GENERAL ASSEMBLY WOULD RECOGNIZE IMPROVEMENTS IN UN PROCUREMENT MADE BY SECRETARY-GENERAL, ACCORDING TO TEXT APPROVED BY FIFTH COMMITTEE

Press Release
GA/AB/3317

GENERAL ASSEMBLY WOULD RECOGNIZE IMPROVEMENTS IN UN PROCUREMENT MADE BY SECRETARY-GENERAL, ACCORDING TO TEXT APPROVED BY FIFTH COMMITTEE

Committee Concludes Discussion of Scale of Assessments, Pattern Of Conferences and JIU; Fails To Approve Text on Development Account

The General Assembly would recognize improvements in United Nations procurement made by the Secretary-General and ask him to consider ways to increase the transparency of procurement decisions, by the terms of a draft resolution on procurement reform approved by the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) this evening, during back-to-back meetings on a variety of issues. The draft was introduced by the representative of Pakistan, and approved without a vote, after an oral amendment proposed by the Committee's Chairman, Penny Wensley (Australia).

Among other terms, the resolution would call for greater efforts to expand the geographic base of the countries of origin of vendors who supply goods to the United Nations, and ask the Secretary-General to develop a tighter definition of exigency -- the circumstances in which the standard procurement rules are not applied.

In other business this evening, the Committee failed to approve a draft resolution on the modalities of the Development Account, despite a brief suspension to search for consensus. The representative of Uganda, who introduced the draft, said consensus had been reached on everything in the draft, except a three-letter word –- "all" -– in the fifth operative paragraph.

As presented to the Committee, the fifth operative paragraph would have had the Assembly decide that all savings transferred to the Account be used as the maintenance base for it in future budgets.

The representatives of Finland (for the European Union), Guyana (for the "Group of 77" developing countries and China), Algeria, Canada, United States, Uganda, China, Algeria, Mexico, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Egypt, Norway, Philippines and Thailand also spoke on procurement reform, as did Assistant Secretary-General for Central Support Services Toshiyuki Niwa.

The Committee's Chairman and the representative of Guyana, speaking on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, also spoke on the Development Account draft resolution.

Fifth Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/AB/3317 11th and 12th Meetings (PM & Night) 20 October 1999

During the meetings, the Committee concluded its general discussion on the scale of assessments for the apportionment of the expenses of the United Nations, the pattern of United Nations conferences, and the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU).

The representatives of Costa Rica, Russian Federation, United Arab Emirates, Argentina, Côte d'Ivoire, Sudan, Nigeria, Japan, Botswana, Syria, Iran, Trinidad and Tobago, Ghana, Ukraine, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, and the Bahamas, and the Chairman of the Committee on Contributions, David Etuket, spoke on the scale of assessments.

On the pattern of conferences, the Committee heard from the representatives of Canada (on behalf also of Australia and New Zealand), Russian Federation, Mexico, Ghana, Morocco and Cuba; from Peter van de Velde, Chairman of the Committee on Conferences, and Yongjian Jin, Under-Secretary-General for General Assembly Affairs and Conference Services.

As it concluded its discussion of the JIU, the representatives of Finland, on behalf of the European Union and associated States, Norway, Turkey, Algeria, Cuba and the United States, and the Chairman of the JIU, Louis Dominique Ouedraogo, and the Chief of the Oversight Support Unit of the Department of Management, Alida Ferrena Mahmud, spoke.

The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. on Monday, 25 October, to begin its consideration of the reports of the Board of Auditors, the revolving credit funds and the reports of the Office of Internal Oversight Services, and administrative and budgetary aspects of the financing of peacekeeping operations.

Committee Work Programme

The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) met this afternoon to continue its consideration of the scale of assessments for the apportionment of the expenses of the United Nations, the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU), and the pattern of United Nations conferences. It also planned to take action on two draft resolutions on procurement reform and the Development Account -- both matters carried over from the previous session of the General Assembly.

[For background on the scale of assessments and the pattern of conferences, see Press Release GA/AB/3314 of 18 October. For background on the report of the JIU, see Press Release GA/AB/3315 of 19 October.]

Statements on Scale of Assessments

BERND NIEHAUS (Costa Rica) said the financial crisis of the United Nations was caused by non-payment by some Member States, not the operation of the scale of assessments. Capacity to pay should remain the fundamental principle for the scale, and Costa Rica could not support any change in this. But at present, there existed a distortion in the scale because of the existence of the ceiling.

His delegation favoured a statistical base period of six years; this would make the scale more stable and give more time to measure the performance of States, he said. It was important to maintain the existing methodology for exchange rates. Costa Rica also supported the requests of some developing countries to be exempt from Article 19 procedures. It was conscious of the economic difficulties they were facing.

NIKOLAI LOZINSKY (Russian Federation) said scrupulous observance of financial obligations was necessary to ensure the Organization’s stability, but a methodology that fairly represented capacity to pay was also required. Relative capacity to pay had proven its viability. It was exceptions to that basic principle that had caused the problems that existed today. The Assembly, supported by the Committee on Contributions, had over recent years eliminated numbers of artificial add-ons. A good foundation had, therefore, been laid for further improvement. Gross national product (GNP) was the most objective income measure for the scale, he said. A shorter statistical base period would allow it to more closely reflect capacity to pay. Market exchange rates were the most objective indicator for the scale, unless they were distorted by excessive fluctuations, in which case price adjusted rates should be used. He supported continued efforts of the Committee on Contributions to find a better method of application of market rates.

The low per capita income-adjustment element was wholly justified, he said; however, the gradient was determined on a purely political basis. He was ready to support efforts aimed at ensuring that the calculation was based on objective criteria. The issue of non-eligibility of permanent members of the Security Council to low per capita income adjustments was purely political and, therefore, the prerogative of the Assembly, rather than the Committee on Contributions. Permanent Security Council Members’ special responsibility was already represented in the peacekeeping scale. The ceiling on the scale had nothing to do with capacity to pay and was, therefore, also the prerogative of the Assembly.

The number of requests for exemption from Article 19 sanctions had risen alarmingly in recent years, he continued. The time frame for such applications should be restricted and any requests for its extension be comprehensively considered on an individual basis. The Committee on Contributions should take a careful, and more balanced, view towards exemptions and not become a rubber stamp.

In conclusion, he noted that the Committee on Contributions had done much regarding new approaches to improvement of the scale, but had made no new recommendations as to elements of the methodology.

