Delegates in Fifth Committee Seek Clarity on Proposed Restructuring of Human Rights High Commissioner’s Office
Delegates at today’s Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) meeting discussed a proposed cost-neutral restructuring of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), aimed at shifting more of the Office’s work from its headquarters in Geneva to existing and proposed regional offices.
Introducing the Secretary-General’s report on the topic, Kate Gilmore, Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that the suggested changes, which included the redeployment, reclassification, abolishment and establishment of posts, intended to make the Office more flexible, adaptable and responsive to Member States’ requests.
Welcoming the proposed decentralization, Costa Rica’s representative said that a restructuring would better position the OHCHR to respond to emerging situations in the field, underscoring that the natural tendency to micromanage had to be overcome.
Similarly, the representative of the United States said that a restructuring would eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy at headquarters and create hubs of regional human rights expertise.
According to the report, the suggested changes would be budget-neutral, as the restructuring would simply involve the shifting of resources from Geneva to the field.
Questioning that notion, the speaker for the Russian Federation said the figures suggesting that the proposal would be cost-neutral seemed to be incomplete and required further explanation.
Switzerland’s representative, also speaking for Lichtenstein, said that she would seek further clarification on the implications of including “related resources” under the budget line for “general temporary assistance” and not in the “authorised staffing” structure, as she was concerned that would weaken the work of the Office.
Commenting on the proposed establishment of new regional offices, Carlos Ruiz Massieu, Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ), said that the Secretary-General’s report had not demonstrated a compelling operational need for an office in Washington, and that Barbados should instead be considered as the hub for North America and the Caribbean.
Member States also had before them several Secretary-General reports on proposed programme budgets for special political missions; a subvention request for the Residual Special Court for Sierra Leone; and revised cost estimates for a high-level plenary meeting on large movements of refugees and migrants, presented by Bettina Tucci Bartsiotas, Assistant Secretary-General, and Controller of the Office of Programme Planning, Budget and Accounts.
On budgetary requirements for special political missions, the representative of Chad, speaking for the African Group, said that adequate resources for those missions were critical to carry out their varied and complex mandates. However, he was concerned about the increasing reliance on consultancies, stressing the importance of using existing in-house United Nations capacities.
Angola’s representative noted that proposed resources for thematic cluster I (special and personal envoys and special advisers of the Secretary-General) were $34.39 million in 2017, $7.46 million more than in 2016, and for thematic cluster II (sanctions monitoring teams, groups and panels) $34.88 million in 2017, $1.23 million over the 2016 allocation. The increasing emphasis on conflict prevention was very relevant for Africa, he said, as most of the missions operated there.
Turning to the budget deficits of the Residual Special Court for Sierra Leone, the Secretary-General had asked the General Assembly to approve a subvention of $2.98 million to fund the Court’s continued activities in 2017.
Despite working with key stakeholders to address the Court’s funding challenges, the representative of Sierra Leone said it did not have sufficient funds from voluntary contributions to operate in 2017, imploring delegates to endorse the Secretary-General’s request.
To pay for the cost of the General Assembly’s high-level plenary meeting on large movements of refugees and migrants held in September 2016, the Secretary-General sought the Assembly’s approval for an additional appropriation of $305,000, which would be charged against the contingency fund.
In another matter, the Fifth Committee appointed Maria Garcia Pulido-Tan of the Philippines to the Independent Audit Advisory Committee for a three-year term of office beginning on 1 January 2017.
Also speaking today were the representatives of Japan, Syria, China, Iraq, Cuba, Argentina, Republic of Korea, Philippines and the European Union.
Remo Lalli, Geneva Office Chief of the United Nations System Chief Executives Board for Coordination (CEB), also spoke.
The Fifth Committee will reconvene at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 23 November, to discuss the Strategic Heritage Plan and the United Nations pension system.
Refugees and Migrants, Special Political Missions, Sierra Leone Court
BETTINA TUCCI BARTSIOTAS, Assistant Secretary-General, Controller, Office of Programme Planning, and Accounts, introduced the Secretary-General’s report on the revised estimates resulting from the decisions contained in General Assembly resolution 70/290, entitled “High-level plenary meeting of the General Assembly on addressing large movements of refugees and migrants” (document A/71/345). According to the text, the Secretary-General was seeking the General Assembly’s approval for an additional appropriation of $305,000 for the meeting, which would be charged against the contingency fund.
