As Fifth Committee Examines Budget for Special Adviser on Burundi, Delegates Seek Clarity over Role of Regional Actors, Secretary-General’s Representatives
The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) discussed today the proposed 2016 budget for the Office of the Special Adviser for Burundi, amid delegates’ concerns that aspects of it lacked “clarity and justification” over how to fully involve regional and subregional actors that were integral to achieving peace in the East African country, among other essential areas.
Introducing the Secretary-General’s report on the matter, Bettina Tucci Bartsiotas, Assistant Secretary-General and Controller, said the Office’s estimated resources for this year were $9.4 million and 49 positions, to be charged against the balance of the provision for special political missions in the Organization’s 2016-2017 programme budget. Pending approval of the General Assembly’s present budget proposal, the initial requirements were being met through a $1.63 million commitment authority of the Secretary-General under resolution 70/250 on unforeseen and extraordinary expenses.
Carlos Ruiz Massieu, Chair of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ), introduced that body’s related report, recommending approval of the Office’s budget, and that reductions be made to the proposed staffing, both at United Nations Headquarters and in Burundi, as the Office was in its early stages and “rather small”. Activities of the Dialogue Support Unit and of the Disarmament and Security Advisory Unit should be phased in gradually, and at this early stage, be performed by one consolidated unit.
The representative of the United Republic of Tanzania, speaking for the African Group, said the proposal failed to inform the division of labour among the United Nations Office in Central Africa, Offices at the Great Lakes and the African Union, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and United Nations country teams. It also failed to inform the role of the Secretary-General’s representatives.
He sought clarification on why the title of the envoy was Special Adviser on Conflict Prevention including Burundi, when the mandate went beyond the situation in that country. He asked the Secretary-General to ensure the team deployed to Burundi maintained credibility, impartiality and professionalism, and looked forward to a proposal for a small, efficient team that would not seek to extend beyond its mandate.
The European Union’s delegate expressed regret that, three weeks into the session, the Burundi situation was only now being introduced, while other important items had not yet been discussed at all. Among them were the revised estimates for the Resident Coordinator system, which were crucial for the delivery of field mandates related to implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. He asked the Secretariat for reasons for the delay and steps ACABQ was taking to expedite its work.
On that point, Mr. Massieu responded that it took between four and five weeks to produce a report, and that all Advisory Committee reports had been delivered within that timeframe, thanks to the extra time spent by the body, as well as the “accelerated” processes of receiving advance questions from members.
Ms. Bartsiotas added that her Office had submitted a budget proposal for Burundi on 10 February, however political developments often did not synchronize with intergovernmental processes. “We are committed to transparency of the dates when reports are mandated, produced, reviewed and finalized,” she said, and working to ensure that an agile process was in place.
Nonetheless, Cuba’s delegate noted, the reports should have been ready in February at the latest, and their production should be fine-tuned.
The Fifth Committee will reconvene at 10 a.m. Monday, 21 March, to discuss human resources management, the Resident Coordinator system, and construction and property management, as well as to take action on a resolution for the financing of the Arusha branch of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals.
2016-2017 Budget: Office of Special Adviser of Secretary-General — Burundi
BETTINA TUCCI BARTSIOTAS, Assistant Secretary-General and Controller, introduced the Secretary-General’s report on the Office of his Special Adviser, under Thematic cluster I, special and personal envoys and special advisers of the Secretary-General, relating to estimates in respect of special political missions, good offices and other political initiatives authorized by the General Assembly and/or the Security Council (document A/70/348/Add.8 and Corr.1). It contained the 2016 proposal for the budget of the Office of the Special Adviser appointed to support an inclusive dialogue and the peaceful resolution of conflict in Burundi.
He said the Office’s estimated resources amounted to $9.4 million and included 49 positions, which would be charged against the balance of the provision for special political missions, appropriated under Section 3, Political Affairs of the programme budget for the biennium 2016-2017. Pending approval of the Assembly’s present budget proposal, the initial requirements were being met through a $1.63 million commitment authority of the Secretary-General under resolution 70/250 on unforeseen and extraordinary expenses.
CARLOS RUIZ MASSIEU, Chair of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ), introduced that body’s related report (document A/70/7/Add.47), noting that the Security Council, through resolution 2248 (2015), had invited the Secretary-General to deploy a team in Burundi to assess the situation and present options for the United Nations future presence. Without prejudice to that future presence, the Advisory Committee’s observations and recommendations reflected information made available at the time of its consideration of the proposal of the Secretary-General’s report.
As such, he said, the Advisory Committee recommended approval of the Office’s budget, and that reductions be made to the proposed staffing, both at United Nations Headquarters and in Burundi, as the Office was in its beginning stages and “rather small”. Activities of the Dialogue Support Unit and of the Disarmament and Security Advisory Unit should be phased in gradually, and at this early stage, be performed by one consolidated unit. The Office should also avail itself of the finance and human resources support available through the Regional service Centre in Entebbe. The Secretary-General’s proposed staffing requirements were linked to the Special Adviser’s location, currently stationed at Headquarters in New York.
