<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>9 December 1999
UN
Press Release
GA/AB/3350
FIFTH COMMITTEE TAKES DECISIONS ON BUDGET IMPLICATIONS OF TEXTS RELATED TO
SMALL ARMS, CENTRAL AMERICA AND INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMISSION
19991209
Also Takes Decision Related to Report of Economic and Social Council
The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) decided this morning to
inform the General Assembly of the programme budget implications of draft
resolutions before it on small arms, on the use of mercenaries, on Central
America, and on the International Law Commission. It also recommended that
the Assembly take note of the chapters of the report of the Economic and
Social Council allocated to the Fifth Committee. All the decisions were taken
without a vote.
Regarding the text on small arms, his Committee decided to communicate to the
Assembly that an additional $753,100 would be required should the Assembly
adopt a draft resolution on the holding of a small-arms conference. It also
decided to recommend that the Secretary-General be asked to exceptionally
provide summary records for those meetings of the conference where decisions
would be taken….
The Committee had before it a Secretary-General's note (document
A/C.1/54/L.42/Rev.1) on the programme budget implications of a draft
resolution approved by the Assembly's First Committee (Disarmament and
International Security) on general and complete disarmament: small arms.
If the draft resolution (document A/C.1/54/L.42/Rev.1) is passed, according
to the statement, it is envisaged that conference-servicing costs would
amount to some $1.60 million at full cost, assuming that the meetings for the
conference and preparatory committee would be convened in New York. In
accordance with relevant Assembly resolutions, neither the conference nor its
preparatory committee would be entitled to summary records, the cost of which
would have been about $448,900. The full cost of temporary assistance would
be $313,400 ($166,100 in 2000 and $147,300 in 2001). Full consultancy costs
are estimated to be $71,200, including travel and daily subsistence
allowance. The total estimated costs for public information activities would
amount to $338,500.
As provision is made under the relevant section for conference services of
the programme budget for 2000-2001, for meetings authorized subsequent to the
budget's approval, provided the number and distribution of such meetings are
consistent with the patterns of past years. Therefore, no additional
appropriation would be required for conference services unless summary
records were required. Additional appropriations of $723,100 would be
required under section 4, Disarmament ($384,600); and under section 26,
Public information ($338,500). In addition, $56,500 would be required under
section 32 , Staff assessment, to be offset by the same amount under income
Section 1, Income from staff assessment for the additional staff for the
Department for Disarmament Affairs….
The Committee then turned its attention to the programme budget implications
of draft resolution A/C.1/54/L.42/Rev.1.
ANNE MERCHANT (Norway) said that in the draft resolution the Secretary-
General was asked to carry out the Expert Group meeting within available
resources and with assistance from Member States. She sought to know the
total estimated cost of convening the Ad hoc Expert Group meeting and whether
any extrabudgetary resources for it been forthcoming. She also noted that the
Expert Group meeting was included in the programme budget proposal, yet in
the programme budget implications statement it was suggested that no such
request had been made, she sought an explanation of this.
CARLOS DOS SANTOS (Mozambique) said the conference would be one of the most
important international meetings on disarmament, with direct and immediate
impact on civil society. Bearing this in mind, and with due respect to the
guidelines, he proposed that summary records be provided, but only for those
meetings where decisions were taken. He understood that the Secretary-General
could provide summary records for those meetings and that no additional
appropriations would be required for this. Although it would constitute an
exception to Assembly rules on the provision of summary records, it would be
understood that this would not establish a precedent.
JUICHI TAKAHARA (Japan) said he hoped the conference would be meaningful. Its
importance was understood, as were the problems of the illicit trade in small
arms. This would be largest international conference to date on conventional
weapons.
He was aware, however, that according to Assembly rules summary records
should not be provided, he said. Japan supported the proposal made in the
statement of the representative of Mozambique that they be provided for
decision- making meetings. Japan expected that the proposed arrangement would
be received favourably by all, in a spirit of compromise. He was ready to
consider the proposed budgetary implications, except those related to summary
records.
MUHAMMAD YUSSUF (United Republic of Tanzania) expressed his country's support
for the statement made by the representative of Mozambique. He wished to
convince the Member States of the importance of the conference and that
necessary support should be provided for it.
JEAN PHILIP DU PREEZ (South Africa) said that he, too, supported the proposal
made by the representative of Mozambique. As stated previously, he did not
see the value of summary records for all the meetings, but did see the value
of such records where decisions were taken. Given that the Secretariat had
stated this could be accommodated within existing resource requests, he
supported the proposal and hoped it would be agreed to.
ALEXANDRE KOTZIAS PEIXOTE (Brazil) said he, too, supported the proposal
suggested by Mozambique.