KHALIFA AL-TUNAJI (United Arab Emirates) said he was concerned about the budget deficit of the United Nations and its agencies because of the arrears of some States. He attached the utmost importance to the current deliberations, and hoped that consensus would be reached on a number of fundamental principles. A more objective means had to be found to face up to the problem of unpaid reimbursements to troop-contributing States.

He reaffirmed the principle of capacity to pay as the fundamental one in determining the scale of assessments. The financial and administrative reform of the United Nations was not an objective per se, but a way of improving the capacity of the United Nations to respond to the world’s problems. His delegation could not support any reform in the scale of assessment if it involved an added burden to the developing countries.

FERNANDO ENRIQUE PETRELLA (Argentina) said this year the Committee had the responsibility of establishing a methodology for a scale of assessment for 2001- 2003. The fundamental criterion was capacity to pay; accordingly, the application of the various elements of the scale should not reduce this principle. There had been a departure from the principle three years ago when the scale was adopted, and this had adversely affected Argentina. The Committee on Contributions had concluded that this was a clearly unfair situation. Argentina’s contribution in one single year had virtually doubled.

His delegation agreed that the methodology should be adjusted in order to mitigate the effects of discontinuity. He could not support elements of the scale which did not take this situation into account and, therefore, supported a statistical base period of nine years. On the question of the ceiling, he was prepared to have it kept at its current level.

The current financial crisis of the Organization was caused by the non- payment by some Member States, not by the operation of the scale of assessments. But his delegation fully recognized its obligations to pay its contributions in full and on time.

STANISLAS CLAUDE BOUAH-KAMON (Côte d’Ivoire) said capacity to pay remained the fundamental principle for determining the scale and remained the basis for equity in apportionment of the expenses of the Organization. If it did not, the scale would be unfair and prejudicial to developing countries. Gross national product was the best available indicator of income, even though it could not represent effectively the civic reality of all countries.

The six-year base for the scale should be retained, he said. There were good arguments for three-year periods; however, for the sake of stability and to ensure a reliable footing, six years were better.

The debt-burden adjustment required special attention, due to the challenge faced by developing countries, he said. Sub-Saharan Africa suffered most from debt. The same States were also faced with continuing drops in commodity prices. Any attempt to calculate contributions must account for these realities. Côte d’Ivoire, despite limited means, honoured its commitments.

The mixed results of efforts to address scale problems showed that they were complex, he said. The solution would only come through real political will from Member States. A demarcation of financial crisis, largely caused by the largest contributor’s failure to pay, and the scale of assessments must be made.

LAYLA OMER BASHIR (Sudan) said she shared the view of others that capacity to pay must be adopted as the key principle for assessment. The level of developing countries indebtedness reflected the heavy burden they carried and so should remain an element in determining levels of assessment, on the basis of the debt-flow approach. That was not a problem provided the political will was available.

She was disappointed by the Organization’s deteriorating financial situation, she said. The current crisis could have been avoided if the major debtor State had shown the minimum level of responsibility. She called for the development of a simple rule that balanced rights and duties. It would be useful to link appointment by Member States to various bodies and procurement contracts to the payment of assessed contributions.

States that suffered problems regarding their stocks of convertible currencies make huge efforts to honour their commitments to the United Nations budget, she said. She could not understand how States with assessments well below their capacity to pay failed to honour theirs.

OLUSEGUN AKINSANYA (Nigeria) said he did not believe the Fifth Committee required guidance from the General Assembly in fulfilling its responsibilities on the questions of scale methodology and the procedural aspects of the application of Article 19. A thorough and comprehensive review of all aspects of the scale methodology would make assessment simpler and more transparent. The fundamental criterion was capacity to pay. He expected the Committee to ensure equity in regard to the difficulties of developing countries -– particularly in Africa. To this end, low per capita income adjustments should remain an integral part of the scale methodology.

It was also his view that the gradient should be revised from 80 per cent to the highest possible level, and that the income measure should be based on GNP. Market exchange rates should also be used for assessment, except where this would cause excessive fluctuations.

On the length of the base period, his delegation supported the view that a six-year period should be adopted on a permanent basis. This gave fragile economies time to adjust. Nigeria supported a 0.001 per cent minimum assessment rate for 2001-2003, but felt the question of the ceiling should be further reviewed –- bearing in mind that no ceiling should be set which obscured the relationship between a country’s capacity to pay and the rate of assessment applicable to it. Also, he said, the tightening of the application of Article 19 would not only encourage full payment of assessed contributions, but also reduce the amount of outstanding contributions. As Nigeria was a troop-contributing nation, it shared concern that the United Nations had been unable to pay the full amount of peacekeeping reimbursements.

JUICHI TAKAHARA (Japan) said the current methodology and existing parameters should be reviewed in the context of preparing the new scale for 2001-2003, to make it more equitable and better reflect reality. Japanese taxpayers were increasingly asking why they should shoulder more than one fifth of whatever activity the Organization decided to undertake. As the Japanese Foreign Minister had said during the general debate, one cannot but question the fairness of a situation in which Japan was expected to pay an assessed contribution that exceeds the sum of the contributions made by four of the permanent members of the Security Council, not including the United States.

His delegation felt that the financial contribution of the permanent members of the Security Council was not commensurate with their special responsibilities under the Charter, he said. The discrepancy between their political responsibilities and their payments was widening. Also, there was a question as to whether the current methodology and parameters accurately reflected the real capacity to pay of Member States. Japan’s share of world GNP stood at about 17 per cent, but its scale of assessment would reach more than 20.5 per cent in 2000. The current methodology and related parameters should be reviewed in a comprehensive manner.

Exemptions under Article 19 should be regarded as a strictly exceptional measure limited to Member States whose failure to pay was due to conditions beyond their control, he said. Such Member States should make some payment to the Organization so as to reduce their arrears, he added.

COLLEN KELAPILE (Botswana) supported the view that the expenses of the United Nations should be apportioned in accordance with capacity to pay, and that the scale should not be arbitrarily revised unless the General Assembly was convinced that there had been substantial changes in Member States’ situations. Further, the exercise of any review had to be seen as a purely technical exercise, decided through the technical advice of the Committee on Contributions and without recourse to hasty political judgements.

Botswana regretted that the Contributions Committee had once again not been able to reach agreement on some crucial elements for the scale of 2001-2003, which was partly due to some political impediments that were straying into its work. The politicization of budgetary matters was a dangerous development which should not become habit.

