Resumed Fifty-fifth General Assembly

Fifth Committee

52^nd Meeting (AM)

ADMINISTRATIVE AND BUDGETARY COMMITTEE BEGINS DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES

TO CURRENT ARREARS CALCULATION UNDER CHARTER’S ARTICLE 19

Also Takes Up Reports on Oversight Mechanisms,

United Nations Fund for International Partnerships

The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) this morning took up three items:  the method of calculating arrears in Member States’ payments under Article 19 of the United Nations Charter; the United Nations Fund for International Partnerships (UNFIP); and enhancing oversight mechanisms in United Nations funds and programmes.

Concerning Article 19, the Committee had before it a Secretary-General’s report, requested by the General Assembly last year, which reviews several aspects of the calculation of Member States arrears under the Article and offers several alternative definitions or interpretations.  The Article reads, in part, that a Member State in arrears in the payment of its financial contributions shall have no vote in the General Assembly if the amount of its arrears equals or exceeds the amount of its contributions due from it for the preceding two full years.  The alternatives focus, in particular, on the interpretation of “arrears” and “contributions due for the preceding two full years”, as well as the distinction between “gross” and “net” amounts in their determination.

Speakers recognized the importance of the mechanism as an incentive for Member States to meet their Charter obligations.  While most speakers agreed that the payment of assessed contributions in full, on time and without conditions was a prerequisite for putting United Nations finances on a sound and sustainable footing, several delegates questioned the usefulness of the proposed changes, saying that they could harm a significant number of Member States.

Speaking on behalf of the Rio Group, the representative of Chile said that utilization of the methodology proposed in the report meant an increase of some  $9 million in the amount of minimum payments necessary for Member States to avoid application of Article 19.  Although its adoption could raise the number of countries subject to sanctions under that Article from 33 to 48, the measure would not have any impact on the financial situation of the Organization, since it would imply a collection of less than 0.23 per cent of the total annual budget.  From the legal point of view, there was no reason for the changes in the existing system.

The representative of Venezuela said that trying to solve the Organization’s problems by changing Article 19 was like trying to save a heart patient by giving him a facelift.  First of all, it was necessary to identify the cause of the problem, which resulted from the failure of the United States to pay.  Modification of Article 19 would not change that reality.

Recognizing the concerns that the proposed measures might create additional financial burdens for some countries, the representative of the United States said that Article 19 should remain strong.  Member States from all regions had assumed additional financial responsibility as part of the compromise resolution on the scale of assessments last December, and her country’s main priority was to fulfil its end of the bargain.  While it had not yet done so, she was confident that she would soon be able to say that it had.

The representative of Sweden, on behalf of the European Union and associated States, added that Article 19 should be applied in a fair and consistent manner. The methods used in Article 19 were not directed at Member States with genuine difficulties, for which the Charter and the Committee on Contributions made full provision.

As the Committee turned to the review of the work of UNFIP, several speakers commended that body’s high-impact projects, performance monitoring and transparency in reporting and accounting.  The Fund was established in March 1998 to act as the United Nations interface with the United Nations Foundation (UNF) -- the public charity created by Ted Turner to channel his $1 billion contribution in support of the United Nations.

In that connection, the representative of Poland said that new sources of financing through the private sector and civil society were particularly welcome now that the official sources of assistance for development were shrinking.

The reports before the Committee were introduced by the Executive Director of UNFIP, Amir Dossal; Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ), Conrad S.M. Mselle; Chief of Contributions Service, Mark Gilpin; and Under-Secretary-General for Internal Oversight Services, Dileep Nair.

Also speaking this morning were the representatives of Syria, Iran (on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China), Australia (also on behalf of Canada and New Zealand), Israel, Sudan, Japan, Bahamas and Iraq.

The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. Wednesday, 28 March, when it is expected to continue its consideration of the Office of Internal Oversight Services activities.

Background

The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) met this morning to begin its consideration of the work of the United Nations Fund for International Partnerships (UNFIP), the application of Article 19 of the Charter, and the oversight in operations funds and programmes.