Mr. SACH, Director of the Budget Division, said regarding the Ad Hoc Expert
Group meeting, no extrabudgetary funds had been received and no intimation of
potential pledges had been heard. A component of the amount sought in the
programme budget implication statement related to the Ad Hoc Expert Group.
That overlapped with a provision anticipated in the programme budget. The
amount in the proposed programme budget must be deducted from the amount
requested here to get the actual amount of additional resources required.
This would reduce the amount actually needed in addition to that already
requested in the proposed programme budget to $723,100 for non-conference
servicing requirements.
In response to a question about the modalities, he said there were
specifications in the draft resolution about the appointment of government
experts on the basis of geographical distribution. These experts would serve
in their individual capacity.
Regarding summary records, he said that, on the strict understanding that
they would only be provided for meetings where decisions were taken, it would
be possible to provide them at no extra cost.
Regarding the provision of press kits in all official languages, as discussed
at a previous meeting, this would add $30,000 to the overall resource
requirements, and therefore a total $753,100 for non-conference servicing
costs would be required.
Mr. SAREVA (Finland) said the European Union supported the proposal of the
representative of Mozambique.
Ms. MERCHANT (Norway) said that Norway strongly supported the convening of
the conference and attached importance to curbing the trade on small arms.
The ACTING CHAIRMAN then read out the following draft decision:
"Should the General Assembly adopt draft resolution A/C.1/54/L.42/Rev.1, an
additional requirement of $753,000 would arise in the proposed programme
budget for 2000-2001 under section 4, Disarmament ($384,600), and under
section 26, Public Information ($368,500). In addition, an amount of at least
$56,000 would be required under section 32, Staff assessment, to be offset by
the same amount under income section 1, income from staff assessment. These
requirements will be considered in the context of the proposed programme
budget for the biennium 2000-2001.
"The Committee also decides, without prejudice to paragraph 8 of General
Assembly resolution 37/14-C, to recommend to the General Assembly that it
take note that if option 4 of paragraph 9 of A/C.5/54/31/Add.1 is agreed, the
requirements for summary records would be minimal. Such requirements, if
necessary, would be reported in the context of the budget performance report.
Mr. TAKAHARA (Japan) said the decision on the provision of summary records
should be more clear. He proposed the following alternative wording:
"…The Committee also decides without prejudice to paragraph 8 of General
Assembly resolution 37/14-C to recommend to the General Assembly that the
Secretary-General be requested to provide summary records for those meetings
at which decisions would be taken."
Ms. BUERGO RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) asked for a proposal in writing. She said she was
confused about the exact terms of the decision now being proposed.
The ACTING CHAIRMAN asked for clarification from the budget director.
Mr. SACH said there were two cost components, one relating to the substantive
servicing of the conference, and one relating to the provision of summary
records. There had not seemed to be support for full provision of summary
records. Should there be an unusually high demand for summary records, this
would be reflected in the budget performance report.
The ACTING CHAIRMAN then repeated the alternative decision proposed by Japan.
Mr. YUSSUF (United Republic of Tanzania) said he wished to support the
Japanese proposal. But he asked for confirmation that the cost of summary
records would be absorbed within existing provisions.
Ms. SHEARHOUSE (United States) proposed additional words at the end of the
Japanese proposal: "… and that the requirement for these records would be
minimal".
Ms. BUERGO RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said this would pre-judge the decision for the
use of summary records. She therefore opposed it.
TAMMAM SULAIMAN (Syria) said summary records for meetings of the group of
experts were essential for all meetings, not just those where decisions were
taken. The United States proposal also complicated matters -- it limited even
further resources available for summary records.
When the meeting resumed, the ACTING CHAIRMAN stated that the brief
suspension had been fruitful. He then read the agreed decision.
The first paragraph would remain unchanged from that previously put to the
Committee. The second paragraph would now read:
"The Committee also decides, without prejudice to paragraph 8 of Assembly
resolution 37/14C, to recommend to the General Assembly that the
Secretary-General be requested to provide summary records for only those
meetings at which decisions would be taken."
The Committee then approved this decision without a vote.
Ms. SHEAROUSE (United States) said the United States had not blocked the
decision because of the importance of the conference. However, she intended
to address the resource requirements under section 4 and 26 of the budget in
discussions of the programme budget. She said the Committee had a
responsibility to ensure the most effective use of resources. On the summary
records compromise, she had agreed on the understanding that there would be
no additional resource requirements.
Ms. BUERGO RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said the concern of Cuba was, as always, that all
additional resources necessary to fulfill new mandates be guaranteed. This
was a priority and a key role of the Fifth Committee which she would continue
to pursue, so that all necessary resources would be found in the budget.