While the General Assembly might not be able to adopt a one-size-fits-all scale of assessments, Botswana believed that the majority of the membership of the United Nations agreed that the principle of capacity to pay should remain the fundamental criterion for the apportionment of the United Nations expenses. There was no doubt that such elements as GNP, the minimum assessment rate of 0.001 per cent, the debt-burden adjustment and the low per capita income adjustment remained crucial in the objective determination of capacity to pay. ABDOU AL-MOULA NAKKARI (Syria) said the financial situation of the Organization had nothing to do with the scale methodology. To ensure a stable financial footing, arrears must be paid, particularly the debts of the main contributor. The scale should not be revised to attempt to address the financial situation, and any revision of the scale should not lead in any way to increased assessments to developing Member States. Some Member States had already seen their assessments increase, and this had not helped improve the United Nations financial situation.

Gross national product should be used as the basis of the scale, and the debt adjustment factor should be the main factor for the gradient, he said. The base period of six years should be retained to realistically reflect the situation of countries. The ceiling should not be reduced or lowered. In fact, in setting the ceiling rate at 25 per cent, Member States had run counter to capacity to pay. Annual recalculation was not pragmatic, and there were procedural and practical questions that made it impossible.

Syria’s assessment under the scale of assessments had been raised without reason in 1995-1997 and 1998-2000, he said, and he had objected to these increases. He did not understand the reasons for them, at the same time as other States with economies in better shape had seen their assessments decrease. It was not logical for certain developed countries to pay proportionately less than developing countries like Syria. Capacity to pay must be the main criteria for assessments. The Syrian economy had not had a striking recovery that would justify the increases. Despite this, Syria had always paid its regular budget contribution and had acted within a six-year timetable it had established to meet its peacekeeping obligations.

Other factors should be accounted for in determining capacity to pay, particularly regarding the situation of developing countries and their indebtedness, he said. The particular characteristics of countries under occupation, including his country, should also be taken into account. Israeli occupation continued over his country’s territory. That territory had economic and agricultural riches.

He stressed the need to retain the current system of assessments for peacekeeping operations. Permanent Security Council members should assume greater responsibility for the costs of peacekeeping operations.

HADI NEJAD-HOSSEINIAN (Iran) noted with concern that, in many areas of the work of the Committee on Contributions, divergent and even conflicting views had prevailed. Iran agreed with other States that the scale of assessments should be equitable and based on capacity to pay, but equity could only be achieved if the differing economic capabilities and development levels of States were taken into account.

Iran believed that the debt stock approach and market exchange rates should continue to be used in the scale methodology, he said. It also felt that there should be a meaningful increase in the gradient from the current 80 per cent, and that any review of the scale methodology should include a consideration of the question of the ceiling. On the question of Article 19, he said there was a need for equitable and non-discriminatory treatment in considering requests from Member States for exemptions. Any change in the date of application of Article 19 would require revision of the financial regulations of the United Nations to redefine “arrears” for the purpose of the Article –- something that was unlikely to be achieved in the view of Iran.

GEORGE McKENZIE (Trinidad and Tobago) supported the principle of capacity to pay and the continuing relevance of the principle of an adjustment for low per capita income. It also favoured the use of GNP as an income measure and debt- stock approach for the debt-burden adjustment. He supported the use of market exchange rates in conversion and that the ceiling should not be further lowered. The floor, meanwhile, should be maintained at 0.001 per cent.

His delegation did not support the proposal for an annual recalculation of the scale of assessments. Revisions in the scale methodology would not resolve the United Nations’ financial crisis. He called on all Members, except those suffering extreme economic distress, to honour their Charter obligations.

LESLIE CHRISTIAN (Ghana) said he accepted the recommendation of the Contributions Committee that future scales should be based on estimates of GNP –- a superior concept to gross domestic product (GDP). Ghana had consistently maintained that the length of the base period should reflect changes in the pace of economic development of Member States, and ensure stability. For this reason, he was in favour of a base period of six years, which also offered a compromise between those who wanted shorter or longer periods.

He supported the use of market exchange rates for conversion, and insisted on the retention of the debt-burden adjustment in compiling the scale. His delegation had consistently argued that the socio-economic development of many developing States had been adversely affected by their heavy debt burden, which –- to a large extent -– affected their capacity to pay.

He said the problem of discontinuity experienced by countries moving up through the low per capita income threshold between scale periods and Members just above the threshold had to be addressed to provide remedial measures for those affected and to ensure equity. Ghana, too, accepted the need for sympathetic consideration of requests from Member States that had genuine economic difficulties and were thus unable to meet their commitments to the United Nations. It should be possible for the Contributions Committee to deliberate on such requests in a timely manner.

VOLODYMYR YEL’CHENKO (Ukraine) said working constructively towards consensus on the scale would lay solid foundations for further modernization of the methodological elements of the scale, to make it more transparent, equitable, reliable and reflective of capacity to pay. A number of complex problems persisted, and must be settled, and he believed the Contributions Committee could make concrete recommendations which would assist the Fifth Committee.

Ukraine agreed that GNP should be used as a base, he said. Ukraine had been over-assessed due to a long base for the scale, and had supported a three-year base, but he could support a six-year base in conjunction with its annual recalculation. The Fifth Committee must give clear guidance on the recalculation.

He supported the study of the effects of currency conversion rates and thought the feasibility of the use of price-adjusted conversion rates where market rates caused distortions should be examined. The debt-burden adjustment should be based on the actual principal repayments, and he would support a reduction of the gradient of the low per capita income adjustment for the next scale. The Committee on Contributions should address the discontinuity issue related to the low per capita adjustment as a matter of priority. He also supported the establishment of a floor rate of 0.001 per cent and a ceiling rate for least developed countries of 0.01 per cent.

He also proposed the inclusions of a new element to avoid excessive disproportion between rates of assessment and proportion of global GNP, he said.

Ukraine remained committed to its financial obligations to the Organization, and had paid its regular budget arrears, he said. It was working to pay off its peacekeeping arrears. However, it could not pay all those arrears at once for economic reasons, as it had accumulated the bulk of its debt due to a previous over-assessment of its capacity to pay. He hoped that the Assembly would adopt a special decision transferring the relevant part of Ukraine’s arrears to the special account, and would approach the Fifth Committee with proposals in that regard.

The proposals for tightening the application of Article 19 should not be brought into effect until at least 2001, he said. No action should be taken until the Committee on Contributions had examined the technical consequences of changes.

