General Assembly approves $1.6 billion budget for 1986-1987; real growth rate 0.1 per cent.

General Assembly approves $1.6 billion budget for 1986-1987; real growth rate 0.1 per cent

Moments after the General Assembly on 18 December 1985 adopted a $1.6 billion United Nations budget for 1986-1987, Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar warned delegates that he might reconvene the Assembly and its Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) early in 1986 to deal with problems arising from possible "unilateral" curtailment of contributions by a Member State.

Although the 1986-1987 budget provides for a real growth rate of only 0.1 per cent, the fact that Member States who contribute 80 per cent of the Organization's budget either cast negative votes or abstained on budgetary matters was "disturbing evidence of a growing division in the membership on financial matters", the Secretary-General stated.

Unilateral withholding of assessed contributions by any Member State was "destructive to the orderly implementation of the Organization's mandated programmes", and would place the financial viability of the United Nations under enormous strain, the Secretary-General warned.

(The United States has approved legislation that would limit that country's contribution to 20 per cent unless weighted voting was adopted with regard to United Nations budgetary matters. Currently its assessment is 25 per cent of the regular budget, more than twice that of any other Member State.)

For two successive bienniums, Mr. Perez de Cuellar noted he had put forward budgets "in a spirit of maximum restraint". The Secretariat continued to search for ways to attain further savings. The Assembly could also take measures to keep costs down, he said, noting that the addition of supplementary expenditures to programme budget proposals tended "to weaken the effect of careful and disciplined budgetary planning".

Ten vote against: In adopting resolution 40/253 A, the Assembly approved a United Nations regular budget of $1,663,341,600 for the 1986-1987 biennium by a vote of 127 in favour to 10 against, with 11 abstentions. (The Fifth Committee vote had been 83 in favour to 11 against, with 10 abstentions.)

The 10 voting against in the Assembly were: Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia, German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Israel, Poland, Ukrainin SSR, USSR and United States.

The 11 abstaining were: Belgium, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Spain, United Kingdom.

In explanation of vote, the USSR said the contributions of Member States continued to be spent uneconomically and ineffectively and frequently on purposes for which they were not intended and not on tasks which the United Nations was called upon to perform. Given the unwarranted and superfluous activities included in the budget, and the fact that it still contained measures contrary to the provisions of the United Nations Charter, the Soviet Union had voted against it.

The United States did not accept that real growth had been held down to one tenth of 1 per cent. Resource growth was excessive at a time when many national budgets were declining. There had been no real attempt to compensate for the falling United States dollar. Many of the Organization's programmes were inappropriate. It objected to budget add-ons and the over-turning of Advisory Committee recommendations which had led to revised estimates totalling $60 million.

Israel said it would be absurd for it to agree to funding "vicious anti-Israel activities"; such programmes were a waste of national and international resources, which should instead be allocated to improve the health and well-being of developing countries, combating hunger and promoting education. The Organization should not allow itself to be manipulated by malevolent self-serving interests.

In abstaining, the United Kingdom, while welcoming evidence that restraint was being exercised in holding the rate of real growth to 0.1 per cent, remained convinced that the final bill included extras, such as non-recurrent expenditures. In the absence of budgetary restraint, there was no pressure on programmers to set priorities and to make hard choices among them. Not every activity could be given the highest priority. Unless that fact was recognized, the United Nations would be condemned to inefficiency.

France said the entire range of cost-cutting measures available to the Organization had not been employed. Too little emphasis had been placed on programmes and too much on bureaucratic expansion.

Japan had reservations as to the method of dealing with non-recurrent costs, concerns regarding the transfer of extrabudgetary activities to the regular budget, and the tendency towards personnel "grade-creep". More effort was required to redirect the resources to areas of greatest need.

Iceland, on behalf of the Nordic countries, said they had no difficulty in accepting a budget with a real growth rate of 0.01 per cent; the cost of promoting international peace and understanding could not be too great a financial burden to any State. They had reservations, however, as to the "financial foundation" of the Organization, and were concerned that the budget might not be implemented because of the practice of withholding contributions and the poor pattern of payment of assessments by some.

Yugoslavia, on behalf of the Group of 77 developing countries, said that despite substantial divergences of positions, there had been a general resolve by Members to achieve the common goals of the Charter. Developing countries "were of one mind" regarding increasing the Organization's efficiency and achieving rationalization of programmes.

Other action

On 18 December, the Assembly also adopted Fifth Committee recommendations on the Organization's financial emergency; the scale of assessments for contributions of Member States to the expenses of the Organization for 1986-1988; the United Nations common and pension systems; and personnel questions.

