United Nations: Cost of Peacekeeping Is Likely to Exceed Current Estimate (Briefing Report, 08/31/2000, GAO/NSIAD-00-228BR). Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the United Nations' (U.N.) peacekeeping budget, focusing on: (1) GAO's estimate of the cost of U.N. peacekeeping, as funded from the 2001 U.N. peacekeeping budget; and (2) the major uncertainties in estimating this cost. GAO noted that: (1) GAO estimates that the cost of U.N. peacekeeping funded from the 2001 U.N. peacekeeping budget will be about $2.7 billion, which exceeds the amount currently budgeted by about $600 million; (2) GAO's estimate includes additional appropriations in the United Nations will consider for missions in the Congo and East Timor when budgets for these missions are revised or fully developed later this year; (3) GAO's estimate also includes anticipated increases for expanded operations in Sierra Leone, Ethiopia-Eritrea, and Lebanon; (4) in deciding whether or not to appropriate additional funds for these proposed expansions, the Security Council will need to approve an expanded mandate for each mission and the Secretary General will have to: (a) complete a report that justifies the increased cost; (b) submit a revised budget to the U.N. finance committee for review; and (c) obtain General Assembly approval for an increased appropriation; (5) if the General Assembly--where each member state has one vote--approves the increased appropriation, each member, including the United States, is assessed an additional amount; (6) the major uncertainties in estimating the cost of peacekeeping include: (a) whether each mission's area of operation is sufficiently secure and will allow planned or proposed increases in troops and operations to proceed; (b) if so, when the troops might be deployed and operations expanded; and (c) whether the costs for building infrastructure have been accurately forecast; and (7) for example, the uncertainties in estimating the cost of the Congo mission relate to whether the Secretary General certifies that conditions on the ground are secure enough to expand operations from 90 observers to over 5,500 troops--when contributing countries might provide adequately provisioned troops--and what might be the cost of supporting these troops in inaccessible locations. --------------------------- Indexing Terms ----------------------------- REPORTNUM: NSIAD-00-228BR TITLE: United Nations: Cost of Peacekeeping Is Likely to Exceed Current Estimate DATE: 08/31/2000 SUBJECT: Cost analysis International relations International organizations United Nations military forces Future budget projections Military intervention IDENTIFIER: Kosovo East Timor Sierra Leone Democratic Republic of the Congo Lebanon Ethiopia Eritrea ****************************************************************** ** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a ** ** GAO Testimony. ** ** ** ** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although ** ** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but ** ** may not resemble those in the printed version. ** ** ** ** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when ** ** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed ** ** document's contents. ** ** ** ****************************************************************** GAO/NSIAD-00-228BR Briefing Report to the Chairman, Committee on International Affairs, House of Representatives August 2000 UNITED NATIONS Cost of Peacekeeping Is Likely to Exceed Current Estimate GAO/ NSIAD- 00- 228BR Letter 3 Briefing Sections Briefing Section I: Background 8 Briefing Section II: U. N. Peacekeeping Costs Are Rising 12 Briefing Section III: Uncertainties in Estimating U. N. Peacekeeping Cost for 2001 14 Briefing Section IV: Regular U. N. Budget Funding of Peacekeeping Activity 26 Appendixes Appendix I: Projected U. N. Peacekeeping Assessments for U. S. Fiscal Year 2001 30 Tables Table 1: U. N. Peacekeeping Missions as of July 2000 9 Table 2: U. N. Peacekeeping Costs for 2001 13 Table 3: Projected U. S. Assessments for U. N. Peacekeeping, U. S. Fiscal Year 2001 32 Figures Figure 1: Crosswalk Between U. N. Peacekeeping Assessments and U. S. Fiscal Year 31 Abbreviations BONUCA United Nations Peace- building Support Office in the Central African Republic MICAH International Civilian Support Mission in Haiti MICIVIH International Civilian Mission in Haiti MINUGUA United Nations Mission for the Verification of Human Rights and of Compliance with the Comprehensive Agreement on Human Rights in Guatemala MINURSO United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara MONUC United Nations Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo UNAMSIL United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone UNDOF United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (Golan Heights, Syria) UNFICYP United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus UNIFIL United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon UNIKOM United Nations Iraq- Kuwait Observation Mission UNMEE United Nations Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea UNMIBH United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina UNMOGIP United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan UNMIK United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo UNOGBIS United Nations Peace- building Support Office in Guinea- Bissau UNMOP United Nations Mission of Observers in Prevlaka (Croatia) UNOMIG United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia UNSCO Office of the United Nations Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process UNSMA United Nations