An Update on the Lengthy 2008 Second Resumed Session of the Fifth Committee

Every May, the Fifth Committee approves the annual budgets of peacekeeping missions. This time, it took two weeks longer than anticipated, but the Fifth Committee finally approved a package of 7.08 billion USD for 15 peacekeeping missions as well as the UN’s Logistics Base and the Support Account. Following is a description of some of the key issues discussed and decisions made.

Documents issued late – not enough time to review budgets
Apart from disagreements about the specific levels of funding necessary for each peacekeeping mission, more time was needed to come to agreement because some of the documentation from the Secretariat was received very late. This has been an ongoing problem in the Fifth Committee and of great concern to all Member States. For instance, the budget for UNAMID (African Union/United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur), was only made available a few days before the end of the session. As a result, the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) – an advisory body to the General Assembly – experienced difficulties to finish its report in time for careful consideration by the Fifth Committee. Its report on UNAMID was apparently only available in English on the day the Fifth Committee started considering UNAMID towards the end of the session.

One delegate summarized the problems in the Fifth Committee as follows: “not enough time to carefully review the budgets because there are far too many items on the agenda and too many reports are received late.” Especially the biggest donors would like more time to scrutinize the budgets while many delegates from the South privately expressed concern that some of the questions of those donors go into nitpicking detail.

While the regular budget is for two years and decided upon in the October through December session of the Budget Committee, the annual budgets of the Peacekeeping Missions are discussed in May of each year. Some delegates argue that as the budgets for peacekeeping now amount to 7 billion USD for one year - while the regular budget is 4.17 USD for two years - more time should be made available to consider peacekeeping budgets.

Cuts made in the proposed budgets
All in all, Member States cut the Secretary-General’s proposed peacekeeping budgets for this session with roughly 300 million USD. Big donors like the US and Japan often insisted on cuts while the Group of 77 and China – a grouping of 130 developing countries – typically resisted these. The largest cut of 200 million was made in the budget of UNAMID. With its estimated costs of 1.5 billion for one year, this peacekeeping mission in Darfur has the highest budget of all peacekeeping operations, but it has faced great difficulties in becoming fully operational. Apart from Darfur’s remoteness and related problems in regard to infrastructure (communications, bad roads), the UN had a difficult time in obtaining helicopters, while Sudan was allegedly at times reluctant to cooperate.¹ Sudan itself, however, noted at a meeting on 3 June that it continued to offer all possible support to UNAMID but that actions of rebel movements risked wasting the UN’s resources and the lives of UN personnel.

Because of the delays in becoming fully operational, Japan suggested that UNAMID’s budget be cut by 30%. This proposal was not agreed to and the final cut was just under 15%. Member States did endorse the proposal of the ACABQ to agree to the roughly 1.5 billion USD budget in principle, with the caveat that the assessment for this amount would be made in two phases. For the first phase, until 31 December 2008, the assessments would amount to 50%. However, the Secretary General will have to provide a progress report by 30 November 2008 after which a revised appropriation could be made and assessments adjusted if the mission did not achieve projected operational levels.²

Consolidation of peacekeeping accounts/arrears/closing missions.
For many years now, the Secretariat has proposed the consolidation of peacekeeping accounts as this would provide more flexibility. For instance, having all funds in one pot could alleviate gaps caused by arrears. However, many Member States do not endorse this idea as it might – according to one delegate – “encourage or reward” those who pay their assessments late.

When discussing the UN’s financial situation on 20 May, many Member States expressed concern about unpaid assessments with “two Member States accounting for more than 95% of that debt.”³ Member States owe roughly 428 million USD to the regular budget as of 31 December 2007 while outstanding arrears for peacekeeping amount to 2.7 billion USD. At this meeting, Singapore stated that non-payment by major contributors had led the Secretariat “to seek innovative means to keep the cash flowing.” In addition, arrears were the cause of the Secretariat not being able to fully pay countries for contributing troops or finalize the accounts and reimburse contributors for unspent funds. Egypt noted that reimbursements to those who provided troops and equipment should prevail over other reimbursements. Apparently, the amount owed to troop/equipment providing countries amounts to some 600 million USD. Switzerland floated the idea that for now, the Secretariat could do partial reimbursements rather than none at all. At this same meeting, Venezuela wondered aloud whether some countries deliberately use arrears to exert pressure on the UN.

ACABQ
The Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) provides the GA with detailed advice on all reports and budgets prepared by the Secretariat. Its members are reimbursed through per diems for a set number of days. The Group of G77 and China proposed at the second resumed session – under agenda item “cross-cutting issues” – that this Committee be in session for 12 months so that it would be better able to deal with the increasing workload. When the resolution on cross-cutting issues was postponed, some countries insisted that the Fifth Committee consider the additional meeting time for the ACABQ separately and these countries even seemed willing – in the words of some delegates – to hold the Fifth Committee “hostage” until this issue would be resolved. However, the Chair of the Fifth Committee, Ambassador Hamidon Ali of Malysia (itself a member of the G77), apparently felt that there was not enough support even within the G77 for this proposal and he was able to prevent additional delays.

Reform of the ACABQ is likely to be on the agenda of the upcoming session. But apart from the amount of time the ACABQ should work each year, other conditions of service of ACABQ members will likely be discussed as well. According to our understanding, some members of the ACABQ solely live on the per diems provided while others are receiving financial remuneration from their Member States as well. These worrisome inequities among ACABQ members should be addressed. Issues such as the working methods of the ACABQ; its relationship with the Secretariat and Fifth Committee; as well as the independence, attendance records and qualifications of its members also warrant some scrutiny, according to some EU delegates.

Conclusion
The Fifth Committee faced considerable governance issues earlier⁴ in the 62nd session, and its second resumed session in May/June 2008 was no different. Differences between the biggest donors (especially Japan and the US) and the G77 and China are very pronounced and insiders fear that these differences could increasingly poison decision-making in the Fifth Committee.