1. The Financial Context of UN Field Operations
Notes | Not for distribution
The Financial Context of UN Field Operations
Trends, Reforms, Challenges, and Priorities for Now and Beyond
Rick Martin
Director, Field Budget and Finance Division
Department of Field Support
17 March 2016
Printed 20/10/ :29

2. Resourcing imperatives for UN field operations
Notes | Not for distribution
Resourcing imperatives for UN field operations
External challenges:
Fiscal challenges for Member States
Increasing complexity/size of field operations
Slow mission implementation (and under-spends)
T/PCC partnership => complex financial implications
Increasing strategic partnerships and coordination/integration
e.g. regional organisations (AU, EU), UN agencies, donor support
Internal challenges:
Shift towards global/regional support framework
Greater alignment between support and operational planning
Overhaul of UN accounting framework (IPSAS) and information systems (Umoja ERP)
Roles and responsibilities: missions <=> DFS <=> DM
Printed 20/10/ :29

3. The cost of UN peace operations
Notes | Not for distribution
The cost of UN peace operations
A global perspective
Let me start with a brief snapshot of our work in 2014/15.
Printed 20/10/ :29

4. Peace ops: PKOs, SPMs and others in 2015/16
Notes | Not for distribution
United Nations
Field Support
Peace ops: PKOs, SPMs and others in 2015/16
Peace ops: PKOs, SPMs and others in 2015/16
DFS supports 36 missions/offices in more than 30 countries
DFS supports 36 operations in 30 countries
UNRGID
UNMIK
Haiti
UNRCCA
UNFICYP
UNIFIL
UNAMA
UNSCOL
UNTSO
UNSCO
UNAMI
UNMOGIP
MINUSTAH
UNSMIL
UNDOF
OJSRS
MINURSO
OSES
MINUSMA
UNOWA
UNAMID
OSASG-Y
169k
authorized uniformed and civilian personnel 36
PKMs, SPMs, other offices and missions $9
billion budget incl. UNLB and Support Account
UNIOGBIS
UNISFA
UNMIL
36 is comprised of 15 PKMs, 2 RBMs, and 17 SPMs, 2 service centers (UNGSC, RSCE) (not KJSO)
*Change of the 37 operations in 2014/15 was due to the closure of UNMEER.
While MENUB was closed it was followed by the SASG Benomar office.
This excludes the current mission in Colombia (still under early stages of planning).
UNOCI
MINUSCA
AMISOM/UNSOA
UNMISS
CNMC
MONUSCO
UNOCA
UNSOM
Peacekeeping Mission
OSESG-GL
MENUB
Political Mission or other
Note: Circles indicate size of authorized deployment; Boundaries shown and designations used on this map are only for illustrative purposes and do not imply official endorsement by the United Nations
Printed 20/10/ :29

5. Spending has reached new dimensions
Notes | Not for distribution
Spending has reached new dimensions
70% of all spending on peacekeeping happened after 2000
>$135bn
cumulative spending on peacekeeping since 1948 in real terms (2013 dollars)
70%
since ($88bn)
1970
1990
2000
1948
2007
12 of 15
number of years since 2000 where annual spending has exceeded the pre-2000 record in real terms
We truly are in a new dimension now.
Consider this:
Two thirds of all the money ever spent on peacekeeping has been spent since Brahimi.
For 10 of the past 13 years, we have exceeded pre-Brahimi budget records.
Source: SG reports, Global Policy Forum
Printed 20/10/ :29

6. Peacekeeping has become more cost-efficient
Costs per peacekeeper are down
‘Existing’ operations cost less
Spending measured per capita of uniformed personnel
Total peacekeeping costs
New missions MINUSMA, MINUSCA
Existing operations
Field support has also become more cost-efficient.
Adjusted for inflation, the cost per peacekeeper have dropped 16% since 2008/09.
The key driver have been lower operational budgets in peacekeeping missions.
-16%
Adjusted for inflation, the total cost measured against the number of uniformed peacekeepers is 16% lower than it was in 2008/09
Source: Audited financial statements (2006/07 to 2014/15) and budgets (2015/16); actual and funded deployment; inflation figure based on OECD data for advanced economies.

