UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY
FIFTH COMMITTEE
ITEM: CAPITAL MASTER PLAN
STATEMENT BY PHILLIP TAULA ON BEHALF OF AUSTRALIA,
CANADA AND NEW ZEALAND
12 DECEMBER 2005
CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY
Mr Chairman
I have the honour to speak on behalf of Australia, Canada and New Zealand. I thank Mr. Reuter and Mr. Saha for introducing the report of the Secretary-General and the ACABQ. We also appreciate the introductions of the reports of the OIOS and Board of Auditors.
Mr Chairman
It has been five years since the Secretary-General drew to the General Assembly’s attention the urgent need to remedy the problem of an ageing complex of buildings which does not conform to current safety, fire and building standards, is grossly inefficient in its energy use, operates with outdated mechanical and electrical systems, and contains hazardous material. At the 57th session, based on the report of the Secretary-General, we thought we had a clear path forward. This most recent report confirms what we had all come to suspect: the model based on DC-5 as swing space is not workable. Thankfully, this report sets out alternative approaches that may be more realistic.
The Secretary-General informs us that the approach approved by the General Assembly three years ago has been made infeasible by the failure of host authorities to provide the ground for the construction of DC-5, and to confer the tax-free status for the bonds needed to finance it. Further, the cost of DC-5 has escalated significantly. Can the Secretariat tell us to what extent the delays incurred pending local decisions on DC-5 have contributed to the cost increases we now face?
Mr Chairman
The new report of the Secretary-General is an important step toward formulating a new approach for progressing the Capital Master Plan and its financing. As we see it, and in our reading of the helpful ACABQ report, there are broadly two main strategies to consider. One is phased renovation of the premises, which minimises swing space needs, but takes longer to complete. The other involves building a permanent structure on the North Lawn and also rehabilitating the Secretariat building, which could then be used to consolidate off-campus rentals.
A final decision would be enabled by a more complete analysis of the feasibility of building on campus. In addition to an economic assessment which takes account of the benefits of having a consolidation building, the Secretary-General should elaborate on other germane factors, such as architectural integrity of the site, the importance attached to open space, and any regulatory, legal or other impediments that may relate to use of the North Lawn. The Secretary-General has alluded to these factors, but a full presentation needs to underpin an informed decision.
Mr Chairman
Concerning financing arrangements, and absent an interest free loan, we are pleased the report focuses on payment by assessment, which the CANZ delegations have repeatedly identified as the least costly of the financing vehicles available to date. Multi-year assessments would be the most practical approach, but we are open to other scenarios, it being understood that the project remains a shared responsibility. How to deal with late payments is complex, but could be resolved by deciding that costs incurred due to late payments would be the responsibility of the member states concerned.
We note the proposed use of a letter of credit. On the face of it, there seems no reason such an instrument could not be used by the UN. Whether a possible loan offer from the host country could be used to back up a letter of credit might best be considered after an offer is received and its terms known.
Of course we recognise the need for a distinct Capital Master Plan account, as explained in paragraph 26 of the report. It would be helpful, however, to have a more complete understanding of the relative merits of maintaining this account separately with its own assessment, or making provision for this within the regular budget.
Mr Chairman
We understand and support the requirements for an additional appropriation of $108 million for design and pre-construction phases of work. We wonder, however, to what extent the use of this funding depends on the decision of which project strategy to follow.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, we wish to avoid further unnecessary and costly delay. We hope the additional information on the viability of an on campus approach will be conveyed swiftly, so that we may make the decisions needed to ensure that the UN headquarters are efficient and safe for staff, delegations and visitors alike.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.