Special Mission to Afghanistan UNTAET United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor UNTSO United Nations Truce Supervision Organization in Palestine National Security and International Affairs Division Lett er B- 286009 August 31, 2000 The Honorable Benjamin A. Gilman Chairman, Committee on International Affairs House of Representatives Dear Mr. Chairman: Following ambitious peacekeeping missions in Bosnia, Somalia, and Rwanda from 1993 to 1995, the U. N. Security Council steadily reduced the scope of U. N. peacekeeping. However, since mid- 1999 it has expanded peacekeeping activities significantly. For example, the Security Council authorized large U. N. missions in Kosovo and East Timor in 1999, and it approved a mission to monitor a cease- fire between Ethiopia and Eritrea in July 2000. In February and May 2000, it expanded the U. N. mission in Sierra Leone; in May 2000, it authorized an enlargement of operations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo; and in July 2000, it enlarged and armed more heavily the mission in Lebanon. Some of these U. N. missions are complex, with mandates to administer territorial areas, build political institutions, reintegrate combatants into society, and promote sustainable development. Most peacekeeping activity is funded from the U. N. peacekeeping budget, 1 to which the United States contributes 25 percent. However, two peacekeeping missions 2 and all special political missions- smaller operations that seek diplomatic solutions to end conflicts- are funded from the regular program budget of the United Nations. Given the recent increase in peacekeeping activity, you asked if the cost of peacekeeping would exceed the $2.1 billion provided for it in the 2001 U. N. peacekeeping budget, which runs from July 1, 2000, to June 30, 2001. In response, we briefed your staff on (1) our estimate of the cost of U. N. peacekeeping, as funded from the 2001 U. N. peacekeeping budget, and (2) the major uncertainties in estimating this cost. We also provided 1 Each peacekeeping mission has an individually approved budget, which runs from July 1 through June 30 of the following year. We refer to the total of these mission budgets as the U. N. peacekeeping budget. 2 The U. N missions in the Middle East and in India and Pakistan are funded from the regular budget, since they were started in 1948 and 1949, before the establishment of peacekeeping budgets. information on the cost of the special political missions and the two peacekeeping missions, which are funded from the U. N. 's regular program budget (see briefing section IV). We do not combine these costs with the peacekeeping budget because the U. N. regular budget and peacekeeping budget are governed by different regulations and cover different time periods. This report summarizes the contents of our briefing. Results in Brief We estimate that the cost of U. N. peacekeeping funded from the 2001 U. N. peacekeeping budget will be about $2. 7 billion, which exceeds the amount currently budgeted by about $600 million. Our estimate includes additional appropriations the United Nations will consider for missions in the Congo and East Timor when budgets for these missions are revised or fully developed later this year. Our estimate also includes anticipated increases for expanded operations in Sierra Leone, Ethiopia- Eritrea, and Lebanon. In deciding whether or not to appropriate additional funds for these proposed expansions, the Security Council will need to approve an expanded mandate for each mission and the Secretary General will have to (1) complete a report that justifies the increased cost, (2) submit a revised budget to the U. N. finance committee for review, and (3) obtain General Assembly approval for an increased appropriation. If the General Assembly- where each member state has one vote- approves the increased appropriation, each member, including the United States, is assessed an additional amount. (See appendix I for our projection of the timing and amount of assessments for the United States during U. S. fiscal year 2001, if the United Nations approves additional appropriations.) The major uncertainties in estimating the cost of peacekeeping include (1) whether each mission's area of operation is sufficiently secure and will allow planned or proposed increases in troops and operations to proceed; (2) if so, when the troops might be deployed and operations expanded; and (3) whether the costs for building infrastructure have been accurately forecast. For example, the uncertainties in estimating the cost of the Congo mission relate to whether the Secretary General certifies that conditions on the ground are secure enough to expand operations from 90 observers to over 5,500 troops; when contributing countries might provide adequately provisioned troops; and what might be the cost of supporting these troops in inaccessible locations. Scope and In conducting this review, we interviewed officials from the U. S. Mission to Methodology the United Nations, the Department of State, and the United Nations. Some officials we interviewed were the United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations, the Director of State's Office for Peacekeeping and Humanitarian Operations, the Director of the U. N. Peacekeeping Financing Division, and the Chief of the U. N. Logistics and Communications Service. To estimate U. N. peacekeeping costs for 2001, we obtained U. N. peacekeeping budgets and justifications from officials of the United Nations in New York. U. N. officials were cooperative and forthcoming in providing the information we requested. We analyzed the documents, including the costs for military personnel, civilian personnel, and operations. We also obtained information from the United Nations about the nonrecurring costs in some of the operations and developed an estimate of the 2001 peacekeeping cost, projecting the number of troops, the timing of deployment, and operational costs. Since the United Nations pays a standard rate for many cost items, such as troop reimbursement and categories of vehicles and aircraft, we increased or decreased the U. N. 