MISHECK MUCHETWA (Zimbabwe) appealed to all Member States to respond seriously to the National Accounts Questionnaire, since that was the basic means by which the Committee on Contributions gained data on capacity to pay. That Committee should be allowed to exercise its expertise. While recognizing the political nature of current proposals, he drew attention to the original terms of reference of the Contributions Committee, which stated that the ceiling should not seriously obscure the relationship between assessments and capacity to pay. It was critical that the debt-burden adjustment be maintained in the scale.

The idea of annual recalculation of the scale might turn out to be disruptive and lead to a situation where the scale became the sole agenda item and preoccupation of the Fifth Committee, he said. Market exchange rates should be used for the purpose of assessment calculation, but the Contributions Committee might wish to establish parameters for isolating exceptional circumstances.

His country was unhappy with the way some exemptions to Article 19 sanctions had been handled at the Assembly’s fifty-third session, and hoped that the Assembly would consider all future cases on the basis of appropriate advice from the Committee on Contributions.

CARLOS POZZO-BOACHO (Venezuela) said that the scale methodology had to be transparent and reliable in each of its various components, and that the operation of the criterion of capacity to pay should reflect as closely as possible the economic reality facing each Member State. It would be impractical to arrive at a new scale every year. Such a course would not encourage timely payment and could possibly lead to even longer delays; any attempt to do so might also create uncertainty within Member States. Reviews of the scale had to be carried out on a time scale that would not impose additional burdens on developing countries.

On the question of the base period, Venezuela had always favoured an interval that most closely reflected the economic reality of Member States, he said. The question of stability was secondary to the real economic situation of Member States. It was essential to avoid situations in which economies in difficulty subsidized better off economies for the length of the base period.

MARILYN ZONICLE (Bahamas) said it was a truism that no law could be broken with impunity, even though the penalty might not, in every case, be immediate. The law of the United Nations scale of assessments for the apportionment of its expenses was prescribed in the Charter, namely: willingness and ability to pay. There was a danger that the scale methodology could become unnecessarily complicated and politicized and Member States unfairly disadvantaged.

If the laws and regulations of the scale were fully respected, refinements to it -– whether as sanctions or incentives -– would be the exception rather than the rule, and limited to objective considerations of equity such as the assessment of non-Member States, she said. She concluded by recalling an affirmation made during the period of reflection on the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations, that if the United Nations did not exist, it would have to be created. Given the umbilical link between assessed contributions and the scale, she asked whether Members could accept the challenge of making the scale the barometer of the true relevance that the United Nations has for Member States.

DAVID ETUKET, Chairman of the Committee on Contributions, said Syria had raised the question of the rise in its assessments. Syria had benefited from the scheme of limits on the scale. After the General Assembly had decided to phase out the scheme of limits from 1998 to 2000, it was inevitable that the assessments for Syria, and other countries that were benefiting, would increase.

He had taken note of Member States’ disappointment and concern expressed about the Contributions Committee’s inability to make concrete recommendations of all methodological elements. The Contributions Committee shared that disappointment, but the diversity of opinion expressed in the Fifth Committee discussions underlined the difficulties involved.

He had listened to Member States’ comments in the Fifth Committee, he said, and noted that there was broad agreement on the need for a reaffirmation of capacity to pay as the basic principle of the scale, but it was also evident that what was at issue was the constitution of capacity to pay. It might therefore be necessary for the Committee to agree on an unambiguous understanding of the concept as that was critical to the methodology.

He stressed the importance of the Fifth Committee recommending a clear set of parameters to the Committee on Contributions. It was also necessary that a decision on elements of the next scale be arrived at before the main part of the fifty-fourth General Assembly ended, because of the long processes involved in meetings of the Contributions Committee in a scale year.

Regarding Article 19, he assured Member States that the Contributions Committee took its responsibilities seriously. On tightening the application of that Article, the Contributions Committee looked forward to Assembly guidance on further work it should undertake on that matter.

He suggested a possible way forward in the Fifth Committee’s ensuing negotiations might be for it to consider taking the areas where the Committee on Contributions had agreed as a starting point and therefore put priority on the areas that the Contributions Committee had been unable to agree on. Some of those issues transcended technical considerations and therefore required Fifth Committee consideration.

Statements on Pattern on Conferences

CHRISTOPHER BURTON (Canada), speaking also on behalf of Australia and New Zealand, said he hoped the Fifth Committee would adopt recommendations that would improve service delivery and looked forward to a short resolution on the item. He looked forward to the outcome of the consultations of the Committee on Conferences with those bodies that had not achieved their benchmark of use of conference services.

It was important to concentrate on whether responsibilities were being fulfilled, not how they were fulfilled, he said. The subject of pattern of conferences would provide the Fifth Committee with opportunities for overly specific responses on means rather than ends. Such opportunities should be resisted, as they would add to the over-administration the Secretary-General had referred to in his recent speech to the Fifth Committee. It should concentrate on whether meetings were being serviced with high-quality interpretation, rather than how they were being serviced. If that principle was taken to heart, the Fifth Committee’s consideration of the item would be efficient and productive and would be concluded as quickly as possible.

Mr. LOZINSKY (Russian Federation) said he was satisfied that the general factor on using conference servicing resources in the main offices had increased in 1998, and he hoped that as a result of the Secretariat’s activity this year the factor would be further improved. His delegation supported the recommendations of the Committee in that respect.

The problem of the late issue of documentation was still a matter of concern, he said. The necessity of coming up with concrete measures to solve what had become a chronic problem was clear, but he was extremely reluctant to consider abolishing the six-week rule. On the reduction of the volume of documentation and all other measures relating to a more efficient conference servicing, he said his delegation had always insisted and would continue to insist that any steps in that direction be taken without detriment to the principle of equality of languages of the Organization.

ERNESTO HERRERA (Mexico), speaking on behalf of the Rio Group, said he was gratified that the overall use of conference services had risen in 1998. However, he encouraged the Chairman of the Committee on Conferences to hold meetings with the heads of bodies that had under-utilized their resources. It was also a source of gratification that 83 per cent of requests for interpretation had been met and 100 per cent of requests for meetings.

The Rio Group recognized that there had to be a certain degree of flexibility when it came to requesting documents at short notice, but it was concerned at the continuing problem of late issue, he said. The Group was also concerned over the level of self-revision of translations. It welcomed the use of new technology, but such technology had to be thoroughly tested.

Mr. CHRISTIAN (Ghana) said he understood the Conferences Committee had consulted with bodies that used less than their benchmarks for conference services, and he urged the Committee to come up with workable solutions to address the problems that arose from this.