She also presented two addenda of the Secretary-General’s report on the proposed budgets for 2017 in respect of special political missions, good offices and other political initiatives authorized by the General Assembly and/or the Security Council, including on thematic cluster I: special and personal envoys and special advisers of the Secretary-General (document A/71/365/Add.1) and thematic cluster II: sanctions monitoring teams, groups and panels (document A/71/365/Add.2). The proposed resources for 2017 for special political missions totalled $69.3 million, an overall increase of $8.7 million from the approved resources for 2016. The increases were due mainly to rising expenditures under the office of the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General for Syria in thematic cluster I, and increases for three missions under thematic cluster II, due to lower projected vacancy rates for 2017, including increases for the Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate. Taking into account the over-expenditures of $1.5 million for 2016 for those missions, the Secretary-General asked the General Assembly to approve the requirements of $70.8 million.
Turning to the Secretary-General’s report on use of the commitment authority and request for a subvention to the Residual Special Court for Sierra Leone (document A/71/386), she said that despite efforts of the Secretary-General, the Government of Sierra Leone, and key donors of the Court, there had been no adequate voluntary resources or prospects for additional voluntary contributions. The Secretary-General therefore requested that the General Assembly approve a subvention of $2.98 million to fund the Court’s activities in 2017.
CARLOS RUIZ MASSIEU, Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ), introduced the Advisory Committee’s related reports on the General Assembly’s high-level plenary meeting on addressing large movements of refugees and migrants (document A/71/597); estimates in respect of thematic cluster I: special and personal envoys and special advisers of the Secretary-General (document A/71/595/Add.1); estimates in respect of thematic cluster II: special and personal envoys and special advisers of the Secretary-General (document A/71/595/Add.2); and the report on the use of the commitment authority and request for a subvention to the Residual Special Court for Sierra Leone (document A/71/613).
Regarding the revised estimates resulting from the Assembly’s high-level meeting on the large movement of refugees and migrants, the Advisory Committee recommended that the Assembly ask the Secretary-General to absorb the additional requirements of $305,000 under section 2, General Assembly and Economic and Social Council affairs and conference management, of the programme budget for the biennium 2016-2017.
Turning to thematic cluster I and the Office of the Special Adviser to the Secretary-General on Cyprus, the Advisory Committee recommended against approval of the Secretary-General’s proposals of one P-3 Political Affairs Officer position and one Administrative Field Service position. Regarding the Office of the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General for Syria, the Advisory Committee recommended against the approval of four of the proposed 58 positions. The positions in question were proposed for planning, finance and human resources functions in Geneva and New York. In addition, the Advisory Committee recommended against approval of the redeployment of two local level positions from Mission Support in Damascus to the Kuwait Joint Support Office. It believed the use of the Kuwait Joint Support Office needed to be revisited in light of the Secretariat-wide deployment of Umoja and the future global service delivery model.
Regarding Cluster II, the Advisory Committee recommended adjustments to the proposed vacancy rates for two missions, he said. It considered the proposed vacancy rate of zero per cent for international positions in 2017 to be unrealistic as an actual vacancy rate of 58 per cent was projected for 2016. The Advisory Committee therefore recommended that the 2017 requirements for international positions use a vacancy factor of 30 per cent. Regarding the Analytical Support and Sanctions Monitoring Team, the Advisory Committee recommended the use of a vacancy rate of 10 per cent for international positions in 2017 instead of the proposed zero per cent. The projected actual average vacancy rate for international positons in 2016 was 22 per cent.
Regarding the subvention to the Residual Special Court for Sierra Leone, the Advisory Committee noted that expenditures of $1.4 million were expected for 2016 against the authorized commitment authority of $2.4 million, he said. The Advisory Committee believed the decision to appropriate the entire amount of the budget’s international component for 2017 would undermine the voluntary nature of current funding arrangements and related fundraising efforts. However, with the Court’s current funding challenges and the need to ensure stable funding, the Advisory Committee recommended a spending authority not to exceed $2.8 million, to supplement any of the Court’s voluntary financial resources.