's budget estimate based on our projections about the level of these items and their deployment. For nonstandard costs, such as infrastructure, we relied on U. N. estimates. We discussed all of our estimates with senior officials of the U. N. Department of Management in the Peacekeeping Financing Division and the Contributions Service and with senior officials of the U. N. Department of Peacekeeping Operations in the Finance Management and Support Service and the Logistics and Communications Service. We compared our estimates to their estimates, and discussed the assumptions U. N. officials made in developing the 2001 peacekeeping budget and the possible increases due to additional requirements and activity. All officials emphasized that their assumptions and budget estimates contained a high degree of uncertainty because of rapidly changing situations on the ground. We adjusted our estimates based on the additional information obtained. To augment our analysis, we sought information from the Department of State on its updated U. N. peacekeeping cost estimates for 2001, which it uses to develop the budget request submitted to Congress. The Department of State did not provide us with this information. On six separate occasions, we requested from State, but did not receive, information about the projected troop strength, deployment times, operating costs, cost savings, projected new missions, and expansions used to derive its updated estimate. State told us it was still negotiating with Congress on the level of appropriations for peacekeeping for fiscal year 2001 and did not want information on its assumptions provided to Congress at this time. As a result, we were not able to analyze State's estimates or its underlying assumptions. To identify uncertainties in the peacekeeping missions that could affect their cost, we interviewed senior officials from the U. S. Mission to the United Nations about proposed expansions of peacekeeping, the reason for the expansions, and the uncertainties in proceeding with them. We also analyzed State Department documents on these operations, such as reports and cables. We also examined U. N. Secretary General reports on conditions in the Congo, Lebanon, Kosovo, East Timor, Ethiopia- Eritrea, and Sierra Leone; transcripts of Security Council meetings on these countries; letters from representatives of the warring parties in these countries; and site reports on these countries from a variety of sources. We used this information to further adjust our estimates of whether and when U. N. missions might expand operations. Our estimates are subject to the uncertainties associated with peacekeeping in each of these countries. We conducted our work from April 2000 through August 2000 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Agency Comments The State Department's Bureau for International Organizations, the U. S. Representative for U. N. Management and Reform at the U. S. Mission to the United Nations, the U. N. Peacekeeping Financing Division, and the U. N. Logistics and Communications Services provided oral comments on a draft of this report. State and the U. S. Mission said the report presented a fair assessment. U. N. peacekeeping is intended to respond to international crises, which have trajectories that cannot be precisely forecast; the costs for U. N. peacekeeping are subject to these crises and are similarly difficult to forecast. The United Nations commented that the report was fair and balanced. Situations on the ground were volatile and therefore final costs for U. N. peacekeeping were determined after final decisions about the missions were made by member states. State, the U. S. Mission, and the United Nations also provided technical comments, which we incorporated into the report as appropriate. As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Honorable Madeleine K. Albright, Secretary of State, and appropriate congressional committees. Copies will also be made available to other interested parties upon request. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512- 4128 or Tetsuo Miyabara at (202) 512- 8974. Maria Oliver also made key contributions to this report. Sincerely yours, Harold J. Johnson, Associate Director International Relations and Trade Issues Bri Bri ef ngSect i ng ef i Sect ons onI i i Background U. N. Peacekeeping Operations as of July 2000 Source: U. N. Department of Public Information, Cartographic Section and GAO. As of July 2000, the U. N. had 15 peacekeeping missions ongoing under U. N. Security Council mandates. These operations authorized a troop and civilian police strength of 48,404. Ten of the peacekeeping missions have operated for 9 years or less, while five long- standing missions have been deployed for over 20 years. Table 1 lists the current missions. Table 1: U. N. Peacekeeping Missions as of July 2000 Name of mission Acronym Duration Authorized strength U. N. Truce Supervision Organization in Palestine UNTSO June 1948 to present 231 U. N. Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan UNMOGIP January 1949 to present 68 U. N. Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus UNFICYP March 1964 to present 1, 250 U. N. Disengagement Observer Force (Golan Heights, Syria) UNDOF May 1974 to present 1, 120 U. N. Interim Force in Lebanon UNIFIL March 1978 to present 7, 935 U. N. Iraq- Kuwait Observation Mission UNIKOM April 1991 to present 1, 115 U. N. Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara MINURSO April 1991 to present 311 U. N. Observer Mission in Georgia UNOMIG August 1993 to present 102 U. N. Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina UNMIBH December 1995 to present 2, 062 U. N. Mission of Observers in Prevlaka (Croatia) UNMOP January 1996 to present 27 U. N. Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo UNMIK June 1999 to present 4, 756 U. N. Transitional Administration in East Timor UNTAET October 1999 to present 10, 790 U. N. Mission in Sierra Leone UNAMSIL October 1999 to present 13, 000 U. N. Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo MONUC November 1999 to present 5, 537 U. N. Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea UNMEE July 2000 to present 100 Total 48, 404 Source: Compiled by GAO from U. N. documents. Cost of U. N. Peacekeeping 1992 to 2001 Dollars in millions 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Peacekeeping budget years Source: Compiled by GAO from U. N. data. U. N. peacekeeping costs rose from 1992 through 1995 and then declined until 2000. As the United Nations reduced the number, size, and cost of its peacekeeping missions, the peacekeeping budgets dropped from over $3 billion in 1995 to under $1 billion in 1999. However, in 1999 and 2000, the U. N. Security Council authorized or expanded operations in the Congo, East Timor, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Lebanon, and Ethiopia- Eritrea, resulting in increased costs. The United Nations has budgeted about $2.1 billion for peacekeeping missions for the peacekeeping budget year that runs from July 1, 2000, through June 30, 2001. The missions in the Middle East and in IndiaPakistan, which are funded from the regular U. N. budget, are estimated to cost about $70 million for the biennial budget year from January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2001. Because of the different budget cycles used for peacekeeping funded under the regular U. N. budget, these costs are not included in our 10- year comparison of peacekeeping costs. Br ef ng i i Secti onI I U. N. Peacekeeping Costs Are Rising Cost of U. N. Peacekeeping for 2001 Likely to Exceed Budget 3,000 Dollars in millions 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 U.N. peacekeeping GAO estimate budget U.S. share a Other U.N. members' share a U. N. peacekeeping is assessed on an annual basis. The U. S. share of U. N. peacekeeping is currently 30.4 percent; the U. S. Congress has capped U. S. contributions at 25 percent since 1994. Source: Compiled by GAO from U. N. data. Based on our current estimate, the cost of peacekeeping for 2001 will be about $2.67 billion, exceeding the current peacekeeping budget by about $600 million. The increased cost is due to the expansion of four missions- Congo, Sierra Leone, Lebanon, and Ethiopia- Eritrea. The missions in Kosovo and East Timor will cost about what was previously estimated, and the remaining missions will cost about $3. 4 million less than allocated in the 2001 peacekeeping budget. In addition, costs to support peacekeeping activities (including storage of equipment and supplies at a depot and administrative costs at the U. N. Secretariat to manage operations) total about $51 million. Table 2 summarizes our estimated cost for U. N. peacekeeping for 2001 and the projected mission changes. Table 2: U. N. Peacekeeping Costs for 2001 Dollars in millions U. N. peacekeeping GAO cost Mission budget - 2001 estimate for 2001 Projected changes U. N. Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo a $ 220 Phased deployment to 5,537 peacekeepers. U. N. Mission in Sierra Leone $477 610 Increased deployment to 16,500. U. N. Interim Force in Lebanon 140 b 225 Increase to 7, 935 troops. U. N. Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea c 172 Deployment of 4, 200 troops. U. N. Transitional Administration in East Timor 584 584 Decrease in peacekeepers; increase in other activities. U. N. Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo 461 461 Other missions covered by peacekeeping budgets 355 351 Support account 56 51 Total $2,073 $2,674 a To be determined in September when mission budget is to be prepared. b A revised budget proposal is to be submitted. c To be determined when a mission budget is prepared. Source: Compiled by GAO from information in U. N. documents and discussions with U. N. officials. Uncertainties in Estimating U. N. Bri ng ef i Sect onII i I Peacekeeping Cost for 2001 Uncertainties in Congo and Sierra Leone Missions Congo Phase II deployment dependent on more secure conditions Troop commitments and mission logistics not complete Sierra Leone Security Council decisions on troop increases and mandate revisions Provision of adequately prepared troops The major uncertainties affecting our cost estimates for operations in the Congo and Sierra Leone are whether conditions on the ground will permit the missions to proceed with proposed expansions, and, if so, when the expansions will occur. In the Congo, the Secretary General must determine that conditions are right to proceed with deployment; in Sierra Leone, the Security Council must authorize the expansions. Congo In July 1999, representatives of the government of the Congo, five concerned states, and Congolese rebel groups signed a cease- fire agreement that called for the United Nations to help stabilize Congo's international borders, provide humanitarian assistance, and disarm combatants. In August 1999, the Security Council authorized phase I of the mission, the deployment of 90 U. N. liaison personnel, under the U. N. Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In May 2000, the Security Council authorized a phase II expansion of the mission to monitor the cease- fire with 5, 537 troops and observers, provided that the Secretary General determines the areas of operation are sufficiently secure to deploy peacekeepers. Although it is uncertain whether phase II will occur, our estimate assumes that the mission will proceed to phase II, by April 2001, for the following reasons. According to officials at the U. S. Mission to the United Nations, including the U. S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, members of the Security Council support the phase II expansion because instability in the Congo is a major threat to international security in Africa. The Congo has international borders with nine other countries, and an unstable Congo provides a battleground for neighboring states to expand resource and territorial claims, conduct proxy wars, and undertake crossborder strikes. According to Security Council resolutions, a peacekeeping effort is needed to help stabilize the international borders, and there is pressure from the Security Council to move forward as soon as practical. However, according to officials of the U. S. Mission to the United Nations and Secretary General reports, fighting still occurs in some of the planned deployment areas, and the situation is volatile. As a result, the Secretary General determined in June 2000 that operations could not proceed to phase II. Also, according to a U. S. Ambassador of the U. S. Mission, deployment is likely to be delayed well into the fall of 2000 at least. Other uncertainties involve the cost of building airstrips to supply four isolated deployment areas and setting up adequate communications. Sierra Leone In July 1999, after years of civil war, the government of Sierra Leone and the rebels, the Revolutionary United Front, signed the Lome peace accords, under which they agreed to share power in a coalition government. As part of the agreement, the United Nations was called upon to assist the Sierra Leone government in implementing its disarmament and demobilization plan for former combatants. In October 1999, the United Nations Mission to Sierra Leone was authorized to deploy 6,000 troops. According to the Security Council, from February through July 2000, the Revolutionary United Front repeatedly violated the peace accord, attacked U. N. peacekeepers, and detained as many as 500 U. N. personnel. The Security Council subsequently authorized an increase in troop strength to 11,100 and then to 13,000. The Secretary General has recommended that the U. N. force be further strengthened. Although it is uncertain whether the Security Council will approve the Secretary General's request for increased troop strength, our estimate projects that the mission will expand significantly and require heavier armament, as have other operations under similar conditions. Senior officials of the U. S. Mission said troop strength was likely to exceed the last proposal by the Secretary General calling for 16,500. Officials of the U. S. Mission also said that Security Council members are supportive of an increase in troop levels because of the violations of the peace accord and requested the Secretary General to complete a proposal with specific tasks and a force level needed to help the government deal with violations of the peace accord. The Security Council is also negotiating a resolution to establish a special court for Sierra Leone to try rebel leaders on charges of war crimes and atrocities. Uncertainties in Lebanon and Ethiopia- Eritrea Missions Lebanon Timing of increased deployment Level of increased armament Ethiopia-Eritrea Mission plan and operations not prepared Timing of full deployment The major uncertainty in estimating the cost for the mission in Lebanon is whether conditions on the ground will allow the mission to expand its activities at its current pace to help Lebanon regain control over its territory. The uncertainties in estimating the cost of a mission in EthiopiaEritrea include what the scope of operations will be and when the operation might be deployed. The U. N. Security Council in July 2000 authorized 100 military observers to prepare for a peacekeeping mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea, but at the time of our review, the United Nations had not completed a budget for the mission. For the mission in EthiopiaEritrea, we relied on an earlier mission plan by the U. N. Logistics and Communications Service for our cost estimate. Lebanon In 1978, Israel invaded southern Lebanon in retaliation for attacks staged from Palestinian bases in Lebanon. Shortly thereafter, the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon was mandated by the Security Council and deployed to help stabilize the situation, assist Lebanon in regaining control of its territory, and facilitate the withdrawal of all Israeli forces from Lebanon. In May 2000, Israel notified the Secretary General of its intention to withdraw all of its forces from Lebanon by July 2000. Israel completed the withdrawal ahead of schedule. Given the security vacuum created by the withdrawal, the Secretary General recommended that the mission be reinforced by increasing its authorized strength from 4,513 troops to 7,935. Although it is uncertain whether the mission will continue deploying