UN BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT: GENERAL ASSEMBLY ADOPTS

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 000010 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: ABUD ACABQ AFIN AORC PGOV UNGA SUBJECT: UN BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT: GENERAL ASSEMBLY ADOPTS BUDGET ON VOTE CALLED BY USG; USG VOTES AGAINST BUDGET REF: A. USUN NEW YORK 00818 OCT 2007 ¶B. USUN NEW YORK 01102 NOV 2007 ¶C. USUN NEW YORK 01172 DEC 2007 ¶D. USUN NEW YORK 01180 DEC 2007 ¶E. USUN NEW YORK 01223 DEC 2007 ¶F. USUN NEW YORK 00002 JAN 2008 ¶G. USUN NEW YORK 00003 JAN 2008 ¶H. USUN NEW YORK 00005 JAN 2008 ¶I. USUN NEW YORK 00009 JAN 2008 ¶1. Summary: In the early morning hours of December 22, 2007, the General Assembly passed the 2008-2009 biennium budget, along with resolutions on the financing of two newly established peacekeeping missions. After intense negotiations, the General Assembly adopted a final appropriation of $4,171,359,700 (A/C.5/62/L.18 and A/C.5/62/L.19) for the 2008-2009 biennium budget. See also A/C.5/62/L.20. The approved budget represents a substantial reduction from the budget that was before the General Assembly, including numerous "add ons" informally identified by the SYG on which the General Assembly deferred action. See paras 3 and 4. The budget adopted by the General Assembly included controversial aspects dealing with the OIOS Procurement Task Force (PTF),the UN Joint Staff Pension Fund (UNJSPF),the Special Political Mission in Lebanon, and certain program budget implication resolutions (PBIs), including funding for the Durban Review Conference and the "SPIDER" program proposed in connection with the peaceful uses of outer space. While successful in dealing with the PTF and the SPM for Lebanon, USUN was unable to obtain satisfactory outcomes in relation to the other controversial matters, and declined to endorse General Assembly action in regard to them. See para 2. Because of USG concerns on the piecemeal nature of the budget and its potential growth during the 2008-09 biennium, and the decision of the G-77 to support the PBI on the Durban Review Conference, USUN called for a vote on the budget. The USG cast the only vote against the budget. See para. 5. After intensive discussions, the General Assembly also approved peacekeeping funding for UNAMID (Ref. G) and MINURCAT. End Summary. ¶2. USUN was successful in dealing with the PTF (Ref. H) and the SPM for Lebanon (Ref. F). The G-77 refused to compromise on three additional controversial matters: the UNJSPF, a PBI on the peaceful uses of outer space, and the proposed Durban Review Conference. On instructions, USUN called for a vote on the UNJSPF and disassociated from consensus on the outer space PBI. While isolated on the vote on UNJSPF, virtually the entire WEOG abstained in respect to the principled objection identified by USUN (Ref. I). The G-77 refused to compromise on funding for the Durban Review Conference. Consequently, USUN, after consulting with the Department, called for a vote on the paragraph of the draft resolution on PBIs approving such funding, and voted against this measure. The paragraph was approved by a vote of 94 to 40 against with 6 abstentions. Virtually all of the EU joined the USG in voting against the paragraph. In an explanation of vote, Ambassador Wallace said that the USG concerns had been stated in the Third Committee and stressed that the role of the Fifth Committee was to provide a fully informed view on the PBI. He noted that the PBI statement in this case was unlike any in the history of the UN, with one exception. He emphasized that this PBI was missing key information and that the Committee needed to rely on detailed and precise information in order to make an informed decision. The Committee then adopted the entire draft decision without a vote. Subsequently, in the General Assembly, the Third Committee resolution authorizing the review conference was put to a vote. Once again, virtually the entire EU joined the USG in voting against the resolution (105-46-6). ¶3. The approved budget of $4.171 reflects a substantial reduction from the budget proposed by the SYG of $4.397 billion, which included over $200 million for recosting. Ref ¶A. The $4.171 billion is less than the final budget for the 2006/2007 biennium, which was $4.188 billion. A/C.5/62/L.10 (orally amended upwards to $4.193 billion). The reduction achieved by the GA is substantially greater when taking into account that the SYG in introducing his budget separately identified a number of "add ons" for possible action by the General Assembly. Refs. A, B, C. In addition, the budget includes a number of increases due to the implementation of reforms to the internal justice system (Ref. E) as well as approval of a number of Program Budget Implications (PBIs), Revised Estimates, and other proposals relating to specific budget fascicles to increase staff. Taken together, the "add ons" and the proposals on these other matters, if acted upon by the General Assembly during this Main session, could have increased the budget to as much as $4.8 billion. Ref D. In the end, these "add-ons" were not included in the initial budget and the General Assembly identified a range of savings or reductions that amount to some $320 million. Most of the savings result from the deferral of action on the proposed UNHQ for the UNAMI SPM ($180 million) (Ref. F) and action on cross cutting issues such as the rate of