SIRITHON WAIRATPANIJ (Thailand), speaking on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China, noted with serious concern that despite the Secretary-General’s efforts, the Court had received no voluntary contributions or pledges for 2016 and 2017. The Group supported the Secretary-General’s request for a subvention of $2.9 million for the Court in 2017, which reflected the absence of funding pledges. At the same time, it also noted the challenges faced by the Government of Sierra Leone in supporting the Court’s activities due to the impact of the Ebola crisis. The Group stood ready to examine positively details of an arrangement to fund the Court through assessment from Member States.
ABDALLAH BACHAR BONG (Chad), speaking for the African Group, highlighted the difficult environment special political missions experienced in active and post-conflict areas, where increasing threats of emerging conflicts, arms proliferation and extremism directly affected civilians and led to mass displacement. Adequate resources for those missions were critical in allowing them to effectively discharge their varied and complex mandates. His Group would seek clarification on operational requirements of those missions, especially in Africa. He also noted the trend of increased expenditure for consultancies, official travel, facilities and infrastructure as well as services and equipment. The Group would also seek further information on the decreased use of available appropriations in certain missions, which could impact their work.
He also pointed to the need for further information on the lack of progress in filling vacant positions, the proposed application of zero per cent vacancy rate in 2017 under Cluster II and justification for the need to maintain those openings beyond dedicated timeframes set by the General Assembly. The Group would seek further details on progress in staffing structure balance at higher positions as well as in expert teams and panels, considering equitable geographical representation and gender balance. It was important to build on existing national and regional expertise, which would also enhance the capacity of those organizations. Expressing concern at the increased reliance on consultancies, he stressed the importance of using existing in-house capacities in the United Nations as well as in regions and sub-regions.
Regarding the Residual Special Court for Sierra Leone, he said that the voluntary nature of contributions to the Court posed serious challenges to its continued sustainability and the effective discharge of its functions. Despite fundraising efforts by the Court’s Oversight Committee and principals, to date, no pledges or prospects for additional voluntary contributions had been made, leaving the Court with insufficient funds to continue operations in 2017. The lack of a sustainable funding mechanism for the Court would have serious negative consequences for its mandate, which was crucial for maintaining international peace and security, especially in the West African sub-region. Therefore, it was time for the General Assembly to decide that the costs of the Court be assessed under the programme budget. The African Group supported approval of the Secretary-General’s proposal for a $2.98 million subvention for the Court in 2017.
KATSUHIKO IMADA (Japan) endorsed the Advisory Committee’s observations and recommendations, which underscored “informed decisions” to be made by the General Assembly. Japan already had doubts about compliance with and adoption of relevant resolutions, rules and regulations concerning approval of drafts with programme and budgetary implications. Japan took seriously the Advisory Committee’s comments that the Secretary-General must take all necessary measures to ensure that rules and procedures were fully respected.
AMMAR AWAD (Syria) said that the international community had to combat terrorism that threatened the entire world. He asked groups and countries who supported terrorists to stop giving them training and logistical support. Furthermore, he expressed deep regret that the Secretary-General’s report on thematic cluster II, – concerning sanctions monitoring teams, groups and panels – had not mentioned the specific threat of terrorism Syria faced. Those who drafted the Secretary-General’s reports continued to refer to “armed groups” instead of “armed terrorist groups”. In the reports, the situation in Syria was referred to as a crisis, war or conflict, which demonstrated that the documents were either not drafted by the same people, or displayed a total ignorance of the legal terms that were used under international law. Additionally, Syria expressed reservations to references made in the reports to General Assembly resolutions which had not enjoyed consensus and that expressed unilateral and biased positions. Syria was in the midst of a proxy war, and the political process to reach solutions required collaboration with the country itself, he said, adding that his Government was against any form of foreign intervention.
YANG LIYANG (China) said her delegation had listened closely to the Secretariat and Advisory Committee reports on special political missions. The missions had helped maintain international peace and security and let the United Nations play an active role in conflict prevention and peace. It was important that the missions worked and respect the views of the host countries, which had to be a part of the decision-making process. The missions’ budgets – which comprised one-fifth of the Organization’s regular budget – were increasing each year beyond the budgets of previous years. Adequate budgetary resources were needed so the missions could be prepared yet the Secretariat must be realistic.