Under its agenda item on the programme budget for the biennium 2000-2001, the Committee had before it a report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Fund for International Partnerships (UNFIP) (documents A/55/763 and Corr.1), which provides data regarding the outcome of the three funding cycles for the current year of operations, as well as information on progress in each programmatic focus area.  The report supplements the information contained in the previous reports of the Secretary-General.

The Fund was established in March 1998 to act as the United Nations interface with the United Nations Foundation (UNF) -- the public charity created by Ted Turner to channel his $1 billion contribution in support of the United Nations. The main responsibilities of UNFIP include development of programme frameworks and identification of innovative, high-impact projects within the United Nations system.  The UNFIP solicits project proposals from United Nations bodies around the world, encouraging collaboration among United Nations entities and between the United Nations and civil society.

The Secretary-General notes that a total of some $75 million has been programmed for the Fund for the year 2000.  The majority of grants, totalling

$43 million, were awarded for projects concerning population and women, while a total of $6 million was approved for projects relating to children’s health,

$17 million for projects for the environment, and $9 million for projects in the areas of peace, security and human rights and institutional capacity-building.  Since the partnership between UNFIP and the UNF was launched in 1998, a total of $312 million had been programmed as at the end of 2000.

The Committee also had before it a report of the Secretary-General on the Fund for 1998-1999 (document A/54/664).  The Secretary-General provides data regarding the outcome of two funding cycles, as well as progress of the Programme Framework Groups on children’s health, population and women and the environment.   A total of some $108 million had been programmed for the year.  The majority of grants (about $59 million) were awarded for projects concerning children’s health.  Over $15 million was approved for projects related to population and women;

$25 million for projects for the environment, and $8 million for projects in the humanitarian and related areas. 

The report also says that during the course of 1999, the UNFIP secretariat has played a facilitating role within the United Nations system in relation to the UNF.  It has also persevered in its efforts to support the Secretary-General’s reform initiatives, especially in terms of development activities at the country level.  The Fund has also developed a solid collaboration with the Office of the United Nations Development Group, as well as with resident coordinators and the United Nations country teams.  The UNFIP will be playing a more active role in working with the United Nations Foundation in seeking additional resources in support of United Nations causes.

An addendum to the report (document A/54/664/Add.1) provides information on the progress of the Programme Framework Group on children's health.  The overarching objectives of the framework, which was launched at the beginning of 1999, are to contribute to a reduction in child mortality and to support the strengthening of public health systems.  The framework adopts three specific priorities, including support to the ongoing World Health Organization (WHO) and United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) global polio eradication initiative, preventing tobacco use, and reducing child mortality.  Four sub-priorities included in the third category are:  preventing HIV/AIDS among youth, enhancing micronutrient delivery, supporting sustainable vaccine delivery, and strengthening community knowledge about the needs of ill children.  Some $20 million will be available for children's health projects from the UNF on an annual basis.

Another addendum concerns the Programme Framework Group on population and women (document A/54/664/Add.2).  That framework, which was launched in 1999, focuses on two major areas.  The objective of the first area, adolescent girls, is to generate proposals that are cross-sectoral in nature and address factors that underlie many of the problems girls face in society.  The objective of the second area -- quality of sexual and reproductive health care -- is to generate proposals that promote the development of innovative approaches and which promote the development and use of a core set of information.  The framework expects to receive an annual contribution of some $30 million from the United Nations Foundation.

A third addendum provides information on the progress of the Programme Framework Group on biodiversity (document A/54/664/Add.3).  Biological diversity is declining globally, and there is need to increase efforts to conserve and sustainably use ecosystems and biological resources, the report states.  The biodiversity framework, which was launched in June 1999, provides support to conservation and sustainable use of natural sites designated by the 1972 World Heritage Convention of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) for their significance in terms of global biodiversity.  It also promotes the protection of coral reefs.

Through the World Heritage component of the framework, site-based project proposals will be considered when they respond to one or more objectives, which include innovative responses to major biodiversity threats, and building capacity for effective site management.  A second category of proposals are those that strengthen the network of World Heritage sites as a whole.  The coral reef component of the framework will support projects that promote strategic implementation of the Coral Reef Initiative’s Framework for Action and demonstrate linkages between community development and coral reef protection.  The UNF contribution will target a minimum of $30 million for biodiversity over the next three years.