7. Peacekeeping has been expanding
Handout
Peacekeeping has been expanding
Since 2009/10, budgets have grown slower than uniformed personnel
change in uniformed personnel since 2009/10
+17%
+2% excluding UNSOA
-23%
civilians
+6% excluding UNSOA
change in budget since 2009/10
+6%
The budget figures in the graph on the right are not adjusted for inflation
Authorized peacekeeping personnel in thousands
Mission budgets in $ million
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
Budget excl. UNSOA
7,266
7,217
7,134
6,607
7,122
7,646
7,421
incl. UNSOA
7,479
7,392
7,422
7,044
7,565
8,136
7,934
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
Uniformed excl. UNSOA
113.6
111.5
112.6
110.1
113.3
125.6
120.5
incl. UNSOA
121.6
119.8
124.8
127.8
131.1
147.6
142.6
Civilians excl. UNSOA
26.9
26.4
24.3
23.7
22.8
22.1
20.6
27.5
24.9
24.5
22.6
21.1
Source: SG Reports, Approved budgets, overview tables.
Printed 20/10/ :29

8. Notes | Not for distribution
Breaking down peacekeeping costs
Over the past 5 years DFS has pursued a strategy to manage some of  these trends.
We have made progress, but we also know it’s not yet enough.
Let me illustrate.
Printed 20/10/ :29

9. Funding is driven by a few large missions
Notes | Not for distribution
Funding is driven by a few large missions
Of 17 UN-supported PK missions, 7 account for 80% of total cost
MONUSCO
$1,330m
UNAMID
$1,102m
UNMISS
$1,086m
MINUSMA
$923m
MINUSCA
$814m
UNSOA
$513m
UNIFIL
$506m
$7.9bn
PKO budgets
in 2015/16
$7.9 billion excludes $336m for Support Account
Source: Approved budget for 2015/16
Printed 20/10/ :29

10. 2015/16 Approved Peacekeeping Budget
MONUSCO
$1,331m
UNAMID
$1,102m
UNMISS
$1,086m
MINUSMA
$923m
MINUSCA
$814m
UNSOA
$513m
UNIFIL
$506m
UNOCI
$403m
37% of all PKO expenditure is for legislated payments for military and police capabilities. A further 7% is required for rations and rotation movements for uniformed personnel, bringing direct costs for TCCs to 44%. 21% of all costs consist of entitlements for civilian personnel.
As such, Secretariat has more discretion over remaining one-third of the overall peacekeeping budget.
Air ops, ground, and facilities exclude fuel costs, which are shown as a separate category of expenditure
Programmatic costs includes QIPs and Mine Action
Other operational costs includes areas such as travel, consultancy, medical, naval, ICs, CVR, DDR, freight, etc.

11. Military deployment is the key cost driver
Notes | Not for distribution
Military deployment is the key cost driver
Troops, the number of locations, and mission life-time matter most
How many troops?
$27m per battalion
direct cost per infantry battalion (850 people at $32k per person)
In how many locations?
34 locations
typical number of locations for 8 largest missions
For how long?
13 years
average duration of 8 largest mission at average cost of $832m per year
Cote d’Ivoire
The $27m per battalion have not been re-costed and remain indicative figures
Printed 20/10/ :29

12. Typical cost of an infantry soldier
Notes | Not for distribution
Typical cost of an infantry soldier
Sustaining each infantry soldier typically costs $32k per year
Other (basic direct cost)
$1,500
Deployment travel
$1,700
Rations
$4,000
T/PCC personnel reimbursement
$16,000
$32k
direct cost
T/PCC self-sustainment reimbursement
$4,200
T/PCC major equipment reimbursement
$4,600
Source: FBFD statistics
Printed 20/10/ :29

13. Notes | Not for distribution
Financing field operations
The budgetary and funding framework
Printed 20/10/ :29

14. Budgeting supports both planning and accountability
Notes | Not for distribution
Budgeting supports both planning and accountability
Budgets support a peak decision-making process of the GA
Alignment of strategy implementation, actions (results), and resource requirements.
Active and informed management of available resources.
Alignment of budgets and planning with actual performance and results.
The burden of reporting should be minimal.
Printed 20/10/ :29