[/quote]
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
UN
Press Release
GA/AB/3350
FIFTH COMMITTEE TAKES DECISIONS ON BUDGET IMPLICATIONS OF TEXTS RELATED TO
SMALL ARMS, CENTRAL AMERICA AND INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMISSION
19991209
Also Takes Decision Related to Report of Economic and Social Council
The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) decided this morning to
inform the General Assembly of the programme budget implications of draft
resolutions before it on small arms, on the use of mercenaries, on Central
America, and on the International Law Commission. It also recommended that
the Assembly take note of the chapters of the report of the Economic and
Social Council allocated to the Fifth Committee. All the decisions were taken
without a vote.
Regarding the text on small arms, his Committee decided to communicate to the
Assembly that an additional $753,100 would be required should the Assembly
adopt a draft resolution on the holding of a small-arms conference. It also
decided to recommend that the Secretary-General be asked to exceptionally
provide summary records for those meetings of the conference where decisions
would be taken….
The Committee had before it a Secretary-General's note (document
A/C.1/54/L.42/Rev.1) on the programme budget implications of a draft
resolution approved by the Assembly's First Committee (Disarmament and
International Security) on general and complete disarmament: small arms.
If the draft resolution (document A/C.1/54/L.42/Rev.1) is passed, according
to the statement, it is envisaged that conference-servicing costs would
amount to some $1.60 million at full cost, assuming that the meetings for the
conference and preparatory committee would be convened in New York. In
accordance with relevant Assembly resolutions, neither the conference nor its
preparatory committee would be entitled to summary records, the cost of which
would have been about $448,900. The full cost of temporary assistance would
be $313,400 ($166,100 in 2000 and $147,300 in 2001). Full consultancy costs
are estimated to be $71,200, including travel and daily subsistence
allowance. The total estimated costs for public information activities would
amount to $338,500.
As provision is made under the relevant section for conference services of
the programme budget for 2000-2001, for meetings authorized subsequent to the
budget's approval, provided the number and distribution of such meetings are
consistent with the patterns of past years. Therefore, no additional
appropriation would be required for conference services unless summary
records were required. Additional appropriations of $723,100 would be
required under section 4, Disarmament ($384,600); and under section 26,
Public information ($338,500). In addition, $56,500 would be required under
section 32 , Staff assessment, to be offset by the same amount under income
Section 1, Income from staff assessment for the additional staff for the
Department for Disarmament Affairs….
The Committee then turned its attention to the programme budget implications
of draft resolution A/C.1/54/L.42/Rev.1.
ANNE MERCHANT (Norway) said that in the draft resolution the Secretary-
General was asked to carry out the Expert Group meeting within available
resources and with assistance from Member States. She sought to know the
total estimated cost of convening the Ad hoc Expert Group meeting and whether
any extrabudgetary resources for it been forthcoming. She also noted that the
Expert Group meeting was included in the programme budget proposal, yet in
the programme budget implications statement it was suggested that no such
request had been made, she sought an explanation of this.
CARLOS DOS SANTOS (Mozambique) said the conference would be one of the most
important international meetings on disarmament, with direct and immediate
impact on civil society. Bearing this in mind, and with due respect to the
guidelines, he proposed that summary records be provided, but only for those
meetings where decisions were taken. He understood that the Secretary-General
could provide summary records for those meetings and that no additional
appropriations would be required for this. Although it would constitute an
exception to Assembly rules on the provision of summary records, it would be
understood that this would not establish a precedent.
JUICHI TAKAHARA (Japan) said he hoped the conference would be meaningful. Its
importance was understood, as were the problems of the illicit trade in small
arms. This would be largest international conference to date on conventional
weapons.
He was aware, however, that according to Assembly rules summary records
should not be provided, he said. Japan supported the proposal made in the
statement of the representative of Mozambique that they be provided for
decision- making meetings. Japan expected that the proposed arrangement would
be received favourably by all, in a spirit of compromise. He was ready to
consider the proposed budgetary implications, except those related to summary
records.
MUHAMMAD YUSSUF (United Republic of Tanzania) expressed his country's support
for the statement made by the representative of Mozambique. He wished to
convince the Member States of the importance of the conference and that
necessary support should be provided for it.
JEAN PHILIP DU PREEZ (South Africa) said that he, too, supported the proposal
made by the representative of Mozambique. As stated previously, he did not
see the value of summary records for all the meetings, but did see the value
of such records where decisions were taken. Given that the Secretariat had
stated this could be accommodated within existing resource requests, he
supported the proposal and hoped it would be agreed to.
ALEXANDRE KOTZIAS PEIXOTE (Brazil) said he, too, supported the proposal
suggested by Mozambique.
