On
UN Budget
Cuts, Pillay
Tells Staff of
Heated
Discussions,
“Could
Reverse”
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
February 7 –
When the
directive went
out within the
UN to
cut $100
million
dollars, as
first reported
by Inner City
Press,
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon
mandated that
at least 70%
of the cuts
had to be to
personnel
costs, or
jobs.
Since
then, Inner
City Press has
run internal
memos and
minutes from,
this
morning
for example,
the Department
of General
Assembly and
Conference
Management.
Now comes the
following from
Navi Pillay,
for
her Office of
the High
Commissioner
for Human
Rights, on
“heated
debates among
Member States
delegations in
New York at
present
regarding the
budget
reduction
decision, and
the matter is
not
considered
closed.”
Pillay
writes that,
“there is thus
a possibility
that the
resumed
session
of the General
Assembly could
reverse its
decision -
which of
course
we would
welcome.”
Dear
Colleagues -
As
you are aware,
the General
Assembly
decided last
December to
reduce
the overall
2014-2015
regular budget
target by $100
million, and
requested the
Secretary-General
to ensure
fair,
equitable and
nonselective
treatment of
all budget
sections in
complying with
that
decision.
OHCHR's share
of this
reduction was
approximately
$4.5
million, of
which at least
70% should be
taken from
post
resources,
according to
instruction
from the
Controller.
This meant
that we were
obliged to
find savings
of
approximately
$3.2 million
by abolishing
posts. We were
advised that
this should be
done as far as
possible by
using upcoming
retirements
and vacancies.
This
instruction
came on top of
an earlier
demand from
the Controller
to
reduce our
original
submission by
some $4.3
million.
Insofar as our
initial budget
planning
target (given
to us by the
Controller)
had
not included
provisions for
the new
mandates
established
during 2012
by the Human
Rights Council
and Third
Committee, we
prepared our
submission on
the basis of
the full costs
of all those
mandates. In
the end, the
revised target
did not fully
account for
all the new
activities we
have been
charged to
implement, as
we were once
again
required to
absorb many of
the new tasks
without
additional
resources.
Therefore,
between these
two
instructions,
we had to trim
more than $8.8
million in
total from our
projected
2014-2015
requirements,
and submit
this within a
matter of less
than two
weeks.
Given
the short
timeframe, it
was not
possible to
take undertake
a full
prioritization
review across
the Office.
For the
requisite post
reductions,
the PBRB met
to review the
list of
upcoming
retirements
and vacancies,
and asked
Division
Directors to
consult with
their
managers and
staff to
determine
whether/how
the loss of
those posts
could be
accommodated,
or to make
alternative
proposals to
meet the
required $3.2
million
target. The
proposals were
discussed with
the
Staff
Coordinating
Council and
were then
submitted to
me, and I held
a meeting with
the Deputy,
the Directors
and Chief of
PPMES to
arrive
at the final
configuration
of the posts
to be
abolished over
the
course of the
next two
years. For the
most part this
will be done
following the
retirement of
present
incumbents,
with the
others
following
redeployment
of incumbents
to other
vacant posts.
As a
result, I am
pleased to
confirm that
no OHCHR staff
member will
lose
their job from
these cuts.
Nevertheless,
in my covering
memorandum to
the
Controller, I
placed on
record and
expressed
dismay over
the
serious risk
to our
programme of
work from the
cuts forced
upon us.
You
will have seen
the message
that was
circulated by
the UNOG Staff
Coordinating
Council
regarding
their meeting
with Kyle Ward
on this
issue. I am
pleased that
they were able
to hold a
constructive
and
cordial
discussion of
these issues,
in the
interests of
safeguarding
our staff.
These
discussions
are very
important for
transparency
and
to reassure
everyone
involved that
we are united
and consistent
in
facing the
difficult
financial
situation.
I
understand
that there are
heated debates
among Member
States
delegations in
New York at
present
regarding the
budget
reduction
decision, and
the matter is
not considered
closed. The
Secretary-General
has also
expressed
concerns
regarding the
application of
budget
reductions
while the
Member States
continue to
increase
mandates for
the
Organization.
There is thus
a possibility
that the
resumed
session of the
General
Assembly could
reverse its
decision -
which of
course we
would welcome.
I will
continue to
make
the point to
Member States
at every
opportunity
that the
demands they
continue to
place on this
Office cannot
endlessly be
met without
corresponding
resources. The
fact that we
receive barely
half of the
new
requirements,
and have still
been obliged
to reduce
further,
leaves us with
no capacity to
undertake new
mandates
within
existing
resources. And
with another
Human Rights
Council
session
starting
later this
month, that
message must
be underscored
by everyone,
regardless of
our enthusiasm
for new
initiatives.
I
want to keep
you abreast of
developments
relating to
these
financial
constraints
facing the
Office, and
will continue
to do so. I
thank
you for your
understanding
during these
trying times,
and for the
hard work that
you continue
to do in the
service of
human rights
around the
world.
Best
regards, HC
, 