JUSTIN KISOKA (United Republic of Tanzania) spoke on behalf of the African Group, expressing strong commitment for the proposal. The Group fully supported the deployment of additional United Nations teams on the ground to complement the efforts of regional and subregional actors. However, some aspects of the proposal lacked clarity and justification in a number of areas. He reminded the Secretary-General of the importance of respecting the terms of General Assembly resolution 70/8 — which stressed the need for the United Nations system organizations to fully take into account the views and input of the African Union and other regional and subregional mechanisms when formulating policies and making decisions in mediation and conflict prevention. He wanted to know how the current proposal had taken into account that text’s provisions.
The proposal failed to inform the division of labour among the United Nations Office in Central Africa, Offices at the Great Lakes and the African Union, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and United Nations country teams, he said. It also failed to inform the role of the Secretary-General’s representatives whose mandates addressed the situation in Burundi. It would seek clarification on why the title of the envoy was Special Adviser on Conflict Prevention including Burundi, when the mandate went beyond the situation in that country. The proposal should have presented information on the full involvement of all regional and subregional organizations, including the East African Community, African Union and the Secretariat of the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region.
Recalling that the East African Community had appointed Ugandan President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni as mediator for the inter-Burundi dialogue and former Tanzanian President Benjamin Mkapa to facilitate mediation, the Group wanted to know how the current proposal complemented the work of regional and subregional actors and supported the East African Community’s work, he said. The proposed staffing structure should have taken into account existing United Nations, regional and subregional structures. The Group was disappointed that some stakeholders had cancelled or suspended the development programme for Burundi, calling for renewed commitments of all partners. He asked to Secretary-General to ensure the team deployed to Burundi maintained credibility, impartiality and professionalism, and looked forward to a proposal for a small, efficient team that would not seek to extend beyond its mandate.
JAN DE PRETER, of the European Union, regretted that three weeks into the session important issues like Burundi were only now being introduced, while other important items had not yet been discussed at all. Among them were the revised estimates for the Resident Coordinator system, which were crucial for the delivery of mandates in the field, particularly related to implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and amendments to the Staff Regulations and Rules, which were time-bound. He asked the Secretariat about the reasons for the delay, which reflected badly on the Fifth Committee, and steps ACABQ was taking to expedite its work.
On 23 December, Assembly resolution 70/247 asked the Secretary-General to transmit reports to ACABQ no later than two weeks in advance of their scheduled consideration to ensure ACABQ could advise the Assembly at least two weeks before the reports were formally introduced in the Fifth Committee, he said. Barely three months on the Fifth Committee had failed to abide by its own resolutions. Delegates had been led to believe that there was an informal understanding in the Fifth Committee and its Bureau that items would not be introduced during the last week of the session. The Union would like to abide by the Fifth Committee’s resolutions and it was not in a position to extend the session under any circumstances.
Mr. RUIZ MASSIEU, responding, said ACABQ had always been attentive to the Fifth Committee work programme and had acknowledged the Assembly resolution regarding the “two weeks in advance” mandate of the Secretariat. He had been blunt that producing a report took ACABQ between four and five weeks. While he did not know whether the Secretariat had produced the report two weeks in advance, all ACABQ reports had been delivered within the four-to-five week window, with three produced within an earlier timeframe, gains made possible thanks to the extra time spent by ACABQ, as well as the “accelerated” processes of receiving advance questions from members. The persistent delays must be addressed and ACABQ must catch up on peacekeeping reports for the next session — not an easy task under an increased workload. He was open to exploring other measures for producing a report.
Ms. BARTSIOTAS said her Office took seriously the timing and quality of documentation, cooperating with ACABQ to ensure that, in any thorough review, “we respond to questions in a timely manner”. On the documents mentioned by the European Union delegate, the mandates for the Resident Coordinator and for the Sustainable Development Goals had arrived on 23 December. Her Office had issued a Resident Coordinator document at the end of January. The Sustainable Development Goals had involved a thorough consultation process and a report was forthcoming shortly. On Burundi, her Office had submitted a budget proposal on 10 February, however political developments often did not synchronize with intergovernmental processes. “We are committed to transparency of the dates when reports are mandated, produced, reviewed and finalized,” she said, and working to ensure that an agile process was in place.
The representative of Cuba said he shared many of the frustrations raised by the European Union’s delegate, noting that there were other reports outstanding, including from last July. In report production, the main responsibility did not lie with the Department for General Assembly and Conference Management, or with the Comptroller. Rather, he drew attention to the author departments, saying that the reports should have been ready in February at the latest. The reports had been submitted late and he urged fine-tuning the production line.
The representative of the United Republic of Tanzania said he did not share the explanations given by the Comptroller and ACABQ Chair, as the 2030 Agenda report should have been done long ago. It was difficult to understand why important proposals had not been presented. The Secretary-General had promised Member States that he would be transparent and accountable. His Government had sent a proposal to him to release reports and the Secretary-General should be consistent. He also awaited the proposal for a revised estimate of the Department of Political Affairs, which contained important elements, especially in the area of mediation. That proposal was around $12 million. He found it strange that some proposals, for $65 million, for example, had been made so easily, while those that served the interests of people on the ground did not. States must have sufficient time to act to support people on the ground.