UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY 55th SESSION

Fifth Committee – Second Resumed Session

Item 153: Reimbursement to Member States for Contingent Owned Equipment

Statement by Mr Henry Fox, Representative of Australia, on behalf of the Delegations of New Zealand, Canada and Australia

15 May 2001

Mr Chairman, I have the honour to speak on behalf of New Zealand, Canada and Australia.

We would like to thank the Chairman of the post-Phase V Working Group, Lieutenant-Colonel Claus Pedersen for introducing the Working Group’s report (A/C.5/55/39), the Assistant Secretary-General in the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, Mr Mike Sheehan, for introducing the report of the Secretary-General (A/55/815) and Ambassador Mselle for introducing the related report of the ACABQ (A/55/887). We have reviewed these reports carefully and thoroughly.

Mr Chairman our delegations attach great importance to peacekeeping – we contribute troops, police, civilian personnel and other assistance to UN peacekeeping operations because of the high value we place on the UN’s role in maintaining international peace and security. At the same time we wish to emphasise the importance we attach to peacekeeping operations being conducted efficiently and effectively, and the need for simple, transparent and equitable systems of reimbursement for both troop and equipment costs. In this context we believe it is important to develop and adhere to common standards for service delivery and welcome the proposed measures for pre- and post-deployment inspection as a step in this direction. We agree with the ACABQ on the need for effective procedures to ascertain the capacity of troop contributors to meet the requirements for wet-lease and self-sustainment provisions of the COE arrangements.

In relation to contingent owned equipment, we very much appreciate the valuable work of the post-Phase V Working Group. We have noted its conclusions and recommendations, the comments and recommendations of the Secretariat thereon as well as the comments and recommendations of the ACABQ. We note the ACABQ recommendation in paragraph 6 of its report in which it proposes that the General Assembly approve the recommendations of the post Phase V Working Group. We note further this proposal is not costed.

In relation to troop costs, we take note of the advice of the ACABQ that the General Assembly may wish to consider, as an ad hoc arrangement, increasing the standard monthly rates of reimbursement by 4 to 6 percent. We note this proposal is also not costed and we would welcome further information about the basis of these figures. In the absence of an objective, empirical basis our delegations would find it difficult to agree to an increase. We are prepared however to consider the merits of a one off increase of a size yet to be determined that would apply until a new methodology is put in place. This figure should be reviewed when the methodology is agreed.

Before agreeing to a particular figure we need to address the more fundamental issue of the methodology. It is of concern to our delegations that the General Assembly has not been in a position to provide necessary guidance to the Secretariat on the guiding principles that should inform a comprehensive review. We believe we should provide this guidance now and we are ready to work constructively with other delegations to develop it. Once we have done this we should initiate an expert process to undertake the comprehensive review.

Finally Mr Chairman neither the Secretary-General’s report nor the ACABQ report address the issue of the overall impact on the peacekeeping budget of the COE or troop proposals. We note the ACABQ’s suggestions for when the increases, if agreed, should be reflected in future peacekeeping budgets. We are uneasy about the wisdom of signing up to proposals without knowing the financial consequences of doing so. We would urge the Secretariat to provide this information to the Committee so that we can take decisions on an informed basis.