MARCIO BURITY (Angola) said that among the 31 special political missions proposed for 2017, Angola gave emphasis to the proposed resources for the Office of the Personal Envoy of the Secretary General for Western Sahara and for Offices of the Special Envoys of the Secretary-General for the Great Lakes Region, Sudan and South Sudan, as well as Syria. The missions’ complex mandates were often carried out in situations of active and post-conflict environments and where transnational organized crime and drug trafficking and extremist activities were the main drivers of instability. The allocation of adequate resources for the missions was a critical element for their efficiency and the effective discharge of their given mandates. Their expanded scope and size justified a reappraisal regarding their funding. The current arrangement had been serviceable in the past, but was no longer optimal.
He noted that the proposed resources for 2017 for nine missions under thematic cluster 1 totalled $34.39 million, an increase of $7.46 million, or 27.7 per cent, compared with the 2016 allocation. The proposed resources requirement for 2017 for 12 missions under cluster II for $34.88 million represented an increase of $1.23 million over the 2016 allocation. The increasing role of the missions for preventive diplomacy, mediation and conflict prevention was very relevant for Africa, where most of the missions were operating. In that regard, the operational arrangements and role of the missions should be boosted in all its aspects, as recommended in the report of the High-level Independent Panel on Peace Operations (document A/70/95-S/2015/446).
Mr. ALLAWI (Iraq) said that while his delegation appreciated the efforts made in publishing the reports before the Fifth Committee, they must be issued on time in order to enable Member States to absorb and discuss their content. He thanked Member States that had contributed to the budget of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI), and stressed that his Government was keen on providing the best possible services to UNAMI so it could carry out its mandate.
ADIKALIE FODAY SUMAH (Sierra Leone), aligning himself with the Group of 77 and the African Group, said the Court could not deliver on its mandate without the required resources. His Government had been working in collaboration with key stakeholders to address the Court’s funding challenges. Despite concerted efforts, the Court did not have sufficient funds from voluntary contributions to continue its operations in 2017. Such financial challenges were impacting the Court’s ability to effectively carry out its mandate. Securing a sustainable means of funding the Court therefore remained a top priority for his Government and it would continue to collaborate with Member States and other development partners toward achieving that goal. In the interim, he implored delegates to endorse the request of the Secretary-General for a $2.98 million subvention to the Court for 2017.
JAVIER ENRIQUE SANCHEZ AZCUY (Cuba) said his delegation shared many concerns raised by the African Group and aligned itself with the statement made by the Group of 77. Cuba believed it was unsustainable to continue to finance the special political missions through the Organization’s regular budget. The mechanism was questionable because most decisions regarding the creation of the missions were made by the Security Council’s permanent members. The missions should be funded in the same way as the peacekeeping missions, with a scale of assessments and a dedicated account given for their funding. The special missions’ budgets now made up 20 per cent of the regular budget. Those missions did not always carry out the mandates of the Assembly, which had no real means for oversight.
In addition, there was no inter-agency agreement on the creation of the Special Advisor on the Responsibility to Protect in the Office of the Prevention of Genocide, he said. The Assembly had not had any say on the issue and no vote. Long-standing problems could not be resolved by sanctions and interventions and in a complex environment. The creation of such a position undermined international law and national sovereignty. He stressed that Cuba’s rejection of the position did not mean it was rejecting the work of the Office of the Prevention of Genocide. Cuba would actively take part in discussions during informal consultations and make proposals for special amendments on the issue.
Proposed Regional Restructuring: Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights
KATE GILMORE, Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, speaking via video link, introduced the report of the Secretary-General titled “Proposed regional restructuring of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights: increasing efficiency and effective in the implementation of General Assembly resolution 48/141” (document A/71/218). Through its proposals, she said, the Office, or OHCHR, sought to be a robust organization, better suited to contemporary challenges, more flexible, adaptable and responsive to Member States’ requests and directives and more relevant to the shifting opportunities for – and threats to – the advance of human rights. “In other words, to better implement the mandate given to us more than 20 years ago,” she said.
Regional restructuring would not change the Office’s mandate, programme or functions, she emphasized. Rather, its proposal was about enhanced implementation of the mandate, centred on the transfer of a limited number of existing functions from Geneva to the six existing regional offices in Addis Ababa, Bangkok, Beirut, Brussels, Dakar and Panama City, plus the opening of new offices in Washington and Istanbul. The Washington office would not only be responsible for North America and the English-speaking Caribbean, but also assist OHCHR’s partnerships with key regional organizations including the Organization of American States and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, as well as with institutions such as the World Bank dealing with the right to development.