at its current pace, our estimate assumed a full deployment with increased armament by the end of August 2000 because progress is being made rapidly. According to the Secretary General, in late July 2000, Israel cleared all issues related to the line of withdrawal, and the Lebanese president and prime minister consented to the full deployment of U. N. peacekeepers. Also, troop strength had reached over 5, 000, and heavier armament was arriving in the mission area. For example, by mid- July, 42 of 64 requisitioned armored personnel carriers were delivered in- theater. According to U. S. Mission officials, current plans are to increase the number of troops to 6, 250. A budget that incorporates all increases is to be proposed to the General Assembly in September 2000. Ethiopia- Eritrea In June 2000, the protracted conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea that displaced more than 1.2 million people was ended with the signing of an agreement on the cessation of hostilities. As part of the agreement, brokered by the Organization of African Unity, Ethiopia and Eritrea agreed to cease hostilities and peacefully resolve contested borders. They also agreed that a U. N. peacekeeping mission is to assist in implementing the agreement. In July 2000, the Security Council authorized 100 military observers to help plan and arrange for a full peacekeeping mission. The Secretary General has proposed a troop level of 4, 200 troops and observers. We based our estimate on this troop level plus an earlier mission plan for Ethiopia- Eritrea. According to U. S. Mission officials, this mission is likely to be deployed within 4 to 5 months. It has the support of the Security Council and is a priority because it could help end the war between Ethiopia and Eritrea. However, at the time of our review, a budget had not been prepared. Uncertainties in East Timor and Kosovo Missions East Timor Proposed decrease in troop level Proposed requests for infrastructure repair and judiciary assistance Kosovo Possible increase in judicial reform assistance After considering potential increases and decreases in costs for the missions in East Timor and Kosovo, we estimate that costs will not change from the current budget. The mission in East Timor has undertaken the creation and management of an interim government, and new requirements are being considered by the Security Council; however, the military component of the operation may be reduced, thus offsetting additional costs. The mission in Kosovo is also involved in the creation and management of an interim government, and the Security Council is considering expanding its functions. However, it is uncertain whether the Security Council will approve these expansions and proposals have not been completed. East Timor The United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor follows a prior mission, the United Nations Mission in East Timor, that was responsible for assisting with voter registration and an election on June 11, 1999, that would determine if the region would be integrated with Indonesia or would be independent. Severe violence from the prointegration factions followed the election result for independence, and hundreds of thousands were displaced from their homes. In September 1999, the Security Council authorized the deployment of a multinational force to restore peace and security. East Timor was also provided largescale humanitarian relief by the United Nations. In October 1999, the Security Council established the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor to deploy up to 1, 640 police; 8, 950 troops; and 200 military observers to help establish and operate an interim government. Our cost estimate does not adjust the U. N. budget for East Timor. U. N. officials are considering reducing the number of peacekeepers by over 500 troops in 2001. If this reduction occurs, the mission cost would be less than was budgeted. However, there may also be new requirements that would increase costs: According to a U. N. official, at a June 2000 donor conference held for East Timor, only a small portion of the needed funds was pledged for repairs of roads, bridges, and other infrastructure, and additional support for developing an administration of justice may be required. According to U. S. officials, members of the Security Council support these activities because they will help East Timor make a transition from peacekeeping to a fully functioning state. Kosovo In June 1999, the United Nations Mission in Kosovo was authorized under Security Council Resolution 1244 to establish an interim international civilian administration for Kosovo after the withdrawal from the region of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia security forces. As set forth in the resolution, NATO would lead the Kosovo Force/ International Security Force with the authority to enforce military agreements with the former warring parties and to ensure public safety and order. The U. N. mission was responsible for economic and social reconstruction, building democratic and multi- ethnic institutions, ensuring the protection and right of return of all refugees and displaced persons, and facilitating the process for deciding Kosovo's future status. Our cost estimate does not adjust the budgeted amount for the mission in Kosovo. However, U. N. officials told us that the mission has been asked to help with local- and regional- level administration of justice, which would entail funding judges and prosecutors and providing security. Currently, the mission is paying for six international judges and two international prosecutors, and it is