In a related report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) (document A/55/7/Add.9), the Committee states that it has been informed that a review of the relationship agreement between the United Nations and the United Nations Foundation was being undertaken, with participation of the Comptroller and the Office of Legal Affairs.  The Advisory Committee trusts that the results of that review will be provided to the General Assembly.

The ACABQ further notes that since April 1998, eight funding rounds have taken place, three of them in 2000.  It is envisaged that two funding rounds will take place in March and November 2001, with two programme areas considered at each.  The ACABQ also notes that of the total amount of $311.8 million approved to date to cover the Fund's programme portfolio of 169 projects, $63.4 million represent contributions from other sources, including $50 million provided by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundations for polio eradication.  This puts UNF's net funding through UNFIP at $248.4 million.

The Advisory Committee also notes that the Fund's current staffing consists of seven Professionals and seven General Service staff, including a D-2-level post of Executive Director.  In its previous report on UNFIP, the ACABQ indicated its intention to review the Assistant Secretary-General level post of the Executive Director in the context of the examination of the administrative budget of the Trust Fund for 2000.  Upon review, the Advisory Committee concurred with the establishment of a D-2 Executive Director post.  In the context of its consideration of the estimates for 2001, the Committee has also agreed to the proposal that the Trust Fund should finance 18 posts (one D-2, two 2 P-5, six P-4, and nine General Service), representing an increase of four posts.

The Advisory Committee recommends that the Assembly take note of the Secretary-General's report.  Additional comments would be provided by the ACABQ in the context of considering the programme budget for 2002-2003.

Also before the Committee was the Secretary-General's report on application of Article 19 of the Charter of the United Nations (document A/55/789), in which he refers to General Assembly resolution 55/5 A of 26 October 2000.  The resolution requests him to review the implications of the calculation of assessed contributions in arrears for the application of Article 19 at the beginning of each calendar year, and at the beginning of each financial peacekeeping period on 1 July.  The Assembly decided to compare arrears with the amount actually assessed and payable for the preceding two full years for the purpose of the application of Article 19.

Three distinct methodological elements exist in the current procedures for applying Article 19, the Secretary-General states.  The first relates to the "amount of its (Member State's) arrears", the second relates to the interpretation of "the amount of contributions due from it for the preceding two full years",

and the third is the distinction between "gross" and "net" amounts in the determination of arrears and contributions due.

The report gives interpretations of "arrears" and "contributions due for the preceding two full years" under the current methodology.  In addition, it offers alternative interpretations and definitions and spells out the implications of semi-annual calculations for the application of Article 19.

Calculations for and application of Article 19 on a twice-yearly basis would tend to bring some Member States under the provisions of Article 19 sooner than the current annual exercise, the Secretary-General concludes.  Similarly, calculations based on "net to net" comparison would tend to bring some Member States under Article 19 sooner or by a larger margin than the current "gross to net" comparison.  The conclusions are consistent with those of the Committee on Contributions following its earlier review of procedures.

Noting that the Committee on Contributions will consider issues relating to the application of Article 19 at its sixty-first session in 2001, the Secretary-General recommends that the General Assembly make final decisions on Article 19 procedures, or provide guidance to the Committee in its further consideration of the matter.  The Assembly may also wish to consider a suitable revision of United Nations financial regulations, and to take note of the information on the possible biannual calculations for the application of Article 19 and the "net to net" comparison for those calculations.

The report of the Secretary-General on enhancing internal oversight (document A/55/826) is an update on the information contained in his previous report on enhancing the internal oversight mechanisms of 20 February 1997 (document A/51/801).  From June to November 2000, the Office of Internal Oversight Services conducted a survey of funds and programmes to obtain updated information on their oversight activities.  The Oversight Office has analysed responses and comments received and has modified the recommendations contained in the 1997 report.

The report states that overall internal oversight mechanisms for funds and programmes have improved, albeit to varying degrees, since the 1997 report. Improvements include intensified cooperation with the Oversight Office and new procedures for evaluation, monitoring and inspection.  Despite certain progress, gaps continue to exist in the oversight arrangements of operational funds and programmes.  Most of the funds and programmes do not have separate investigation offices, nor do they carry out investigations.