Mr. SACH, Director of the Budget Division, said regarding the Ad Hoc Expert
Group meeting, no extrabudgetary funds had been received and no intimation of
potential pledges had been heard. A component of the amount sought in the
programme budget implication statement related to the Ad Hoc Expert Group.
That overlapped with a provision anticipated in the programme budget. The
amount in the proposed programme budget must be deducted from the amount
requested here to get the actual amount of additional resources required.
This would reduce the amount actually needed in addition to that already
requested in the proposed programme budget to $723,100 for non-conference
servicing requirements.
In response to a question about the modalities, he said there were
specifications in the draft resolution about the appointment of government
experts on the basis of geographical distribution. These experts would serve
in their individual capacity.
Regarding summary records, he said that, on the strict understanding that
they would only be provided for meetings where decisions were taken, it would
be possible to provide them at no extra cost.
Regarding the provision of press kits in all official languages, as discussed
at a previous meeting, this would add $30,000 to the overall resource
requirements, and therefore a total $753,100 for non-conference servicing
costs would be required.
Mr. SAREVA (Finland) said the European Union supported the proposal of the
representative of Mozambique.
Ms. MERCHANT (Norway) said that Norway strongly supported the convening of
the conference and attached importance to curbing the trade on small arms.
The ACTING CHAIRMAN then read out the following draft decision:
"Should the General Assembly adopt draft resolution A/C.1/54/L.42/Rev.1, an
additional requirement of $753,000 would arise in the proposed programme
budget for 2000-2001 under section 4, Disarmament ($384,600), and under
section 26, Public Information ($368,500). In addition, an amount of at least
$56,000 would be required under section 32, Staff assessment, to be offset by
the same amount under income section 1, income from staff assessment. These
requirements will be considered in the context of the proposed programme
budget for the biennium 2000-2001.
"The Committee also decides, without prejudice to paragraph 8 of General
Assembly resolution 37/14-C, to recommend to the General Assembly that it
take note that if option 4 of paragraph 9 of A/C.5/54/31/Add.1 is agreed, the
requirements for summary records would be minimal. Such requirements, if
necessary, would be reported in the context of the budget performance report.
Mr. TAKAHARA (Japan) said the decision on the provision of summary records
should be more clear. He proposed the following alternative wording:
"…The Committee also decides without prejudice to paragraph 8 of General
Assembly resolution 37/14-C to recommend to the General Assembly that the
Secretary-General be requested to provide summary records for those meetings
at which decisions would be taken."
Ms. BUERGO RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) asked for a proposal in writing. She said she was
confused about the exact terms of the decision now being proposed.
The ACTING CHAIRMAN asked for clarification from the budget director.
Mr. SACH said there were two cost components, one relating to the substantive
servicing of the conference, and one relating to the provision of summary
records. There had not seemed to be support for full provision of summary
records. Should there be an unusually high demand for summary records, this
would be reflected in the budget performance report.
The ACTING CHAIRMAN then repeated the alternative decision proposed by Japan.
Mr. YUSSUF (United Republic of Tanzania) said he wished to support the
Japanese proposal. But he asked for confirmation that the cost of summary
records would be absorbed within existing provisions.
Ms. SHEARHOUSE (United States) proposed additional words at the end of the
Japanese proposal: "… and that the requirement for these records would be
minimal".
Ms. BUERGO RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said this would pre-judge the decision for the
use of summary records. She therefore opposed it.
TAMMAM SULAIMAN (Syria) said summary records for meetings of the group of
experts were essential for all meetings, not just those where decisions were
taken. The United States proposal also complicated matters -- it limited even
further resources available for summary records.
When the meeting resumed, the ACTING CHAIRMAN stated that the brief
suspension had been fruitful. He then read the agreed decision.
The first paragraph would remain unchanged from that previously put to the
Committee. The second paragraph would now read:
"The Committee also decides, without prejudice to paragraph 8 of Assembly
resolution 37/14C, to recommend to the General Assembly that the
Secretary-General be requested to provide summary records for only those
meetings at which decisions would be taken."
The Committee then approved this decision without a vote.
Ms. SHEAROUSE (United States) said the United States had not blocked the
decision because of the importance of the conference. However, she intended
to address the resource requirements under section 4 and 26 of the budget in
discussions of the programme budget. She said the Committee had a
responsibility to ensure the most effective use of resources. On the summary
records compromise, she had agreed on the understanding that there would be
no additional resource requirements.
Ms. BUERGO RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said the concern of Cuba was, as always, that all
additional resources necessary to fulfill new mandates be guaranteed. This
was a priority and a key role of the Fifth Committee which she would continue
to pursue, so that all necessary resources would be found in the budget.
[/quote]
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!