The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/all/20050212192626/http://www.un.int:80/usa/02tar0625.htm

HomeAbout the MissionNewsInformationTopicsLinksSearchSite IndexArchives


June 25, 2002

CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY

Statement by Thomas A. Repasch, Deputy Counselor and Senior United States Advisor, on the Secretary-General's Proposed Budget Outline for 2004-2005 (A/57/85), before the Committee for Program and Coordination, June 25, 2002

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is a pleasure to present my delegation’s views on the extremely important issue of the budget outline for 2004-2005.  As always, the United States appreciates the hard work of those in the Secretariat, especially those in the Budget Office, who not only helped put the outline together but who work throughout the year to ensure that the budget rules, regulations, and processes are followed closely.   We would like to thank Under-Secretary-General Connor for presenting the report to this Committee, and we thank Controller Halbwachs and Budget Chief Sach for their presence too.

In the last several years the Member States and the Secretariat have worked in partnership to revitalize the United Nations and make it a more streamlined and responsive organization.   A critical step in this direction was taken last year when the General Assembly mandated a series of comprehensive reviews of key activities.  The Secretary-General wisely incorporated these reviews into a larger reform package, which we understand will be made public later this summer.  Like most Member States, we are eager to hear the specifics of this package, which will inform in a substantial way the discussion about the UN’s budget for the next biennium.  Let me pledge our support at the outset for the continuation of the partnership that has advanced the Organization in so many ways. 

The Committee's consideration of the budget outline this week is a critical component of an orderly and predictable process created to advance the cause of responsible budgeting. The outline provides us with the Secretary-General's first indication of the resources that he believes will be needed to carry out all of the priority activities of the organization.  Since by mandate the CPC is the first intergovernmental body to formally consider the outline, its responsibility is an important one.  The Secretariat also has the important responsibility to produce an outline that is complete and in full compliance with the governing rules and resolutions.

In reviewing and commenting on the proposed outline, my delegation feels it is important to keep in mind that the CPC is not tasked with pronouncing final judgment on its overall level.  This is bound to change anyway over the next few months through recosting and other adjustments.  Rather, the Committee's responsibility lies mainly in determining whether the estimate is one that faithfully satisfies the requirements contained in Resolution 41/213.  We must verify that the outline reflects the Organization's priorities and adequately addresses the resource needs for the proposed program of activities.

While my delegation supports the Secretary-General's proposed priorities for the next biennium, our overall impression of this outline is that it requires further definition.  The outline as presented makes it difficult to determine whether the estimate fully reflects the program of work, in particular in the priority areas of the Organization.   It also makes us wonder about the Secretariat’s continued commitment to budget discipline and performance management, which have been the foundation of our deliberations on budget issues over the last several years.

Let me turn to specifics:

  • Some of the proposals put forward in the outline suggest a return to an era when the program budget was stuck on a seemingly ever-upward path, an era when budget decision-making was focused on how much to add to the last budget.  Nonetheless, we are confident that the Organization has moved beyond this outmoded approach and we will work hard with others to ensure a more rational, results-oriented method for budgeting.
  • Sustained reform and continuous improvement can, and we believe will, have a significant impact on the resource requirements of the UN.  But to make this happen, Member States and the Secretariat need to collectively reaffirm the commitment to these important concepts.
  • First and perhaps foremost is the need to robustly implement the regulations and rules for program planning, and in particular regulation 5.6, which requires heads of departments and program managers to identify activities that are obsolete or have marginal usefulness.  Regrettably, the budget outline makes no reference to this, and so we must insist that it be fully respected when the full budget for 2004-2005 is prepared.
  • We support the continued investment in security enhancements, in particular those planned for UN facilities in Geneva.
  • While we note the Secretary-General’s concern about the unpredictability of budgeting for Special Political Missions, we would point out that these missions are related to one of the UN’s priority areas.  We would also point out that the extraordinary events of the last year should not be considered indicative of past or future patterns for these missions.  Consequently, it is our judgment that the special missions should be funded from the regular budget, despite their sometimes variable nature.  In fact, our view is consistent with past recommendations of this Committee as well as with General Assembly resolution 53/206.
  • In our view, the proposed outline seems to understate the magnitude of the increases for 2004-2005.  In deriving the calculation of the overall net increase, the outline incorporates an offset or decrease in the one-time costs for facility security enhancements approved for 2002-2003.  While this presentation may be technically accurate, we understood that most of the funds for security improvements represented a one-time investment that should not have become part of the base for future budgets.  When the decrease for these expenses is set aside, the net program increase is actually more than the $40 million indicated. 
  • The outline includes $29.8 million for restoration of funds cut from the 2002-2003 budget proposal.  We cannot support such an increase.  If there is a need to provide the services indicated, we call on the Secretariat to identify obsolete activities that could be terminated and efficiencies that could be implemented to offset their cost.
  • While we support the goals of the Millennium Summit, we cannot advocate the blanket increase for these activities put forward in the outline.  Each proposed new activity needs to be judged independently, based on the soundness of its strategy and the ability of the UN to achieve meaningful results.
  • The proposed outline refers in paragraph six to added resources for “conference-servicing and the UN Office at Nairobi.”  We would like to know what is meant by this. 

In summary, we believe that the budget outline for 2004-2005 fails to capitalize on the efforts by the Organization and Member States to streamline, prioritize, and reinvigorate UN operations.  We are eager to learn about the Secretary-General’s new reform proposals and expect that they will be fully reflected in the full budget proposal to be issued next spring.  As far as this Committee is concerned, we would recommend that CPC take note of the proposal and recommend that the General Assembly give further consideration to a number of issues, including the allocation for political missions and the soon-to-be-issued reform proposals.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 

###


 

home