The equitable treatment of all six official United Nations languages, including on web sites, must be a priority, and the Secretariat should indicate the full costs of achieving this, he said. Despite assurances to the contrary, problems still existed in Vienna with the Optical Disk System and long delays were experienced. He appreciated Secretariat efforts to resolve the problems and was aware that a feasibility study was being undertaken. Factors that caused delays in the availability of documents must be minimized, and overhauling the whole Optical Disk System would guarantee access to documents for its increasing number of users.

Late issuance of documents continued to plague the Organization, he said. The advantages to timely issuance were evident and should prompt all to endeavour to meet deadlines and conform to the six-week rule.

Some reported overall improvement in the rate of use of Nairobi conference facilities was encouraging, he said; however overall rates were still low and he encouraged the Committee on Conferences to hold a session there. The Secretary- General’s analysis of the cost problems related to establishing a permanent translating service in Nairobi poured cold water on an idea that would have been of benefit to the African region. He should reconsider the matter based on the extra income that would accrue from extra-budgetary or non-United Nations meetings that could be held there

ABDELSALAM MEDINA (Morocco) said dependence on technology might appear attractive because it reduces costs and ensures better use of resources. But Morocco believed that this should be approached cautiously and every element thoroughly researched. The use of the technology associated with remote interpretation had been investigated. Morocco supported the use of remote interpretation, but it could not be used to reduce language service staff.

The question of late issuance of documents continued, he said. The problem was largely the low use of conference services. Another concern was career development for language staff. His delegation believed that the lack of prospects in this area meant the best staff left the Organization. Staff would remain only if they began to feel the Organization offered better prospects. Morocco was also concerned about continuing problems with the Optical Disk System and about some issues centred on competitive examinations for Arabic interpreters.

DULCE BUERGO RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) informed the Committee that a Cuban musical group would present a demonstration of its music later this week.

PETER VAN DE VELDE, Chairman of the Committee on Conferences, said he would offer whatever help the Fifth Committee members needed to assist them to reach a consensus decision on the matters before them. He had taken note of the interest in his consultations with bodies that had not used up their conference services quota and he would follow up on this.

YONGJIANG JIN, Under-Secretary-General for General Assembly Affairs and Conference Services, thanked Member States for their support. His Department had worked hard to attain its goal of improved quality of services and would continue to do so. Its motto for the future would be “much more to do”. Responding to questions raised previously by the representative of Guyana on behalf of the Group of 77, he said that some departments had not yet responded to Assembly decisions concerning the inclusion of summaries in their reports and that bold print be used for those summaries, in some cases for good reasons. However he had not thought it wise to delay the release of documents on that basis.

Regarding explanatory footnotes about late submission, he was submitting examples to departments. He assured Member States that documents were produced in all official languages wherever that was required. His Department would continue to provide all possible assistance to the Fifth Committee in its consideration of the pattern of conference.

Mr. MEDINA (Morocco) said that, regarding the competitive examination for Arabic interpreters, Morocco found that the candidates had either French or English along with Arabic. That practice had been respected to date, and equal treatment of those two languages must continue. An examination that included knowledge of both languages should be scheduled for a later date.

ELIAS LAHDESMAKI (Finland) spoke for the European Union, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Cyprus, Malta and Iceland. The Unit should set an example for the rest of the United Nations system in organizing its own work and its use of resources efficiently. It had a role to play in efforts to reorganize and revitalize the United Nations leadership, structures and performance, thus enabling the Organization to better respond to an increasingly dynamic and complex world.

Turning to the Unit’s programme of work, he said it should define its objectives and areas of activity in a results-oriented way, taking into full account the resources available as well as the work and mandates of other oversight mechanisms. It should aim to achieve clear goals in a measurable way.

Regarding the outline of the programme of work for the year 2000, the Union would like more detail on the reasons why the Unit had prepared to review the management and administration in the World Health Organization (WHO), he said. A report on support costs on programmes and activities financed from extrabudgetary resources would be useful. In it, the terms of resolution 52/220 should be taken into account. The Unit proposed a study on the practice of the donors’ conditions attached to special-purchase contributions. It would be valuable to have more information about the methodology planned for such a far-reaching study, and what data and information would be used. Further, the Union did not consider urgent the need for a proposed study on planning, programming, budgeting, monitoring and evaluation procedures in the United Nations system. The Assembly had just revised the related regulations and rules; it would be useful to have a follow-up to those reforms in three to five years time. TRYGGVE GJESDAL (Norway) said that the JIU Chairman had drawn attention to the Unit’s staff requirements, and recalled that staffing had remained unchanged since the JIU had been established on an experimental basis in 1966. In Norway’s opinion, the Unit had operated on a shoestring budget, particularly with regard to research staff. The limited travel budget for Inspectors restricted the scope of the Unit’s work programme outside Geneva and New York.

In light of the JIU’s system-wide mandate, the increased emphasis on oversight and the improvements in the Unit’s functioning in recent years, Norway would support a budget increase to allow for more research staff for the Unit, he continued. Given the pivotal importance of research, the Unit should enjoy independence in its choice of staff. The budget should allow the Unit to resume its evaluation activity, which had been discontinued following unfavorable comments by the Advisory Committee in the early 1990s.

The number of reports listed for the coming year, nine in all, were in excess of what could be meaningfully undertaken by the JIU in the course of a year, he said. The potential impact of the Unit’s recommendations depended on their relevance and follow-up. Ultimately, the effectiveness of the Unit depended on the General Assembly providing it with necessary support and guidance. Finally, it was up to Member States to turn the JIU’s recommendations into decisions.

PENNY WENSLEY (Australia), Committee Chairman, informed the Committee that, for technical reasons, she was adjourning the current meeting and calling to order the Committee’s twelfth meeting.

Statements on JIU

FIKRET DEMIR (Turkey) noted that effective leadership could not and should not be imposed, but be derived from the collective wisdom of the Inspectors themselves. Working relations between different oversight bodies were very important for the Organization; lack of communication could lead to overlapping effort and even competition. He noted with satisfaction that the JIU had maintained good communication with other oversight bodies.

DJAMEL MOKTEFI (Algeria) express his fullest support for the JIU as an oversight body designed to enhance the working of the United Nations. Algeria shared the report’s views on ways to enhance the workings of the Unit, and noted that the staffing of the JIU had remained unchanged for several years. It welcomed the close working relations between the JIU and the Board of Auditors and indeed the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ), thus avoiding overlap and other problems in their work. Algeria singled out staff retention as a major concern to Member States.