The proposal was budget-neutral, she said, simply involving a shift of existing resources from Geneva to the field. A minimum staffing structure would provide essential functions in all the offices. “Overall, although this proposal is modest, it can drive significant positive impact,” she said. Only 18 regular budget posts would move out of Geneva, amounting to a change of just 4 per cent of the regular budget staff. Reorganization could be undertaken within existing regular budget resources, while allowing more regular budget and extra-budgetary resources to be devoted to technical cooperation and capacity-building activities. It was not a cost-saving exercise, but rather an effort to exercise strategic and fiscal responsibility, enabling the High Commissioner to make the best possible use of existing resources while bringing the Office closer to Member States.
Mr. RUIZ, introducing the Advisory Committee’s related report, said that overall it saw merit in the Secretary-General’s updated proposal. It did not object to Istanbul as the new regional office for Eastern Europe and Central Asia. However, he said, the Secretary-General did not demonstrate a compelling operational need to establish a regional office in Washington. Barbados should instead be considered for the regional office for North America and the Caribbean. He added that the needs of each regional office should not be uniform, and that their needs – including staffing – should be based on actual workload. He went on to say that the Advisory Committee recognized the need for regional offices to be led at the D-1 level with support from senior staff at the P-5 level.
Ms. WAIRATPANIJ (Thailand), speaking again for the Group of 77, said the Group’s support to OHCHR had always been reflected in the human rights programme review by relevant intergovernmental bodies. As Member States had a responsibility toward the functioning of OHCHR, it was essential that they provide the appropriate budgetary support. At the same time, it was important that the work of the Office fell in line with relevant rules and regulations, as well as the priorities for the biennium as approved by the General Assembly. In that context, the current report of the Secretary-General had been submitted in response to General Assembly resolution 70/247, which had requested a more detailed proposal on the regional restructuring of the Office, she noted. As such, the Group had paid close attention to the report and would continue to examine the details of the revised proposal, in conjunction with the observations of the Advisory Committee in both its current and previous reports.
ALEXANDRA BAUMANN (Switzerland), also speaking for Liechtenstein, said that in order to ensure the effectiveness of OHCHR, it was crucial to adapt its structure to today’s needs. Switzerland believed that the proposed restructuring was an important step to bring the work of the United Nations closer to the field and to further increase the impact of its action. Switzerland would seek clarification on the implications of including the related resources under the budget line for general temporary assistance and not in the authorised staffing structure, as it was concerned that would weaken the work of the Office.
JAN DE PRETER, European Union, welcomed the report on the proposed regional restructuring of OHCHR. He noted that it had been submitted on the recommendation of the Advisory Board to provide a clearer and more detailed proposal as compared to that presented in the 2016-17 proposed programme budget. The latest report had provided the necessary clarification and level of detail requested by the Board. The European Union was convinced the proposal would increase OHCHR’s efficiency and effectiveness, and did not entail any change of the Office’s functions, programmes or mandates, but was instead solely of a managerial and budgetary nature. No change in the existing regional office locations had been proposed, nor would additional layers of supervision be introduced as a result of the restructuring. Noting with appreciation that the exercise would be cost-neutral, he recognized the need for regional offices to be led at the D-1 level.
YANG LIYANG (China) associating herself with the statement by Thailand for the Group of 77, advocated that Member States should be fully integrated in the restructuring process of OHCHR. The Office must also keep both the Fifth Committee and the Human Rights Council updated on the restructuring process.
JUAN CARLOS MENDOZA GARCIA (Costa Rica) aligned himself with the statement of Thailand on behalf of the Group of 77, saying the sustainable development agenda was meant to ensure that all States had to protect and promote human rights. The international community had to ensure that institutions involved with human rights could adapt to shifting circumstances. The situation on the ground had changed and those bodies had to adapt to new challenges and work within regions. Costa Rica backed the proposal to restructure the body. It would help pave the way for more consistent support by many countries. The High Commissioner had to work on two tracks – fostering dialogue and providing technical assistance to all Governments to promote respect for and monitoring of human rights in the field, while fulfilling the growing workload demands of the Human Rights Council, its special procedures and human rights treaty organizations. The High Commissioner should decide where to best place resources. The regional restructuring would place it in a better position to respond to emerging situations in the field. The natural tendency to micromanage had to be overcome. The High Commissioner would be held accountable. The Office needed to be able to meet new challenges such as terrorism, climate change, xenophobia and racism. The United Nations needed to ensure the High Commissioner was able to carry out its duties to meet these challenges.