There has been no basic change in audit arrangements, except for an increase in resources allocated in certain cases.  With regard to the audit function, some of the funds and programmes (United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), UNICEF, United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), World Food Programme (WFP)) have their own separate audit units. According to the Oversight Office review, these units are functioning with sufficient operational independence.  Since the issuance of the 1997 report, the number of audit staff at the UNDP, UNICEF, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and UNRWA has increased, enabling them to improve the extent and depth of their coverage.

The recommendations contained in the report, while taking into account the views of funds and programmes, aim to strengthen coordination and information exchange on oversight matters and guarantee sufficient compensation for Oversight Office services.  The report recommends, in particular, that each fund and programme should have budgetary provisions for all aspects of internal oversight, whether carried out by the entity itself or provided by the Oversight Office.  When a new entity is created, a budget line should be established for oversight. Competent authorities would determine the responsibility and source of funding for oversight services and ways in which those services are to be provided.

The report also suggests establishing a budgetary provision for all aspects of oversight coverage for each existing entity, and creating new entities to clearly identify the source of funding for oversight.  It further recommends establishment of a mechanism to reimburse the Oversight Office fully for internal oversight services it provides to funds and programmes and of an oversight committee at each entity, with the representation of the Oversight Office, to strengthen information exchange and coordination.

Statements

AMIR DOSSAL, Executive Director of the United Nations Fund for International Partnerships (UNFIP), introduced the reports on that body (documents A/54/644 and Adds.1-3; and A/55/763 and Corr.1).  He said that the grant was being used for innovative high-impact projects, and UNFIP was coordinating the projects and ensuring interface with various United Nations bodies, also bringing expertise from outside the Organization. 

He went on to say that the documents before the Committee described the programme framework of the projects, which represented the United Nations focus within areas of concentration.  A total of 169 projects had been approved at the end of 2000.  A further $6 million had been raised by the United Nations Foundations (UNF), which had not gone through the UNFIP mechanism.  The UNFIP was not only distributing the funds, but also monitoring the implementation of the projects. 

Introducing the related report of the ACABQ, its Chairman, CONRAD S.M. MSELLE, said that the Committee was informing the Assembly about the work it had done in respect of the estimates for the administrative costs of the Fund and review of the information contained in the Secretary-General’s reports.  The report was being submitted for information purposes, and the Committee was recommending that the General Assembly take note of the documents on UNFIP.

ANDRZEJ ABRASZENSKI (Poland) said that the latest report on the activities of UNFIP contained information on the three funding cycles and progress achieved in each focus area.  He noted that between 1998 and 2000, $326 million had been programmed for numerous projects in the developing countries.  It was the second time that the ACABQ had reported on the Fund, and its administrative costs were being reviewed annually.  To his delegation, such transparency was important.  He was also satisfied that UNFIP responded promptly to the recommendations provided to it, adhering to the standards of oversight and performance monitoring.  He hoped the concepts of results-based budgeting would be applied to the Fund, for its high-impact projects were most suitable for that kind of accounting.

The projects identified through UNFIP represented a welcome supplement to national activities, he continued.  The United Nations now had a new source of financing for developing countries and countries with economies in transition.  That was particularly welcome now that the official sources of assistance for development were shrinking.  The involvement of the private sector and civil society in the United Nations activities should be encouraged, for it was part of the ongoing process of modernization and reform of the Organization.  The need for collective efforts to achieve United Nations objectives should be emphasized.

DEBORAH WYNES (United States) said that clearly, UNFIP and the UNF had developed a fruitful cooperation with the private sector.  Its high-impact projects should be commended.  For example, several million children had achieved polio vaccines, and preventive health care was being promoted.  She also commended the comprehensive system of monitoring and encouraged the United Nations itself to adapt similar methods.  Definitive time-lines set by UNFIP encouraged implementing partners to perform in a timely manner.  She wished success to the Fund in its pursuit of its objectives.

