Agenda Item 112: UN Capital Master Plan

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the Secretary-General for his timely and consistent leadership and for his understanding of the critical need to move expeditiously forward with the Capital Master Plan. I would be remiss if I failed to also acknowledge and commend the continuing and determined efforts of Assistant Secretary-General Niwa and his very competent staff.

The just issued fifth report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) offers a reasoned, thorough and lucid endorsement of the Capital Master Plan. I commend Chairman Mselle and his ACABQ colleagues for their efforts to move the Capital Master Plan forward to the next phase of design. I welcome the call for oversight and believe it should incorporate management, financial, technical, and legal aspects commensurate with the inherent complexities and challenges of any construction project of this magnitude.

Mr. Chairman, the UN Secretariat and associated buildings have stood resiliently and remarkably with little major renovation for half a century. From afar the marble and tinted glass appear strong and ready to stand for another half century. But report after report attests that appearances are quite deceiving. The outer walls and windows need a closer look because they hide an aging infrastructure that is far beyond simple repair or patching. The service life of most of the infrastructure was passed many years ago. To these facts there should be no dispute among Member States or the Secretariat.

More serious than a failed generator or ventilation system that fails to cool or heat -- is the very real threat of a catastrophic event such as a fire or steam pipe rupture. It is not a theoretical risk based on an engineer's actuarial matrix; it is a many times reviewed judgment based on bolt by bolt, inch by inch surveys. The odds of a catastrophic equipment failure are near certain and unfortunately age has stacked the deck against us. Time is not on our side and we need to proceed expeditiously.

But there is another compelling reason -- a fiscal reason to move ahead on this approach. Please permit me to use an example. In 2003 the Capital Master Plan needs $22.5M to complete the detail design phase. By not authorizing the funds and delaying for just one year, normal project escalation will drive total cost up an estimated 3-4% of the total $1.1B cost or $35M. These extra millions in project costs due to delay will never be recovered. They should be committed now, applied to the renovation, and not lost to inflation caused by indecision. At the same time, the ever-unceasing costs of patchwork maintenance also represents funds that must be spent but which could be better utilized elsewhere.

In addition to safety and the economic disincentive of delay, I want to turn to the momentum that has built up with the Principals of the City and State of New York and within the local community. Each understands the critical importance of moving the project forward without delay. And the U.S. Government as host nation is working on the critical financing requirements needed for this seminal project. But first there must be a decision, a plan, a project for which funding can be sought. GAO's commitment to produce a follow-up study and the State Department's assigning a senior officer full-time to the U.S. Mission as the focal point for our role in the Capital Master Plan are clear and decisive statements of the United States Government's support for the project.

But this is not an American project. It is a project for the world's peoples and as such there must be a clear, unambiguous mandate from Member States or the project's momentum may be stalled or lost.

Specifically Mr. Chairman I ask Member States to move immediately to approve the First Approach -- vacating the UN HQS complex and conducting an expeditious refurbishment program via a swing space facility -- and to authorize the $22.5M needed in 2003 to accomplish the next phase. This is not only the preferred approach, it is the only approach that accomplishes three equally compelling goals: lowest cost, most efficient project management, and the least disruption to UN operations. A reactive, piecemeal approach fails the test of all three, and delay drives up the cost and increases the chance of a catastrophic event.

As the ACABQ report so correctly states in endorsing the Secretary-General's assessment, "there is no choice but to proceed with the Capital Master Plan" and in doing so the ACABQ "recommends the First Approach as the most desirable way."

Only the First Approach is viable from every operational perspective and seemingly every Member States' point of view.

The Capital Master Plan is not in the category of "nice to do when we have the time and resources." That may have been a decision to ponder in the past. Today, nearing the end of 2002, it is a "must do" and without hesitation. We must seize the moment and renovate this historic center for peace so that delegates, staff and visitors alike can interact in a safe, secure and green environment. Our legacy, Mr. Chairman, is to make a sound decision in supporting the Capital Master Plan so that when the last dust settles, we will leave an enduring complex of facilities for the many generations to follow in our footsteps.

Thank you Mr. Chairman.