Ms. BUERGO RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said that less than a week ago the Fifth Committee had approved a draft resolution on the work of the JIU, stating appreciation for its work. Given that, she wished to highlight one matter that must be followed up, and that was the matter of follow-up on the Unit’s reports and recommendations. It would be useful if information on follow-up could be received before the Assembly’s scheduled review due in 2000-2001.

LOUIS DOMINIQUE OUEDRAOGO, Chairman of the JIU, said that participants in the Princeton seminar mentioned by the representative of Bangladesh yesterday had been invited in their personal capacity. He was concerned that if the General Assembly elected a super inspector at a higher level, this would entail changes to the way the Unit operated and its shared leadership approach and also a revision of the statute.

The current page limit for reports was 32 pages, he said. It was not always easy to achieve this, especially for system-wide reports. If, as suggested, additional comments on responses by executive heads were included, that would undoubtedly increase the number of pages and would probably lead to agencies requesting that their individual comments be reflected in the consolidated report of the Administrative Committee on Coordination (ACC).

He said he shared the United States’ view that oversight bodies did not get the recognition or attention they deserved. Responding to the United States’ question about the number of notes and confidential letters the Unit had issued in the period covered by the 1998 report, no notes or letter had been produced. It was the JIU’s intention to make more use of notes and confidential letters, and three notes and one confidential letter had been issued this year. Several more were expected before the end of the year.

He certainly hoped the recommendations of the Unit contributed to the improved management and use of resources by the United Nations system, but felt that the question could be better answered by the relevant secretariats. Added value could only be measured on implementation and, therefore, ultimately depended on the organizations themselves.

Comparing 1998 outputs with previous productivity, he said that in 1994- 1995, 14 reports had been issued. In 1995-1996, there had been 10, and in 1996- 1997, there had been eight reports. There was an obvious difference in productivity, and the Unit was seriously committed to resolving it.

Most reports were system wide and must account for all participating views, he said. The process was often time-consuming. While the Unit was making increasing use of information technology, travel remained an important tool, and that must be used selectively given resource limitations. Additionally, the drafters of the Unit’s statute were experts on constructive ambiguity and had created a situation that was confusing about whether reports were an individual or a collective responsibility, which begged the question of what to do when conclusions were not shared. All reports produced by any inspector were currently considered reports of the Unit as a whole.

Unprecedented staff movement in the period had also caused problems, he said. Despite the problems, the JIU must improve its performance and would. The 1999 report would show the progress achieved.

To the question of whether approval of the follow-up system would render the Secretary-General’s report unwarranted, he explained that the Secretary-General was called upon to report on implemented recommendations by the United Nations itself, and the Unit was to report on recommendations not implemented across the system. Thus, the reports would be complimentary.

The representative of Norway had asked if the JIU had reviewed the management structure of the World Health Organization (WHO), he said. This year, it had reported on its review of the management of the International Labour Organization (ILO). It was considering individual organizations’ management in an effort to be as relevant as possible to individual organizations, despite the usual system-wide nature of its reports.

The ILO report was timely given the changes it was undergoing, he said. The new management would have a tool addressing issues that applied before they took control. It was useful also to look at reforms as they were implemented, as it was a way to verify whether those reforms were on track or not. If the report could happen next year, it would be useful and timely for the new WHO management.

On other programme of work items, it was his intention to take the views of governing bodies on priorities into account, he said. Precedence would be given to specific requests by different governing bodies.

Algeria had asked about the state of advancement of the commentary by the ACC on the JIU’s reports, he said. That was not yet ready, and he had been informed that the Administrative Committee had given 15 October as its deadline for comments. Its secretariat then planned to consolidate those comments for a consolidated report.

ALIDA FERRENA MAHMUD, Department of Management, said the question had been posed as to the rationale for selecting those reports of the JIU in the Secretary- General’s report (document A/54/233). In a report submitted to the Assembly’s fiftieth session (document A/50/34), the Unit had outlined the reporting practice that had prevailed for several years. Paragraph 85 of that document explained that a practice had been established that every year the Unit would indicate four of its reports, issued three or four years earlier, to the Secretary-General for follow-up and provide brief comments.

The Secretariat had tried to follow that practice, but it had proved unsatisfactory to all parties. In that same report, the Unit had said so. The lack of objective criteria for selection made the practice restrictive and non- operational. The report listed the reasons the practice was unsatisfactory and concluded that the JIU had decided to discontinue the practice because all its recommendations approved by the Assembly must be subjected to follow-up.

The Assembly had then endorsed that recommendations in resolution 50/233, she continued. To comply with that resolution, which stipulated that all JIU recommendations approved by the Assembly be subject to follow-up, the Secretariat had decided to include in the report of the Secretary-General all the outstanding recommendations that had not been followed up and report on the status of implementation.

THOMAS A. Repasch (United States) said he appreciated the candor in the response on the reasons for the difference in productivity, and the JIU Chairman’s commitment to addressing the situation. But the bottom line was that the quality of the reports was going down, and productivity was declining. One could list all the reasons in the world, but the real issue was what would be done to address the situation.

Regarding the Secretary-General’s report on implementation of recommendations, he said there appeared to be a problem. A report was being produced that was not helpful; it was neither comprehensive nor transparent. That should be pursued further in informal consultations.

Action on Draft Text Related to Procurement Reform

The Committee turned to the item of review of efficiency, taking up the draft resolution on the subject.

AMJAD HUSSAIN B. SIAL (Pakistan), Committee Vice-Chairman and coordinator of the informal consultations, introduced the draft. The item had been politically sensitive and complex, so the Committee had taken almost one year to reach consensus. In addition to the spirit of cooperation that had prevailed in the consultations, the consensus had been possible due to the work of the Procurement Division to implement reforms. The draft had 100 paragraphs in the fifty-third session; now it had only 38. As the draft enjoyed consensus in informal consultations, it should be adopted the same way.

By the terms of the draft resolution on procurement reform (document A/C.5/54/L.8), the Assembly would recognize the improvements in procurement made by the Secretary-General, note that some of its decisions on the issue had not been fully implemented, and stress the need for procurement to be open, impartial, transparent and cost-efficient. It would welcome the publication of the Procurement Manual and ask the Secretary-General to update it as appropriate and include step-by-step guidance for field procurement procedures.