Mr. DOSSAL said the Fund intended to continue keeping tabs on its implementation efforts, monitoring the projects.  An ongoing dialogue was continuing, and new strategies were being developed in many areas, including the fight against AIDS.

The Vice-Chairman of the Fifth Committee, COLLEN VIXEN KELAPILE (Botswana), proposed that the Secretariat should be requested to prepare a draft decision, by the terms of which the Assembly would take note of the report of the Secretary-General on UNFIP.

ABDOU AL-MOULA NAKKARI (Syria) said that a written version of the draft was needed.  He hoped the decision would not be taken today.

The Committee decided that a draft would be prepared.

As the Committee turned to the scale of assessments and application of Article 19 of the Charter, MARK GILPIN, Chief of Contributions Service, introduced the report of the Secretary-General on that matter.  He said that following a request of the General Assembly, a review of the procedures of the implementation of Article 19 had been undertaken.  The Secretariat intended to make the report and the Fifth Committee's consideration available to the Committee on Contributions.  The report identified the main elements of the methodology under Article 19 and described the current procedures. 

Two possible changes in the current practice were also presented in the document, which would require certain changes in the financial regulations.  Relevant data for 2000 was being presented to illustrate the effects of current methodology and of possible changes under the approaches considered.  Twice-yearly calculations would tend to bring some Member States under the provisions of Article 19 sooner than the current annual exercise.  Similarly, calculations based on a "net to net" comparison would tend to bring some Member States under the provisions of Article 19 sooner or by a larger margin than the current "gross to net" comparison.

SEYED MORTEZA MIRMOHAMMAD (Iran), speaking on behalf of the "Group of 77" developing countries and China, said that the Charter provisions to pay assessed contribution on full and in time were legally binding on all Member States.  Member States, especially the major contributor, had a legal obligation to United Nations to promptly pay its arrears in full and without conditions.  As for the method of calculation of arrears, there was no legal reason to change the current methodology.  The Secretary-General’s report had indicated that calculating arrears on a net-to-net basis would increase the number of developing countries affected by Article 19, and would not improve the financial situation of the Organization.  By adopting that approach, the Organization risked a significant increase in the number of Member States falling under Article 19.

The question that remained was how the proposed measures could improve the United Nations financial situation, he said.  Adoption of the proposed measures could harm a significant number of Member States.  The grave financial situation facing the Organization was a cause of serious concern to the Group.  Last December, the membership had taken an important decision to save the Organization.  The financial costs of that decision had been primarily borne by developing countries.  In that regard, developing nations should not be called upon to assume further financial burdens.  The Group would examine the report of the Committee on Contributions and consider whether any further action was required.

JUAN GABRIEL VALDÉS (Chile), speaking on behalf of the Rio Group, said that it was his understanding that the inclusion of paragraphs 5 and 6 in General Assembly resolution A/55/5 A of 26 October 2000 had been part of a compromise formula to allow developing countries that had faced -– and were facing –- economic and financial difficulties the right to vote.   Those paragraphs revealed an imbalance in the consideration of two items.  On the one hand, paragraph 5 referred to the application of a semester-based calculation of arrears and was solely limited to requesting the report before the Committee.  No further action was explicitly requested.  Paragraph 6, on the other hand, referred to the method of calculation of arrears and, in practical terms, affected the group of countries subject to the application of Article 19.  It anticipated a “pseudo-decision”, in the sense of increasing the minimum payment that they would have to make in order to restore the right to vote.

The change in the calculation methodology increased the number of affected developing countries under the application of Article 19, he said.  The utilization of the “net to net” methodology meant an increase of some $9 million in the amount of minimum payments necessary for Member States to avoid application of Article 19.  That could raise the number of countries subject to the application of Article 19 from 33 to 48.  The adoption of the measures would not have any impact on the financial situation of the organization, since it would imply a collection of less than some 0.23 per cent of the total annual budget.  From the legal point of view, there was no reason for the changes in the existing methodology.

The Rio Group was convinced that it was not the appropriate time to make decisions that would impose additional financial burdens for the developing countries, he said.  The items dealt with in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Assembly resolution should be left for examination of the Committee on Contributions at their next session.  The strengthening of Article 19 did not lie in the expansion of the number of developing countries under its application.  It was necessary to ask the Committee on Contributions that its recommendations be objective and clear. 