15. Budget submissions are a shared responsibility
Notes | Not for distribution
Budget submissions are a shared responsibility
USGs of DFS and DPKO submit budget proposals to the Controller
Internal discussions focus on decision-support.
Emphasis on key planning assumptions, major resourcing requirements, and emerging issues
Alignment with agreed resourcing priorities
Overall resourcing levels (costs and staffing)
Printed 20/10/ :29

16. Financing of peacekeeping operations
Notes | Not for distribution
Financing of peacekeeping operations
Peacekeeping is funded outside the UN’s Regular Budget
Annual appropriation of expenditure by GA (July to June).
Resourcing requirements based on Security Council mandates.
Contributions are assessed according to a specific peacekeeping scale.
Peacekeeping operations are each funded individually and separately.
Annual financial and performance reporting.
UNHQ backstopping financed through the “Support Account”.
The Regular Budget scale of assessment:
broadly based on “capacity to pay”
determined every three years by the General Assembly
The separate peacekeeping scale:
recognises the “special responsibility” of the Security Council’s permanent members.
Assessed contributions are mandatory
Top 10 contributors to peacekeeping (current) => 80 per cent
USA (28.6%), China (10.3%), Japan (9.7%), Germany (6.4%), France (6.3%), UK (5.8%), Russia (4.0%), Italy (3.7%), Canada (2.9%), Spain (2.4%)
Printed 20/10/ :29

17. Notes | Not for distribution
Budgetary Committees
Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions
16 independent members appointed by the General Assembly, with due regard to geographical representation
Rule at least three financial experts of recognised standing
Fifth Committee
Administrative and Budgetary Committee
A/RES/41/213 – recommendations to the GA should reflect the “broadest possible agreement”
We truly are in a new dimension now.
Consider this:
Two thirds of all the money ever spent on peacekeeping has been spent since Brahimi.
For 10 of the past 13 years, we have exceeded pre-Brahimi budget records.
Printed 20/10/ :29

18. Security Council considerations
Notes | Not for distribution
Security Council considerations
The Security Council also reflects on the costs of field missions
S/PRST/2009/24 requires that the Council be provided with the financial implications of major proposals.
Responsive, timely to inform rapid decision-making
Full year of full operations, in a sustainment phase
Preliminary assessment limited to major requirements
Precludes detailed deployment timelines and operational planning
Summary level information provided to Council.
Printed 20/10/ :29

19. High-Level Panel on Peace Operations
Notes | Not for distribution
High-Level Panel on Peace Operations
A number of measures have been identified to improve field resourcing
Added responsiveness of budget frameworks and methodology
Funding for programmatic support and cooperation
SPM financing (start-up, separation from regular budget, and backstopping)
Financing of AU peace operations
Printed 20/10/ :29

20. Notes | Not for distribution
Reform of the T/PCC reimbursement frameworks
Both a major cost and driver of peacekeeping policies
Printed 20/10/ :29

21. Key principles of reimbursement
Notes | Not for distribution
Key principles of reimbursement
Payments are intended to reimburse T/PCCs for their ‘additional’ costs in contributing contingents to peacekeeping
Applicable to military and police contingents for the costs associated with personnel, major equipment and self-sustainment.
Reimbursements paid at the end of each quarter (ending Mar, June, Sept, Dec).
Rates, policies and inclusions for reimbursement are reviewed periodically.
Actual payments are dependent on availability of cash as determined by the Controller:
Missions are funded individually
All T/PCCs for a mission are paid at same time
Payments are usually for a full quarter
Printed 20/10/ :29

22. Key outcomes of the 2014 COE Working Group
Notes | Not for distribution
Key outcomes of the 2014 COE Working Group
The triennial meeting considered the rates of reimbursement and inclusions for major equipment and self-sustainment
General net increase of 0.75% across all rates of COE reimbursement.
Rotation of aging equipment (7 years of 50% of useful life) at UN expense (limited to $12.5m in transport costs).
Enhancements to equipment requirements for forward medical teams, gynecology support, ambulance equipment, police crowd-control vehicles
Contingents to endeavour to meet UN environmental and waste management standards
Operating ‘environmental factors’ to recognise “jungle” conditions
Printed 20/10/ :29