RAFAEL HA�CTOR DALO (Argentina) associated himself with the Group of 77 and said that adequate, predictable funding for OHCHR was important. Argentina welcomed the proposed restructuring of the Office and noted that the revised proposal did not require any additional resources as it focused on decentralizing and shifting the focus of the work to regional offices.
JAESIN KO (Republic of Korea) said OHCHR had played a critical role in the promotion and protection of human rights. However, the current structure of the Office was the product of incremental changes and needed to be improved to meet recent human rights challenges. He welcomed the proposal for the regional restructuring of the Office which aimed to make it more efficient and effective in implementing its mandate through strengthened field presence. He also noted that he would review the relevance of restructuring by closely examining location and regional coverage, and the correlations between workload and staff structure and cost-effectiveness.
EVGENY KALUGIN (Russian Federation) said that any reform of OHCHR’S regional architecture had to be consistent with the mandate given to the Office by intergovernmental organs. The budget-neutral figures of the proposal seemed to not be complete, he said, stressing that the Fifth Committee had to clarify outstanding questions and investigate the numbers further.
CHERITH NORMAN CHALET (United States) welcomed the proposed regional restructuring of the Office. The United States agreed with the Secretary-General that moving staff out of headquarters in Geneva and into the field would improve the Office’s effectiveness and efficiency, including in responding to emergency crises. The restructuring would also create hubs of regional human rights expertise and eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy at United Nations headquarters. Member States, United Nations country teams, regional offices, and other development, peace, and security partners would benefit from that field-focused approach.
Budgetary and Financial Situation of United Nations System Organizations
REMO LALLI, Chief, Geneva Office, United Nations System Chief Executives Board for Coordination (CEB), introduced a note by the Secretary-General (document A/71/583) transmitting the Board’s eighth statistical report on the budgetary and financial situation of the organizations of the United Nations system. Figures in the report were based on official data from the organizations’ audited financial statements. In response to resolution 63/111, the CEB Secretariat had worked closely with the Department of Economic and Social Affairs to harmonize data collection and reporting processes. As a result, data collected in the CEB statistical reporting exercise was also used as the basis for the Department’s report on operational activities for development. By establishing one data collection mechanism, the reporting workload of all United Nations organization had been greatly reduced.
Participation had been excellent, he continued, commending the 34 organizations reporting their financial data to the CEB and the more comprehensive details of assessed and voluntary contributions from United Nations peacekeeping operations, which had been added to the report from 2014. The Board had also worked to enhance the transparency and availability of data and its database now contained comprehensive data on seven consecutive biennia, from 2002-2003 through 2014-2015. All United Nations organizations implemented the International Public Sector Accounting Standards prior to or during the 2014-2015 reporting period, except for the International Fund for Agricultural Development, which prepared its financial statements in accordance with the International Financial Reporting Standards. Revenue was reported in four major categories: assessed contributions, non-specified voluntary contributions, specified voluntary contributions and revenue from other activities. Expenses were reported in five major programme categories: development assistance, humanitarian assistance, peacekeeping operations, technical cooperation, and normative, treaty-related or knowledge creation activities.
Appointment of Members of Independent Audit Advisory Committee
MARINA NIKODIJEVIC (Serbia), Fifth Committee Vice Chair, then drew its attention to the appointment of members of the Independent Audit Advisory Committee (document A/71/105/Add.1), recommending by acclamation to the General Assembly the appointment of Maria Garcia Pulido-Tan of the Philippines for a three-year term of office beginning on 1 January 2017. The candidature had been endorsed by the Group of Asia-Pacific States.
In response to the appointment, the representative of the Philippines expressed her appreciation and support for the election of Ms. Pulido-Tan as a member of the Independent Audit Advisory Committee, especially thanking the Permanent Missions of Kyrgyzstan and Kuwait.
Source: United Nations.