Sixty-second General Assembly

Fifth Committee

29^th Meeting (AM)

FIFTH COMMITTEE TAKES UP FINANCING FOR HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL,

PEACEBUILDING COMMISSION FIELD MISSIONS

 

The Human Rights Council needs to further enhance its financial discipline and improve its methods of presenting its financial requirements to the General Assembly, the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) was told this morning, as it discussed the revised estimates resulting from resolutions and decisions adopted by the Council at its sixth session and fifth special session in 2007.

The revised estimates, introduced by Sharon Van Buerle, Director of the Programme Planning and Budget Division, showed total estimated requirements of $2,916,000 for the biennium 2008-2009, but indicated that provision of $2,449,300 had already been made in the programme budget.  Thus, a balance of $466,700 is required to implement the resolutions of the Human Rights Council outlined in the report in the biennium.  Similarly, requirements of $719,100 for the biennium 2006-2007 had been met from the resources appropriated under the programme budget for 2006-2007 and had been reported in the context of the second performance report for 2006-2007.

Japan’s representative told the Committee that, while it was necessary to take into account that the Human Rights Council was a new body, its heavy dependence on the contingency fund made it clear that it needed to further enhance its financial discipline and improve its methods of presenting its financial requirements to the General Assembly.  He referred to the provisions of resolution 62/236, which requested the Council to exercise greater financial discipline, with due regard for regulation 5.6 of the programme aspects of the budget, the monitoring of implementation and methods of evaluation (PPBME), for example by seeking the most cost-effective measures to implement its mandates.  Similarly, he expressed Japan’s support for the view of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions that the procedure for presenting the financial requirements arising from the resolutions and decisions by the Human Rights Council should be improved.

He noted that his delegation had raised concerns over the often-negative impact of the budget implications generated by resolutions and decisions of the Human Rights Council.  Last December, some $4.75 million required as a result of the Council’s resolutions had been charged against the 2008-2009 contingency fund.  When first submitted to the Fifth Committee, that amount had stood at approximately $12.38 million, equivalent to over one third of the contingency fund for the biennium.

The unencumbered amount of the contingency fund was now limited, and requirements that exceeded the authorized amount should be absorbed in the context of the consolidated statement referred to in the report of the Secretary-General, he went on.  The Secretary-General should affirm in his consolidated statement that the programme budget for 2008-2009 had substantial absorptive capacity and should not reveal further financial requirements.

Earlier, Susan McLung, Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions, had introduced the related report of the Committee (document A/62/7/Add.34) and had recommended that the Fifth Committee take note of the estimated requirements for 2008-2009, on the understanding that such appropriations as might be necessary would be requested by the Secretary-General in a consolidated statement of requirements arising from the continuing review by the Human Rights Council of its subsidiary machinery.  The Committee also expressed the view that the procedure for presenting to the Assembly the financial requirements arising from resolutions and decisions of the Council should be improved, and recommended that the Fifth Committee request the Secretary-General to make proposals in that regard for the Committee to consider.

Also this morning, the Committee took up the report of the Secretary-General on the financing of field missions of the Peacebuilding Commission (document A/62/670).  That report, also introduced by Ms. Van Buerle, contained the preliminary estimated cost of field visits to be undertaken by the Commission during the biennium 2008-2009, amounting to $676,300.

Introducing the related report of the Advisory Committee (document A/62/7/Add.34), Ms. McLung recommended that the Fifth Committee concur with the Secretary-General’s proposals, as contained in paragraph 12 of his report, which sets the preliminary cost estimates for the travel expense at $676,300.  She noted that, while the proposed programme budget for the biennium 2008-2009 mentioned that the Commission had decided to organize field visits, it did not include any resources for the participation of members of the Commission in such visits.  As the field visits of the Commission were funded outside the regular budget during the first year of operations and no determination was made regarding the mode of financing for the visits, a statement of budget implications was not provided.  The Advisory Committee expressed the hope that the provisions of rule 153 of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly, as well as the procedures governing the inclusion of estimates in proposed programme budgets, would be strictly adhered to in the future.

In a statement on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China, the representative of Antigua and Barbuda, said that, following the establishment of the Peacebuilding Commission, the Commission’s field visits had been funded from a combination of self-financing by members and other earmarks, but there was a need for those missions to be funded from a stable source.  He reaffirmed the Group’s commitment to ensuring that the Commission received adequate financial resources to effectively do its vital work and looked forward to constructive consideration of the resource requirements of the Commission.  The Peacebuilding Commission was crucial in the overall efforts to strengthen the United Nations and deserved full support.  He looked forward to favourable consideration of the Secretary-General’s request for resources for financing such field missions.

That position was supported by the representatives of Brazil, South Africa and Egypt, who expressed the strong belief that the Commission should receive resources to ensure its effective functioning.

Associating himself with the statement by Antigua and Barbuda, Iran’s representative also sought clarification on the criteria for deciding on the number of Commission members taking part in the field visits.  He also asked if a decision had been made on the countries that members of the Commission would visit in Asia and the Americas.

In response to the questions by the representative of Iran, Ms. Van Buerle said that the dates and location of the visits by the Commission had not yet been decided.  The criteria for setting the number of members going on the visits had been estimated on the basis of the experience in 2007, but it had not yet been determined who would be travelling.  The fact that the Chairman could, at times, be travelling on his own had been taken into account.

The Committee will take up several reports on the Office of Internal Oversight Services at 10 a.m. Friday, 7 March.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record