By other terms, the Assembly would ask the Secretary-General to ensure that electronic bids were not compromised, to continue efforts to ensure wider participation of suppliers from all Member States, and to improve competitive bidding procedures to ensure all vendors had reasonable time to bid. It would ask him to consider ways to increase the transparency of decisions, including possibly reviving reading decisive elements at public bid openings, and also to enhance and expedite the procurement process and improve communication with suppliers. It would also endorse ACABQ observations on ensuring specifications are not tailored to predetermine the choice of supplier. It would also welcome increased use of electronic means to disseminate procurement information.

It would note efforts to establish a common supplier database for the United Nations system, which would include supplier performance evaluations, regret that the roster was still not representative of all Member States, and repeat its request for efforts to broaden its geographic base. It would ask the Secretary- General to improve the supplier registration process, to send invitations to bid to the widest possible number of vendors, and to explore, and report on, prospects for a harmonized system of classification of goods.

The Assembly would encourage improvements in procurement planning, and encourage him to make such plans public. It would note with concern the ACABQ observation that the definition of exigency was still too broad to be useful, and urge the Secretary-General to submit a report to the fifty-fourth Assembly session, via the ACABQ, on a sharper definition of exigency.

It would note with appreciation the Secretary-General’s acknowledgement that developing and transition country vendor opportunities must be increased, and ask him to include information on procurement from those countries in his next report. It would repeat its requests that he ensure all tender invitations are posted on the Procurement Division Web site when prepared, that invitations should be sent to all permanent missions, United Nations Information Centres and other non- Headquarters offices, and that staff from the Procurement Division visit developing countries and those with economies in transition to identify potential vendors -– noting that only four previous visits had been to developing States and none were to those with economies in transition.

By other terms, it would ask the Secretary-General to facilitate identification of vendors from these two categories of States through information dissemination and organization of seminars, ask him to direct field offices to encourage applications from local vendors, and encourage mission procurement within the mission region.

It would reaffirm its request that he examine ways to increase procurement from developing and African countries and those with economies in transition, including preferential-treatment options employed by funds and programme from the system, and include his findings in his next report. He would be asked to report separately on his efforts to improve procurement from these States to the Assembly’s next session. It would also ask for a report on paying due attention to offers submitted by developing and economy-in-transition States’ vendors without prejudice to the Organization’s financial rules and regulations.

It would regret that its previous request for proposals for changes to those rules and regulations to address possible conflicts on interest had not been answered, and ask that it be answered no later than the fifty-fourth Assembly session. It would also ask for proposals to improve the system of payment to suppliers.

By other terms, it would ask the Secretary-General to report on a comprehensive system to ensure the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of procurement, reflecting on system-wide best practice, and to address the recommendations of the Board of Auditors. It would ask him to develop a standard formula for future reports, and ask that the Assembly’s rules on report formats be followed by both the Secretary-General and the ACABQ on this issue. It would also ask the Secretary-General to indicate on what basis country of procurement was determined and how this methodology compared with recognized international practice.

The representative of Finland, speaking for the European Union, said there seemed to be different interpretations on the consensus achieved. He proposed a suspension of the agenda item to enable further consideration in informal negotiations in order to reach a solid consensus.

The representative of Guyana, speaking for the “Group of 77” developing countries and China, said the text as a whole with captions enclosed had been accepted without objection by the delegations during deliberations. No delegation at any stage had posed objections. The Committee had not decided to delete any provisions. The text had been approved there, all delegations should exhibit the good will they had pledged during consultations.

The representative of Algeria said his delegation supported the statement made for the Group of 77 and China. The request put forward by the Union had been a surprise. The text had been approved. The process could not have been more clear, and no delegation had even remotely raised an objection. The text had been completed during informals. What was behind the request? he asked.

The representative of Canada supported the request made by the Union. In informal consultations, when the text had been adopted ad referendum, the paragraphs had been adopted, but the headings had not. When they had originally been introduced by the Australian delegate during the fifty-third session, it had then been agreed that, at the end of the process, the headings would be considered. They had been put there then only to facilitate negotiations. In the heat of the moment on Monday, when the draft had been agreed upon at a late hour, the headings had not been examined.

Also, during negotiations earlier this year, there had been the intention to return to some of the paragraphs that had been originally adopted, to modify them in light of the developments that had occurred between the original adoption in the informals and what had been implemented by the Procurement Division. That seemed to have fallen by the wayside when the text was agreed to on Monday. However, he would not insist on that point.

The representative of the United States also asked that informal discussions be continued. He hoped the misunderstanding could be resolved speedily so a consensus resolution could be approved quickly.

The representative of Uganda said when people were asked to coordinate agenda items they must report fully and honestly. The coordinator of the current item had done this. He had reported precisely on what had taken place, and the draft had been approved in consensus. Sometimes concessions made were regretted later, but that did not mean the issues should be reopened. The coordinator of the informal consultations had asked if the entire resolution was approved by the Committee members, and nobody had objected or called for the headings to be deleted. That was the spirit in which the informal consultations had concluded. Reopening informal consultations would set a precedent for the Committee.

The representative of China said the draft had been agreed to and the subheadings were only there to facilitate the reading of the draft. Reopening the draft would only set a bad precedent.

The representative of Algeria said Canada’s representative had responded in place of the European Union as to the reasons for their request. The headings had been adopted in the informal consultations, and no one had objected. The coordinator had assumed the responsibility of presenting the text to the Committee and was in the best position to say how the process had unfolded. There were procedures that had to be taken before draft resolutions were printed and prepared for formal approval. They had obviously transpired and many people had been involved.

In any negotiating process, there were always risks of haste and lack of vigilance, he said, and responsibility must be assumed if errors resulted. In informal consultations, the entire draft could be reopened. Certain delegations had problems with section 8 of the draft, headed “preferential treatment”. It was only a point of reference in the structure of the text, and the content had no reference to the principle of preferential treatment. He appealed for a decision not to reopen the issue.

The representative of Mexico said he well recalled the context in which the confusion had arisen, and it was never clear whether the headings would be eliminated or not. He had thought the headings would go by the boards. The headings added nothing to the paragraphs. However, he did not understand the problems of either side of the debate. Mexico was flexible on the matter.

The representative of Côte d’Ivoire said he was dismayed by the challenging of the draft through the European Union’s request. All delegations had accepted the draft, so he wondered why there had been a sudden change. He urged all Member States to accept the draft. Headings had no legal force.

The representative of Cuba said she had been following the discussion that ensued after the Union’s proposals. She thought the Committee had gone through the negotiations on this issue, so she was surprised by the questions now. Negotiations over procedure in the Committee were becoming ever more complicated. It should think about the ways it had been working. She would have been delighted to be able to work through the issues held over from the fifty-third session before commencing on the issues of the fifty-fourth session. All Member States were, of course, entitled to voice concerns at any time before a decision was taken, but reopening the informal consultations would add to the delay.

