Published: October 19, 2005
UN Debates Member State Contributions
Several Speakers Call for Review of 2000 Maximum Assessment Decision
As the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) continued its debate on the methodology for the scale of assessments, which will be used for calculating Member States' contributions to the budget of the United Nations in 2007-2009, several delegations called for a review of the 2000 decision to reduce the maximum rate of assessment, or ceiling, from 25 to 22 per cent.
When it adopted a revised scale in 2000, the Assembly, by the terms of resolution 55/5 B, based individual countries' assessments on the estimates of their gross national income, which is converted to United States dollars after adjustments for external debt and low per-capita income. Points arising as a result of the application of the new ceiling to the Organization's main contributor -- the United States -- were distributed pro rata among other States, except for those affected by the floor (0.001 per cent) and the least developed countries ceiling.
Cuba's representative said the ceiling should be eliminated and, due to an arbitrarily determined upper limit, the main contributor was paying much less than it should. The agreement achieved in adopting resolution 55/5 was based on promises to pay by the main contributor, but five years later the situation of those arrears had not substantially improved. The international community was still looking at similar operations and manoeuvres, with the United States Congress trying to hold back funds if the Organization did not yield to its demands for reform.
The imposition of the new ceiling was among the criteria that distorted the principle of capacity-to-pay, Venezuela's representative said, and that had a negative impact on the economies of some developing countries. He stressed the need to avoid abrupt increases in assessments that could have an unpredictable effect on economies, saying that such measures should not be adopted on the basis of political criteria.
At the same time, China's representative insisted that any adjustments or changes to the scale could only be made through consensus by the General Assembly. The current methodology was a compromise achieved by the whole membership of the United Nations as a result of hard negotiations on the basis of the principle of capacity-to-pay. Minimizing uncertainties by maintaining the stability of the scale methodology and the predictability of the scale was vital to ensuring normal operation of the United Nations system.
Although China's share for 2004-2006 had jumped by 35.18 per cent over the previous period, she said that, as long as the assessments had been worked out according to the current methodology, China would willingly accept the result of the calculation. Expressing sympathy for the concern voiced by some developing countries, she added that in cases of excessive increases in contributions, some special adjustments might be considered, such as mitigation measures adopted for the 2004-2006 scale.
Many speakers, including the representatives of Jamaica and Argentina, who spoke on behalf of the "Group of 77" developing countries and China and the Rio Group, respectively, urged the Assembly to consider measures that could be applied to address cases of excessive scale-to-scale increases, particularly in developing countries. Reaffirming that Member States had a legal obligation to bear the financial expenses of the Organization, Jamaica also acknowledged that some States might temporarily not be able to meet their financial obligations as a consequence of genuine economic difficulties.
As for the multi-year payment plans, which were endorsed by the Assembly in 2002, several delegates said they had made a positive contribution in encouraging States to reduce and eventually eliminate their debt. However, most speakers emphasized that such plans should remain a voluntary mechanism and must not be used in relation to the granting of waivers under Article 19 of the Charter.
[According to Article 19, should a Member State fall behind in the payment of its dues by an amount equal to its assessments for the two most recent years, it will lose its right to vote in the General Assembly, unless the Assembly decides that non-payment is a consequence of factors beyond its control.]
Also this morning, as the Committee took up the Secretary-General's proposal to lift the freeze on hiring of General Service staff, the representative of the United Kingdom, who spoke on behalf of the European Union and associated States, expressed disappointment with the report on the matter, which "simply produced a list of problems encountered in finding replacement of staff for existing slots" instead of providing "a re-think" of how best to assign and use the General Service staff in an age of increased automation, new technologies and more flexible skills expectations from all staff. Furthermore, he did not understand why 1 December had been proposed as the date to lift the suspension, when later that very month, a decision on General Service numbers would be taken in the context of the 2006-2007 budget.
Agreeing that the Secretary-General's report was neither comprehensive, nor persuasive, Japan's representative said that the issue needed to be considered in a comprehensive way, contributing to the development of concrete proposals on a time-bound plan for reducing duplication, complexity and bureaucracy in administrative processes and procedures.
Search News
Daily News