inflation, vacancy rates and non-post costs. ¶4. The SYG voluntarily reduced the inflation rate from 3.2 percent to 2 percent in the face of an EU proposal, supported by the CANZ and USUN, despite original misgivings from the GOJ. USUN worked with the EU, the CANZ and G-77 to agree to a vacancy rate higher than that proposed by the SYG, despite initial GOJ misgivings, agreeing on a 6.5 percent rate for professional posts and 3.5 percent for general service posts. The increased rates notionally result in savings of some $35 million. USUN also worked with the CANZ and the G-77 to achieve a 2 percent across the board reduction in non-post costs, despite some initial opposition from the EU. This cut results in savings of some $13.8 million. In addition, the G-77 identified $10 million savings in the Department of Safety and Security (DSS) and $40 million from SPMs, based on unexpended 2006/2007 funds, as well as $18 million from the Office of Central Support Services (OCSS). While USUN in principle supported cuts proposed for DSS and SPMs on the basis of the Final Performance Report, the EU and the CANZ initially opposed such cuts. USUN sought to bridge the differences between the G-77 and the EU/CANZ in the ensuing negotiations, where agreement was reached on reducing the savings for DSS to $5 million and the savings for SPMs to $20 million. ¶5. While working with other Member States to substantially reduce budget, the USG repeatedly stressed its concerns on the piecemeal nature of the budget. At the same time, the USG warned Member States that the Organization will be faced with demands to increase the budget during the course of the biennium that could bring the final budget for the biennium up to a total of some $5.2 billion, or more. Such a budget would represent a 25 percent increase from the 2006/2007 budget, the largest in the history of the organization. Refs. B, C, D. USUN was unsuccessful in its efforts to address these concerns in connection with the adoption of this initial 2008/2009 budget. In the end, because of those concerns and the refusal of the G-77 to compromise on the PBI on the Durban Review Conference, USUN called for a vote on the budget, both in the Fifth Committee and the General Assembly. The USG cast the only no vote in both the Fifth Committee (141-1-0) and later the General Assembly (142-1-0). See Ambassador Wallace's statement, para 6. ¶6. Statement of Ambassador Wallace in the Fifth Committee on the vote on the 2008/2009 biennium budget. Begin Text: Thank You Mr. Chairman, Thank you all for the incredible work during session. My country also expresses sincere thanks to the extraordinary work of the fifth committee coordinator for this item Mr. Alejandro Torres of Argentina. Finally I thank all of the delegates who worked hard and who did a fine job in identifying real cuts to this initial 2008-2009 UN budget. Although this statement is ostensibly on the UN budget, we believe the most accurate characterization of the resolution before us is an "initial" budget. Why is that? From the outset of our consideration of this matter my country joined with the broader UN membership to express our concern over the "piece meal" and "ad hoc" approach presented by the 2008-2009 UN budget. Moreover, we joined in proposals by the broader UN membership that emphasized that some 75% of the UN budget is comprised of staff costs. Today we adopt in essence an initial appropriation of $4.2 billion. We applaud all those delegations that worked hard to get this initial appropriation down to a manageable level. However, we know that there are significant and many budget items deferred and we know that other budget add-ons are in the pipe-line. Accordingly, we are concerned that the final 2008-2009 budget for the biennium will be significantly higher than this initial budget. We appreciate the commitments expressed by the PGA, the Secretary-General and many Member States to vigorously adhere to the principle of real and credible fiscal discipline in the adoption of the final budget. We will work constructively to that end. Finally Mr. Chairman, we could not support this budget resolution because this budget today contains funding to what we refer colloquially to as the "Durban 2 conference." Our political sentiments have been clearly expressed on this revisiting of an event that was noxious to my country and a disgrace in the International Community. Unfortunately, the objectionable political agenda that seeks to revisit Durban has seeped into the fifth committee. This committee is a body of technical experts. We do not pursue policy agenda's here. Unfortunately the budgetary matter on Durban 2 - the purported PBI - is fundamentally and fatally flawed. These technical flaws - unprecedented in the history of this committee - did not dissuade the political advocates from pursuing the misguided agenda of Durban 2 without regard to the rules, policies, procedures and practices of the committee. We are disappointed in this abuse of the work of the fifth committee for these reasons. With our dear and well founded concerns on the piecemeal nature of the budget, concerns on the potential growth in the final 2008-2009 biennium budget and the straw that broke the camel's back - the PBI on Durban 2 - we cannot support this budget. Again I truly thank the many delegates and members of the Secretariat that worked constructively but in vain to an acceptable outcome. Thank you Mr. Chairman. End Text. Wolcott