The representative of Egypt supported the intervention made for the Group of 77 and China.

The representative of Norway said her delegation had no problem with the text, but it was not helpful to try to solve the problem from the floor. Therefore, she supported the request made by the Union to suspend the meeting and try to solve the problem in a friendly manner.

Mr. SIAL (Pakistan) coordinator for the item, said he had carefully listened to delegates’ remarks. It was unfortunate that a delegation had questioned the coordinator’s credibility. All parties had worked in good faith. Canada’s representative had summarized the situation well. The delegation that raised the objection had forgotten to do so when the text was adopted as a whole during informal consultations. He deeply regretted the remarks made by the representative of Finland for the European Union. He proposed a five-minute suspension to see if the matter could be resolved quickly.

Ms. WENSLEY (Australia), Fifth Committee Chairman, said it would not be a good idea to return to informals. It seemed there was the beginning of a sense of disappointment in the Committee. A brief suspension could be helpful. There was need to be careful about drawing conclusions on issues of credibility; as the representative of Mexico had said, confusion had arisen. Delegates had worked hard to reach agreement on Monday, and the draft resolution had only appeared in print this morning.

She then suspended the meeting for 10 minutes.

When the meeting resumed, the Chairman, Ms. WENSLEY (Australia), said she wanted to have the resolution adopted as soon as possible, and she understood there was major sensitivity about reopening hard-won drafts. The key issue that was troubling the European Union was the heading “preferential treatment”. She proposed an amendment changing that heading to “the question of preferential treatment”. Acceptance of that proposal would require some generosity on the part of other Member States.

The representative of Guyana, speaking on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, said the Group was concerned at what had happened, but it would demonstrate goodwill and generosity in the search for consensus, and would, therefore, accept the proposal.

The representative of Finland, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the misunderstanding on the issue had been honest. He thanked the Group of 77 for its generosity and said he had the utmost respect for the coordinator of the informal consultations. The Union would accept the draft resolution with the proposed amendment.

The draft resolution, as orally amended, was adopted without a vote.

The representative of Mexico, speaking in explanation of position on behalf of the Rio Group, thanked all concerned in reaching consensus on the draft resolution. The negotiating process on this matter had begun in 1998, and at that time he had been sceptical of a positive outcome.

However, the text approved would render procurement more transparent, he said. Now, machinery existed to guarantee that all suppliers would be invited to bid, and feedback from the Procurement Division had improved -- both elements that would build trust. The cooperation would endure. He encouraged the Procurement Division to continue to explore improvements. There was a long way to go with procurement reform. The Secretariat was willing to overcome shortcomings and resistance to change. Mexico and the Rio Group would continue to support the issue.

Speaking on behalf of the European Union, the representative of Finland also thanked those concerned, including the Procurement Division. The text approved made clear that the Division should continue its good work, and he encouraged further progress in that regard. He regretted that the consensus was not based on the long-standing Union proposal to restrict procurement from certain areas, and said the Union would pursue its aims in this area under other agenda items.

The representative of the Philippines, speaking on behalf of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), thanked the coordinators and the Procurement Division management. She particularly applauded the Division’s efforts in approving its Web site, which made information more widely available. More needed to be done, especially in broadening the geographic base of suppliers. She encouraged the Procurement Division to do all within its power to broaden that base. She looked forward to the next report, and hoped that it would note achievements and difficulties in implementing the text.

The representative of Cuba said she wanted to highlight the expectation that the Secretariat would be able to translate into reality the suggestions on preferential treatment for developing countries. She also emphasized that it was a matter of principle to operate with a sense of professionalism and trust. It appeared that, in the light of the situations that had arisen, the Committee would have to take a fresh look at the way it did its job. The events of the day had opened a new precedent, one about which all delegates would have to think.

The representative of Thailand welcomed the actions taken so far to enhance effectiveness and transparency. Thailand noted the ACABQ's finding that a substantial number of issues had been addressed. The draft resolution just approved would contribute to this process.

The representative of Algeria said the Secretariat should redouble its efforts to respond to the expectations of the developing countries on preferential treatment. While he had a difficulty with one of the words in the text, he was willing to go along with the consensus.

The representative of Canada congratulated the coordinator. Since beginning discussions of this item in March, there had been a number of positive developments in the operation of the Procurement Division. He praised the Division’s actions. The new team, led by Assistant Secretary-General Toshiyuki Niwa, had taken crucial steps to improve competition and transparency of the process. He was particularly pleased that all suppliers were now invited to bid. However, what was most welcome was the initiative shown by the Division. It had not waited for detailed instructions, but had identified solutions to matters raised in the Committee’s informal consultations that were within its prerogative and had taken appropriate action.

The representative of the United States said he was pleased at the consensus and thanked the Group of 77. The draft encouraged openness, transparency and competitiveness in procurement. He was deeply satisfied with improvements that had taken place in the Procurement Division, and encouraged their continuance.

The Assistant Secretary-General for Central Support Services, TOSHIYUKI NIWA, said he was pleased to note that many requirements of the draft resolution that had just been approved had already been acted upon. Those included matters that were covered in the information paper from the Division that had been presented to the Member States before the start of the session.

The Secretariat was committed to procurement reform and had taken significant steps, he said. The challenge was to sustain the progress, and he was confident it could do so with Member State support.

Development Account

The Committee then turned its attention to the modalities for operating the Development Account.

The Chairman, Ms. WENSLEY (Australia), advised that, following a draft resolution that had been introduced last week by the Group of 77 and China on this issue, further consultations were called for.

NESTER ODAGA-JALOMAYO (Uganda), the coordinator of the informal consultations on this issue, said that since the delay Member States had shown great flexibility, and much progress had been made. The current draft was almost a consensus text, with one exception -- a three-letter word. This was the reference to “all” savings being transferred to the Development Account in operative paragraph 5. He asked for a 15-minute suspension to seek consensus.

The CHAIRMAN then advised that before such a suspension could take place, action must be taken officially on the previous draft proposed.

The representative of Guyana, speaking on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, said that, in the spirit of the search for consensus, he would like the previous draft he had introduced to be held in abeyance pending approval of the later draft.

The meeting was then suspended.

When the meeting resumed, the CHAIRMAN said the consultations conducted during the suspension had not produced a consensus. She, therefore, declared the meeting adjourned.

* *** *