CLAUDIA PETROSINI (Venezuela) said that the developing countries had indeed made efforts to pay the Organization.  The increased number of Member States paying in the last seven years was proof of that.  The presentation made by Under-Secretary-General Joseph Connor last week had showed that arrears were concentrated among a few Members States.  At the end of 2000, the United States owed some 74 per cent of the debt for the regular budget.  The United States and France owed approximately 51 per cent of the debt for the International Tribunals.  The United States and Japan owed some 73 per cent of the total debt for peacekeeping operations. 

The figures revealed, therefore, that the Organization’s financial crisis was not the result of a lack of payment by developing countries, but was, rather, due to the lack of payment by a number of developed countries, she continued.  Measures to change the application of Article 19 would not help the Organization’s financial situation, but would increase the number of developing countries affected by Article 19.  Trying to solve the Organization’s problems by changing Article 19 was like trying to save a heart patient by giving him a facelift.  One first had to identify the cause of the problem.  The financial problem was the result of lack of payment by the United States.  Application of Article 19 would not change that reality.

HENRY FOX (Australia), speaking also on behalf of Canada and New Zealand, said that the Assembly’s decision was important and had the effect of strengthening the incentive to Member States to pay their assessed contributions on time.  The Secretary-General’s report was also important and contained a number of useful suggestions, including the possible biannual calculation of arrears and, flowing from that, the suggestion that the preceding two years be redefined as the preceding 24 months.  Those ideas, which would further tighten the application of Article 19, deserved serious consideration by the Committee.  He looked forward to the report of the Committee on Contributions, which would hopefully canvas the full range of issues, including the modalities for implementing the General Assembly’s decision on the net-to-net approach.

CARL-MAGNUS NESSER (Sweden), speaking on behalf of the European Union and associated States, said that the payment of assessed contributions in full, on time and without conditions was a prerequisite for putting United Nations finances on a sound and sustainable long-term footing.  “On time” meant within the 30 days applicable for payment of contributions to the Organization.  The Union attached great importance to Article 19, which provided the sole mechanism to ensure timely payment of assessed contributions, and would like to see the Article applied in a fair and consistent manner.  The Union underlined the essential role of the Committee on Contributions, which was the expert body tasked with the responsibility of providing the Assembly with definitive guidance. 

Despite the mechanism of Article 19, problems remained, he said.  Member States in persistent and unjustified arrears eroded the effectiveness of the Organization.  The modalities of Article 19 were not directed at Member States with genuine difficulties, for which the Charter and the Committee on Contributions made full provision.  The Union welcomed the Secretary-General’s report.  The General Assembly had decided to compare arrears with the amount actually assessed and payable for the preceding two full years for the purpose of application of Article 19 -- the “net to net” calculation.  The Union awaited the recommendations of the Committee on Contributions in that regard.  The report of that body would constitute an important contribution to discussions on that issue in the autumn.

RON ADAM (Israel) said that the need to improve the financial situation of the United Nations in regard of both the regular and peacekeeping budgets was clear.  That also followed from last week’s statement by Under-Secretary-General for Management Joseph E. Connor.  He fully understood the proposals before the Committee.  Israel had recently voluntarily moved to Group B in regard of peacekeeping assessments and intended to make its payments in full in the future.  However, it would need a period to adjust its national budget, and he believed that such a need was also true of many other countries.  Although the new ideas were important, his country would not be in a position to support any changes at the current stage.

ANAS MUSTAFA (Sudan) said that he supported the position of the Group of 77 and China.  Recalling the statement by the Under-Secretary-General on Management, he said that all Member States should pay their contributions in full, on time and without conditions.  As for calculation of arrears, the developing countries, and in particular the least developed ones, would be negatively affected by changes, since they were already experiencing great financial difficulties and were heavily indebted.  The principle of the capacity to pay should be observed in that respect, and necessary exceptions should be made for the countries experiencing financing difficulties. 