searching for additional judges and prosecutors. There are currently 234 local judges and 42 prosecutors in place. According to officials of the U. S. Mission to the United Nations, the U. N. mission did not initially plan to hire international judges and prosecutors, but was forced to do so when the Kosovar judges consistently ruled in favor of their own ethnic group or dismissed cases altogether. However, all costs related to changes in the administration of justice have not been fully formulated. Regular U. N. Budget Funding of Peacekeeping Bri ng ef i Sect onI i V Activity Special Political Missions (January- July 2000) Bougainville Papua New Guinea Source: Compiled by GAO from U. N. data. Seventeen special political missions were funded from the regular U. N. budget between January and July 2000. Special political missions are mandated by the Security Council or the General Assembly to undertake a broad range of tasks that are analogous to peacekeeping activities- disarming parties, facilitating negotiations between factions, and helping establish and strengthen governments. Special political missions are generally smaller than peacekeeping missions and are expected to complete their work within a limited period of time, depending on the political situation in each country. However, some have operated for as long as 5 years, as in Guatemala and Burundi. Peacekeeping Activities in Annualized U. N. Budgets Special political missions funded in the regular budget: $45 million 2 peacekeeping missions funded in the regular budget: $35 million Peacekeeping budget: $2,073 million Source: Compiled by GAO from U. N. data. The United Nation's programs and basic operations are funded through a regular biennial budget. This budget includes funding for limited peacekeeping missions (the Middle East and India- Pakistan) and peacekeeping- related special political missions. The estimated cost of peacekeeping activities funded from the regular budget is about $80 million in calendar year 2000-$ 45 million for the special political missions and $35 million for the two peacekeeping missions. Appendi xes Projected U. N. Peacekeeping Assessments for Appendi xI U. S. Fiscal Year 2001 The United Nations assesses member states for peacekeeping activities based on each member's pro- rated share of the annual peacekeeping budget. However, assessments are not forwarded to members in single annual bills. They are sent out for partial payments at intervals determined by two factors: (1) assessments can only cover funding for the duration of each mission's Security Council mandate- typically 6 months- and (2) assessments can be made only after both a mission's budget and its mandate have been formally approved. For example, the approved budget of the U. N. Disengagement Force on the Golan Heights is about $37 million for 2001, but its mandate only runs from July to December 2000 (6 months). Thus, member states are assessed about $18.5 million (half of the 12- month budget cost), with each member state paying its pro- rated share. If the mandate is renewed for an additional 6 months in December 2000, the remaining $18.5 million can be assessed. Peacekeeping assessments are due and payable to the United Nations within 30 days of the billing date; however, actual payments often occur much later. Projecting U. N. peacekeeping assessments for the United States for U. S. fiscal year 2001 is further complicated because the U. N. peacekeeping budget year runs from July 2000 through June 2001, but the U. S. fiscal year runs from October 2000 through September 2001. Thus, there is no budget estimate of peacekeeping costs for the last 3 months of U. S. fiscal year 2001. Figure 1 illustrates the crosswalk between the U. N. budget and estimated assessments for the United States during U. S. fiscal year 2001. Figure 1: Crosswalk Between U. N. Peacekeeping Assessments and U. S. Fiscal Year U. N. peacekeeping budget year 2001 U. S. fiscal year 2001 July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Calendar year 2000 Calendar year 2001 Assessment billed only for mandate Assessment billed only for mandate period (typically 6 months, but varies) period (typically 6 months, but varies) Source: GAO. Table 3, which is based on our estimate of the costs of peacekeeping for 2001, shows our projection of the timing and assessments for the United States during U. S. fiscal year 2001. In deriving this table, we made the following four assumptions: Assessments for individual missions are made within 1 month after both the U. N. peacekeeping budget and a mandate are approved. (According to U. N. officials, it may take longer to forward the assessments to individual countries because heavy workloads may delay processing.) Mandates are renewed on the same schedule and the same interval, as in 1999. Peacekeeping costs after June 2001 equal the full 12 month cost of the GAO estimate. The U. S. pays its assessment at a rate of 25 percent. (During the U. N. General Assembly meeting in the fall of 2000, the United Nations will review the peacekeeping assessment rate for 2001 to 2002.) Because of the rules on when assessments can be billed to member states and the difference between the U. S. fiscal year and the U. N. peacekeeping budget year, the amounts actually assessed during fiscal year 2001 may not equal 25 percent of the U. N. peacekeeping budget. Table 3: Projected U. S. Assessments for U. N. Peacekeeping, U. S. Fiscal Year 2001 Dollars in millions Current GAO budget estimate (2001) (2001) Projected U. S. assessments a (based on GAO 2001 cost estimate) Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. 