UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY 55th SESSION

Fifth Committee - Item 116: Proposed Budget for the Biennium 2002-2003

Statement by H.E. Ms Penny Wensley, Ambassador and Permanent Representative on behalf of the Delegations of Canada, New Zealand and Australia

15 December 2000

I have the honour to make this statement on behalf of the delegations of New Zealand, Canada and my own country, Australia.

We would like to thank the Controller, Mr Jean-Pierre Halbwachs, for introducing the Secretary-General’s proposed Budget Outline for the biennium 2002-2003 (A/55/186), and Ambassador Mselle, for introducing the report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (A/55/685). We have also taken note of the views of the Committee on Programme and Coordination on the subject.

Our delegations consider the budget outline to be a crucial component of the budgetary process. One of the main reasons for its introduction some fifteen years ago was to provide Member States with a greater degree of predictability about the level of resources they would be called upon to provide for the forthcoming biennium. By reaching early agreement on the indicative level of the budget, it was hoped Member States would be in a better position to plan for and provide sufficient funds to meet their financial obligations to the United Nations in full and on time. For all of these reasons, therefore, it is an indispensable budget tool for Member States.

The Secretary-General is proposing an indicative budget estimate of $2,475.4 million for the biennium 2002-2003, before re-costing. Our preliminary analysis indicates that the proposed budget outline appears consistent with the priorities contained in the medium-term plan for 2002-2005. In general, we endorse the principal aspects of the proposal, which reflect the continued commitment to make the United Nations a more responsive, effective, and efficient Organization.

Like any other "tool", the benefits to be gained from the use of the budget outline will be
determined ultimately by the care and judgement of both the Secretariat and Member States in their efforts to apply it. If the budget estimate is to be a useful planning figure, it is important that it be as realistic a forecast of the Organization’s financial requirement as possible. In order for Member States to play their leading role, the budget process must be open and transparent to ensure they have the information they need as decision-makers. For these reasons, our delegations regret that the budget estimate does not take into account special political missions, for which there is a recurring need for significant resources. In this regard we recall Resolution 53/206 of 18 December 1998 in which the General Assembly endorsed the proposal of the Secretary-General to include special political missions in the last budget outline. We also endorse the opinion of the Advisory Committee at paragraph 8 of its Report that, inasmuch as the requirements for special political missions are of a continuing nature, the estimates should continue to be included in the budget outline. We can therefore agree to its recommendation that the budget outline estimates include an amount of $93.7 million at revised rates for special political missions. Omitting these significant costs is simply not conducive to sound budgetary planning and control.

We also regret that the budget outline is conspicuously silent on the issue of projected efficiency savings. Members will recall that in the last budget outline, efficiency gains in the amount of $20 million were initially identified, a figure we considered well within the range of normal productivity gains that any budget of this magnitude ought to be able to achieve through the ongoing efficient utilisation of resources. We would recall the comments of the ACABQ in its 1948 Report on the budget which are as relevant today as they were back then: "In an organization, it is salutary to have a budget which has elements of stringency. The quality of an organization will improve if its officials are under pressure to use resources wisely." The task at hand, for both Member States and the Secretariat, is to ensure the Organization is run in the most efficient and effective manner possible, and the effort to achieve a more efficient utilisation of resources is an ongoing one. We all want a budget that enables implementation of all priority activities, but this represents only one part of the budget equation. An equally important aspect of the budget process is the need and responsibility to take advantage of every possible opportunity to do things better and cost-effectively.

Similarly, we are disappointed that the budget outline does not make cost provisions for a number of major issues, including the Capital Master Plan, safety and security of UN personnel, and implementation of the report of the Panel on United Nations Peace Operations the costing of which will need careful consideration. In this regard we note the Advisory Committee has recommended approval of a level of resources at significantly lower levels than those requested on a number of issues currently under consideration and if accepted this would reduce the amounts involved. We agree with the Advisory Committee’s recommendation that the General Assembly adopt a budget outline estimate of $2,515.3 million at the revised 2000-2001 rates for the biennium 2002-2003.

In conclusion, the General Assembly’s approval of the budget outline is designed to assist the Secretary-General plan and prepare the budget for the next biennium.