, which had been dealt with directly by the Fifth Committee.

On the latter, the Secretary of the Committee, Movses Abelian, explained that the situation had been that ACABQ had completed its work and the statement had, therefore, been made to the Fifth Committee the following morning.  That had later been reflected in the budget.

Speaking on behalf of the European Union, the representative of Portugal said she would favour discussing the item in informal consultations.  That call was supported by the representatives of Australia and Cuba.

The United States representative expressed concern about the presentation of the programme budget implication statement, saying that there were rules that were typically followed in that regard.  He also asked for clarification on voluntary funding for the preparatory work and drew attention to the fact that, under its resolution 40/243, the Assembly had decided that United Nations bodies would hold sessions away from established headquarters when the Government issuing an invitation had agreed to defray the actual additional costs involved.  As for the High Commissioner for Human Rights, in document 2002/68, it had been decided to establish a voluntary fund for the event, including effective implementation of Durban Declaration and Programme of Action and other activities.  He assumed that the Secretariat had figures on exactly what amounts for voluntary funds had been defrayed.

Ms. Wong replied that, as indicated in the ACABQ report, the venues for preparatory events were based on the indicative information.  The Secretariat would like to have further discussions with the Governments concerned, so the costs would be borne by them pursuant to resolution 40/243.  Thus, the Secretary-General had indicated that those were preliminary estimates, subject to further negotiations.  The Secretary-General had also stated that an amount of $804,100 would be funded from available extrabudgetary resources for travel requirements of representatives from least developed countries, national human rights institutions and non-governmental organizations.

The ACABQ Chairman said that the annex to the Advisory Committee’s report gave the details of the preliminary estimates.  He requested the Secretariat to make available in writing the details of the two cases earlier referred to, if the Fifth Committee decided to discuss the matter further in informal consultations.  That should include the details of exactly what had happened in the case of the Office of the General Assembly President.

Agreeing with the Group of 77 and Brazil, the representative of South Africa said his country attached great importance to the issue of injustices associated with racism, and felt that it was necessary to reflect on the matter through the preparatory meetings.  That issue was very important, to South Africa and the developing world in particular.  Thus, the programme budget implication statement being discussed needed to be approved before the conclusion of the business of the Fifth Committee.  Nothing should be deferred.

The representative of the Republic of Korea requested clarification on how much of the costs were anticipated to be borne by the host countries pursuant to the established practice.

The representative of the United States requested information on the amount of money raised in the past from voluntary contributions to defray costs, the mandates adopted in the past that contemplated extrabudgetary resources to defray the costs, as well as the amount of core resources applied to those mandates.

Brazil’s representative agreed that the matter should be considered in informal consultations together with other programme budget implication statements.  He believed that, with existing rules of procedure, the legal basis for the Committee to act was fully covered.  As a technical body, the Fifth Committee should not be bringing political issues from other committees to its work.

The representative of Pakistan, on behalf of the Group of 77, supported the suggestion that the debate be moved to an informal setting where it belonged, but the lateness of the hour and number of issues that needed to be discussed should be borne in mind.  While ready to engage in that discussion, the Group reiterated its disappointment at the way the programme budget implication statement had been presented.  A clear course of action had been requested by the Third Committee, which should have resulted in a clear request by the Secretariat.  With regard to the issue of voluntary contributions, the Group believed that the bulk of the cost of the preparatory conferences would be defrayed by host Governments.  A Main Committee had adopted a draft resolution and had agreed on the role of the United Nations in that process.  As such, there was a clear case for action, which was very important and that would be an important signal from the United Nations.

The representative of South Africa said that, in 2001, his country had hosted the World Conference against Racism, spending about $10 million to $12 million on that event.  This time, the draft envisioned a regional meeting, which was much smaller than the 2001 Conference.   South Africa stood ready to do its best to deal with that matter.

The United States representative wanted to know what had been done to defray costs and asked about current commitments.  While there were disagreements on other political issues, there seemed to be consensus between the United States and Group of 77 on the fact that the Secretariat did not have a proper budgetary vehicle before the Committee and, therefore, there could not be a programme budget implication statement on the draft.  No budgetary analysis could be undertaken, particularly without a real review by ACABQ on budgetary aspects.  The “preliminary estimated additional resources” were not what ACABQ typically looked at.  Real estimates were needed, which would then be reviewed by the Advisory Committee and properly considered by the Fifth Committee.

Responding to the United States, Pakistan’s representative said that, while he would like the United States to be on board with the Group of 77 on many questions, on this issue, the Group’s understanding was somewhat different from the United States.  The Group was clear on the matter, but other delegations might need informals, and the usual procedure was to go into an informal meeting.

Ms. Wong promised that the Secretariat would provide information in writing at the informal consultations with regard to the estimated voluntary contributions from the host countries and the previous mandates that involved voluntary contributions to defray costs.

The Committee will meet again at a date to be announced.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record