In resolutions 40/241 A and B on the United Nations financial emergency, all Member States were urged to meet their financial obligations and to pay their assessed contributions promptly and early. The Assembly also urged the Secretary-General to study various options to alleviate the United Nations financial difficulties.

Mr. Perez de Cuellar had told the Committee that the Working Capital Fund had been exhausted in meeting the day-to-day needs of the Organization while awaiting Member State contributions. With one third of its membership in arrears as late as 30 September 1985 and with others withholding payments on specific budget items, the Organization had virtually no working capital at its disposal, he said.

The Assembly also decided (resolution 40/242) to place one half of the revenue earned from sales of special postage stamps on the social and economic crisis in Africa--estimated at $600,000--at the Secretary-General's disposal to carry out the objectives of the 1984 Declaration on the Critical Situation in Africa, and to deposit the balance in a special account.

Scale of assessments: By a vote of 109 in favour to 15 against, with 27 abstentions, the Assembly adopted the Fifth Committee's recommendations (resolution 40/248) for a new scale of assessments, and decided that negotiations on the methodology for future scales of assessment should continue in 1986.

The assessed contributions of the following countries were set as follows: United States, 25 per cent of the regular budget; USSR, 11.82 per cent (including Byelorussian SSR and Ukrainian SSR); Japan, 10.84 per cent; Federal Republic of Germany, 8.26 per cent; France, 6.37 per cent; United Kingdom, 4.67 per cent; Italy, 3.79 per cent; Canada, 3.06 per cent; Spain, 2.03 per cent; and Netherlands, 1.74 per cent.

Assessed contributions of 78 Member States were set at 0.01 per cent; at 0.02 per cent for 11 Member States; and at 0.03 per cent for 5 other States.

Some delegations believed that developing countries should be assessed at minimum level, pointing out that the Group of 77 developing countries were being assessed at higher rates, while assessments had been reduced for socialist States and countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Belgium, on behalf of the Ten member States of the European Community, said the scale proposed left much to be desired.

The United States had reservations regarding the new scale due to the methodology used to determine payments, and regretted that efforts to produce a consensus formulation had not been successful. Other countries had not approached the consultations with the same "spirit of compromise" that the United States had. It hoped such "negative attitudes" would be reconsidered and a constructive approach taken towards budgetary reform.

Yugoslavia, on behalf of the Group of 77, expressed regret that the concerns of the majority of Member States for attaining an "equitable methodology" for determining the scale of assessments had been met by "a lack of flexibility" from some quarters. As a result, intensive consultations on that question had not been successful.

Common system: Concerning the United Nations common system, the United Nations common system, the Assembly decided (resolution 40/244) that the salary margin of United Nations Professional staff in New York should not exceed by 10 to 20 per cent that of the comparator, namely the United States federal civil service. The salary margin was thus set between the two services at between 110 and 120 per cent, with a desirable mid-point of 115 per cent. The Assembly, in resolution 40/245, postponed several recommendations made to it by the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Board regarding adjustments in pensionable remuneration and increasing the contribution rate to the Pension Fund. The Board was called on to recommend economy measures to preclude any need for increasing the liabilities of Member States.

Personnel: Recommendations adopted by the Assembly on personnel questions were contained in resolution 40/258. The Assembly requested the Secretary-General to strengthen the Office of Personnel Services in recruitment and other personnel matters; to develop and apply the second medium-term plan of recruitment 1986-1987, with specific recruitment targets from unrepresented and underrepresented countries; and to continue to ensure that developing countries were represented in senior and policy-formulating posts.

The Assembly also asked the Secretary-General to improve the status of women in the Secretariat and to increase the number of women in posts subject to geographical distribution to 30 per cent of the total by 1990. The increasing number of abductions and detentions of United Nations officials by armed groups and individuals was deplored. All Member States who had detained them were called on to review those cases and co-ordinate their speedy resolution with the Secretary-General.

The Assembly decided, on the recommendation of the Secretary-General, to defer a decision on job classification for General Service staff and related categories at Headquarters, while also deciding that "social justice should be done in the matter". The Secretary-General told the Assembly that thousands of staff members had expected the results of the reclassification exercise to be implemented in 1985. Their "perplexity and unhappiness" was "increased by their knowledge that their colleagues, in other parts of the United Nations family in New York, have seen their regradings implemented".

Other Fifth Committee draft resolutions adopted by the fortieth Assembly related to the financing of United Nations peace-keeping forces in the middle East (the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force and the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon); the Calendar of United Nations conferences and meetings for 1986-1987; programme planning; administrative and budgetary coordination; reports of the Joint Inspection Unit; and the reports of the Board of Auditors concerning the financial statements of various United Nations programmes and agencies. ^^^^^^^^^^