2000 2000 2000 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 Total b MONUC $220 $23. 3 c $46.7 $23. 4 c $93.4 UNAMSIL $476. 7 610 $58. 3 25.4 c $46. 7 28. 1 c $65.1 223.6 MINURSO 46. 6 41. 3 2. 1 c $2. 1 c $2. 1 c 2.1 c $2. 1 c $2. 1 c 12. 3 MINURCA 0. 1 0 0.0 UNTAET 584 584. 1 d c 96. 0 85. 2 181.2 UNMIBH 153. 6 150 d 18. 8 c 37. 5 56. 3 UNFICYP 41. 1 43. 0 c 2.7 c 2.7 5.3 UNOMIG 28. 4 30. 1 c 3.8 c 3.8 7.5 UNMIK 461.4 461. 4 60. 3 57. 7 118.0 UNDOF 35 37 c d 5.4 c 3.9 9.3 UNIKOM 49.7 49 2. 6 1.3 3.8 UNIFIL 140 225 24.2 c 29. 0 c 28. 1 81. 4 UNMEE 0 172 c 43. 0 c 41. 3 84. 3 Support account 56 51 14 Total $2072.6 $2673. 9 $60.4 $2. 6 $26. 3 $135. 9 $173.9 $46. 7 $48.7 $2. 1 $242. 2 $72.7 $65. 1 $890. 4 a U. N. peacekeeping is assessed on an annual basis. The U. S. share of U. N. peacekeeping is currently 30.4 percent; the U. S. Congress has capped U. S. contributions at 25 percent since 1994. b Amounts assessed may not equal 25 percent of U. N. peacekeeping budget because of the timing of assessments and the difference between the U. N. peacekeeping budget year and the U. S. fiscal year. c Projected mandate expiration /renewal or General Assembly budget review. d Bills not sent until after assessment rate is determined. Source: Compiled by GAO from information in U. N. documents and discussions with U. N. officials. (711515) Lett er GAO United States General Accounting Office Page 1 GAO/ NSIAD- 00- 228BR Peacekeeping Cost Contents Contents Page 2 GAO/ NSIAD- 00- 228BR Peacekeeping Cost Page 3 GAO/ NSIAD- 00- 228BR Peacekeeping Cost United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548 Page 3 GAO/ NSIAD- 00- 228BR Peacekeeping Cost B- 286009 Page 4 GAO/ NSIAD- 00- 228BR Peacekeeping Cost B- 286009 Page 5 GAO/ NSIAD- 00- 228BR Peacekeeping Cost B- 286009 Page 6 GAO/ NSIAD- 00- 228BR Peacekeeping Cost B- 286009 Page 7 GAO/ NSIAD- 00- 228BR Peacekeeping Cost Page 8 GAO/ NSIAD- 00- 228BR Peacekeeping Cost Briefing Section I Briefing Section I Background Page 9 GAO/ NSIAD- 00- 228BR Peacekeeping Cost Briefing Section I Background Page 10 GAO/ NSIAD- 00- 228BR Peacekeeping Cost Briefing Section I Background Page 11 GAO/ NSIAD- 00- 228BR Peacekeeping Cost Page 12 GAO/ NSIAD- 00- 228BR Peacekeeping Costs Briefing Section II Briefing Section II U. N. Peacekeeping Costs Are Rising Page 13 GAO/ NSIAD- 00- 228BR Peacekeeping Costs Page 14 GAO/ NSIAD- 00- 228BR Peacekeeping Cost Briefing Section III Briefing Section III Uncertainties in Estimating U. N. Peacekeeping Cost for 2001 Page 15 GAO/ NSIAD- 00- 228BR Peacekeeping Cost Briefing Section III Uncertainties in Estimating U. N. Peacekeeping Cost for 2001 Page 16 GAO/ NSIAD- 00- 228BR Peacekeeping Cost Briefing Section III Uncertainties in Estimating U. N. Peacekeeping Cost for 2001 Page 17 GAO/ NSIAD- 00- 228BR Peacekeeping Cost Briefing Section III Uncertainties in Estimating U. N. Peacekeeping Cost for 2001 Page 18 GAO/ NSIAD- 00- 228BR Peacekeeping Cost Briefing Section III Uncertainties in Estimating U. N. Peacekeeping Cost for 2001 Page 19 GAO/ NSIAD- 00- 228BR Peacekeeping Cost Briefing Section III Uncertainties in Estimating U. N. Peacekeeping Cost for 2001 Page 20 GAO/ NSIAD- 00- 228BR Peacekeeping Cost Briefing Section III Uncertainties in Estimating U. N. Peacekeeping Cost for 2001 Page 21 GAO/ NSIAD- 00- 228BR Peacekeeping Cost Briefing Section III Uncertainties in Estimating U. N. Peacekeeping Cost for 2001 Page 22 GAO/ NSIAD- 00- 228BR Peacekeeping Cost Briefing Section III Uncertainties in Estimating U. N. Peacekeeping Cost for 2001 Page 23 GAO/ NSIAD- 00- 228BR Peacekeeping Cost Briefing Section III Uncertainties in Estimating U. N. Peacekeeping Cost for 2001 Page 24 GAO/ NSIAD- 00- 228BR Peacekeeping Cost Page 25 GAO/ NSIAD- 00- 228BR Peacekeeping Cost Page 26 GAO/ NSIAD- 00- 228BR Peacekeeping Cost Briefing Section IV Briefing Section IV Regular U. N. Budget Funding of Peacekeeping Activity Page 27 GAO/ NSIAD- 00- 228BR Peacekeeping Cost Briefing Section IV Regular U. N. Budget Funding of Peacekeeping Activity Page 28 GAO/ NSIAD- 00- 228BR Peacekeeping Cost Briefing Section IV Regular U. N. Budget Funding of Peacekeeping Activity Page 29 GAO/ NSIAD- 00- 228BR Peacekeeping Cost Page 30 GAO/ NSIAD- 00- 228BR Peacekeeping Cost Appendix I Appendix I Projected U. N. Peacekeeping Assessments for U. S. Fiscal Year 2001 Page 31 GAO/ NSIAD- 00- 228BR Peacekeeping Cost Appendix I Projected U. N. Peacekeeping Assessments for U. S. Fiscal Year 2001 Page 32 GAO/ NSIAD- 00- 228BR Peacekeeping Cost Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders by mail: U. S. General Accounting Office P. O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013 Orders by visiting: Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U. S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders by phone: (202) 512- 6000 fax: (202) 512- 6061 TDD (202) 512- 2537 Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512- 6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists. Orders by Internet: For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, send an e- mail message with “info” in the body to: info@ www. gao. gov or visit GAO's World Wide Web home page at: http:// www. gao. gov To Report Fraud, Waste, or Abuse in Federal Programs Contact one: Web site: http:// www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm e- mail: fraudnet@ gao. gov 1- 800- 424- 5454 (automated answering system) United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548- 0001 Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300 Address Correction Requested Bulk Rate Postage & Fees Paid GAO Permit No. GI00 *** End of document. ***