ARATA FUJII (Japan) said that he was responding to a statement by the representative of Venezuela.  His country had been late in payments, as of

31 December 2000, because of the gap between the financial cycles of the United Nations and Japan.  However, the payment for peacekeeping operations had been made this year.  His country was making its best efforts to pay on time, and he hoped his colleagues would understand that.

SUZANNE NOSSELL (United States) said that the United States shared the fundamental concern expressed by delegations on the financial situation of the Organization.  Member States from all regions had stepped forward and assumed leadership roles, as part of the compromise resolution last December, by assuming additional financial responsibility.  The United States’ main priority was to fulfil its end of the bargain.  While it had not yet done so, she was confident that she would soon be able to say that it had.

Regarding Article 19, she said that it was an important mechanism to create incentives for Member States to meet their Charter obligations.  It was important that it remain a strong mechanism.  She appreciated the concerns expressed by several delegations that the proposed measures might create additional financial burdens for them.  Modifications to the application of Article 19 would constitute a major decision, and the proposals must be seriously considered.  She looked forward to further discussion of the issues and thanked delegations for the sense of leadership and responsibility they had shown.

Mr. NESSER (Sweden), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that Bulgaria had aligned itself with its statement.  As Mr. Connor had said last week, the picture of arrears for the Tribunals had changed.

MARILYN ZONICLE (Bahamas) wondered if it was the Acting Chairman’s intention to restrict the discussion to part A of General Assembly resolution 55/5.

Mr. GILPIN said he believed the delegate was referring to part F of the resolution.  He was not sure whether it was the intention of the Committee to revert to those matters now or at a latter stage. 

The Acting CHAIRMAN said that the Committee was looking at the contents of report on the application of Article 19 (document A/55/789), which was on the agenda for this morning. 

Ms. ZONICLE (Bahamas) said that she wanted to clarify if part F of resolution 55/5 would be taken up at a latter stage, perhaps at a resumed session.

The Committee then turned to the report of the Secretary-General on enhancing internal oversight mechanisms in funds and programmes (document A/55/826).

DILEEP NAIR, Under-Secretary-General for Internal Oversight Services, introduced the report, saying that it presented the information from two perspectives:  by fund and programme; and by internal oversight function.  The annex to the document contained tables with detailed information on the oversight arrangements of each entity.  The issuance of the report had been delayed due to extensive consultations with the funds and  programmes to ensure a sound foundation to the recommendations.  It also reflected the views of the intergovernmental bodies in their review of the previous report.  Overall, the report found that the internal oversight mechanisms within the United Nations bodies had improved, although in varying degrees.  It was also noted that funds and programmes had implemented five of the eight recommendations made in 1997.  The remaining three recommendations had now been modified in the document before the Committee.

Expressing hope that the Committee would endorse the recommendations contained in the report, he said that the Oversight Office had been providing audit and investigation services to certain funds and programmes using its existing resources.  That was causing a drain in its resources.  The Secretary-General had asked heads of United Nations bodies to lend their full cooperation to establishing arrangements with the Oversight Office for cost reimbursement.  The Oversight Office had set up an account for that purpose.  Those arrangements were being formalized by the recommendations contained in the report.  Recommendation 2 proposed that each body establish an oversight committee with appropriate terms of reference, with representation of the Oversight Office.  That was intended to strengthen coordination and information exchange.  He believed the recommendations contained in the report were pivotal for enhancement of internal oversight mechanisms.

Mr. NAKKARI (Syria) said that another meeting was needed to exchange views on the report, which had been presented too late.  He thanked Mr. Nair for his introduction and added that he looked forward to further discussion of the matter.

AHMED K. AHMED (Iraq) agreed with the representative of Syria, saying that the report should be considered at a later date, because it had been submitted too late.

Other Matters

Mr. NAKKARI (Syria) said that many times he had wanted to talk on other matters, but could not do so, since that agenda item was not formally announced. He hoped that other matters could be regularly introduced during Committee meetings.

He went on to say that the Legal Office had issued an opinion indicating that taking note of any report meant that the General Assembly had agreed to the contents of the document.  He wanted to receive an answer on that point before he submitted his intervention.

The Vice-Chairman of the Committee, RAMESH CHANDRA (India), said that an answer would be provided at a later date.

* *** *