23. The new personnel reimbursement framework
Notes | Not for distribution
The new personnel reimbursement framework
A new framework implemented by the GA from July addressed 20 years of often divisive debate
A single, standard rate of reimbursement was based on a new survey of T/PCC costs (to be conducted every four years).
Deductions for gaps in required COE (absent or non-functioning)
Introduced premium payments for (operational) risks
Introduced premium payments for critical enabling capabilities deployed rapidly.
also…
Established 12 months as the typical period for personnel rotation.
Printed 20/10/ :29

24. New personnel rate of reimbursement
Notes | Not for distribution
New personnel rate of reimbursement
A survey of costs of 10 major T/PCCs found that their costs typically amounted to $1,762 per person per month
Allowances
$1,368
Personal kit
$168
Pre-deployment medical
$59
Inland transportation
$19
Pre-deployment training
$148
$1,332
per contingent member per month
$1,332 from 1 July 2014
$1,365 from 1 July 2016
$1,410 from 1 July 2017
Source: SG’s report A/68/813
Printed 20/10/ :29

25. Deductions for gaps in COE
Notes | Not for distribution
Deductions for gaps in COE
More than two-thirds of contingents have gaps in COE
Mil.
Pol.
Total
PKOs:
MINUSMA 10 2 12 4 1 5 3 17 21 8 9 25 30 13
MONUSCO 14 16 11 37 42 15 52 6 58
UNAMID 18 29 7 38
UNMISS 20
UNISFA
MINUSTAH
UNMIL
UNIFIL 41
UNFICYP
UNOCI 23
UNDOF
MINUSCA
MINURSO
SUB-TOTAL - PKOs 73 96 32
140 40
180 81 93
221
273 35 51
SPMs:
UNSOM
UNAMI
SUB-TOTAL - SPMs
GRAND TOTAL 22
141
181 83 95
224
276
Deductions less
than 5%
Deductions
between 5% and
10%
between 10 and
25%
greater than
TOTAL UNITS
WITH
DEDUCTIONS
Units Deployed
Without MOU
(not assessed
for deductions)
NUMBER OF UNITS EXPERIENCING DEDUCTIONS
UNITS WITHOUT
DEPLOYED
(WITH MOU)
MISSION
Printed 20/10/ :29

26. 2017 Meeting of the COE Working Group
16-27 January 2017
New York

27. Possible capability generation and development issues
Rapid deployment of required capabilities
Environmental protection
– waste management, renewable energy, emissions
Increased mobility
transportation, accommodation requirements, portable equipment
Modernisation of equipment capabilities (regularisation of special cases)
Unmanned Aerial Systems/Vehicles (UAS/UAV)
Improved information and awareness capabilities
Enhanced medical support – integrated trauma care
Force protection, IED survivability
Welfare of troops and police

28. Other possible issues Working methods of the COE Working Group
Collection of cost data
Review of new provisions for rotation of aging major equipment
Effective and accountable performance
[Personnel allowances – daily allowances, R&R allowances]
Elements of the new personnel reimbursement framework
Inclusion of SURs in MOUs
Alignment of (new) personnel and COE reimbursement frameworks

29. Notes | Not for distribution
Implementation of IPSAS
Towards more effective financial management
Printed 20/10/ :29

30. Notes | Not for distribution
Beyond bean-counting
The implementation of IPSAS changes UN financial reporting
Printed 20/10/ :29

31. Notes | Not for distribution
Key areas of change
The transition to IPSAS constitutes unprecedented change
The following key areas will be impacted by IPSAS:
Policies and guidelines
Work processes
Information systems
Internal controls policies reviewed and updated in conjunction with changes in these areas.
IPSAS-compliant financial statements require new information from the missions compared to previous years in order to complete the financial statements
Budget reporting vs. financial reporting. While financial reporting is on an IPSAS basis, budgetary reporting is still on the UNSAS basis
Printed 20/10/ :29