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. ***