Sixty-first General Assembly

Fifth Committee

25^th Meeting (AM)

BUDGET COMMITTEE TAKES UP FINANCING FOR $1.88 BILLION CAPITAL MASTER PLAN,

SPEAKERS URGE QUICK ACTION SO CONSTRUCTION CAN BEGIN AS SCHEDULED

Latest Report Envisions Completion by 2014,

Funding through Assessments, Letter of Credit Facility, Reserve Fund

Stressing the great importance of the Capital Master Plan for the refurbishment of the United Nations Headquarters complex in New York, several speakers in the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) this morning emphasized the need to take an early decision on the financing of the Plan so the project could move forward quickly.

The representative of Finland, speaking on behalf of the European Union and associated States, was among the speakers who noted that the state of the building, which had been completed in 1952, was well below New York City safety standards and continued to deteriorate.  The issue of the Capital Master Plan had been under discussion since 2000, and the negotiations had taken a considerable amount of time.  Last June, the Fifth Committee had finally taken a decision on a Capital Master Plan strategy and now it was necessary to build on that progress and put the financing in place, so that construction could begin according to schedule.

The representative of South Africa, speaking on behalf of the Group of 77 developing countries and China, regretted the delays, particularly due to the host country’s unwillingness to enable construction of a swing-space building or provide an interest-free loan for the project, especially considering the benefits accrued by hosting Headquarters.  Nevertheless, it was time to take action on a financing strategy to avoid further delays and cost escalations.

Introducing the Secretary-General’s report on the matter, Acting Under-Secretary-General for Management, Warren Sach, updated the Committee on the status of the project, which is now expected to be finished in 2014, saying that every month of delay was estimated to cause a cost increase of some $9-10 million.  Rent was rising steeply, along with the costs of outfitting rental offices, and it was more difficult to find the space to accommodate some 1,000 staff that would have to move out of the Secretariat building and the Library by the end of next year.  “We have to move fast and sign contracts for renting swing space as soon as possible, before the market moves up further,” he said.

The report also strongly recommended incorporating into the project several scope options, including security measures and back-up systems, in the amount of $230.4 million, which would bring the total budget to some $1.88 billion, he continued, but it would be financially prudent to do so.  The Secretary-General recommended that the Assembly approve the funding of the Plan through assessments on Member States, an internationally syndicated letter of credit facility for the duration of the construction and a working capital reserve fund to cover temporary cash-flow deficits.

On financing, the European Union expressed preference for multi-year direct assessments as the simplest method and expressed interest in the possibility of making the assessments broadly proportional to the needs in different phases, in order to avoid unnecessary payments in advance.  It made sense to have a mechanism in place to cover contractual obligations.  Thus, the Union understood the need for a letter of credit to demonstrate the full financial capability of the project.  Like the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) -- whose report was introduced by its Chairman, Rajat Saha -- the Union was of the view that an envisaged working capital reserve was an integral part of financing arrangements for the Capital Master Plan.

The representative of Guyana, who spoke on behalf of the Rio Group, agreed that funding the Plan via assessed contributions offered the simplest option, and he was favourably disposed to considering the payment of associated costs through a number of instalments.  However, he opposed on principle the introduction of interest on arrears in the payment of Member States, and called for careful study of the proposed mechanism for credit utilization charges.  Also, appropriate care must be exercised by the Secretariat in the handling and preservation of artefacts, gifts and other valuable works contained in the building, which expressed the variety and uniqueness of the cultures of all Member States.

Although the scope of such a large-scale project as the Capital Master Plan could not be entirely determined in advance and needed to be adapted periodically, Switzerland’s representative wanted to further examine the circumstances that had led to additional requirements of $69.4 million, in particular with regard to additional redundancy measures.  The Secretary-General had indicated that those options could not be completed as stand-along projects, and the Plan would offer a unique opportunity to incorporate the latest technology in a state-of-the-art solution.  Bearing in mind the time horizon of the project, he supported the inclusion of the scope options in the base project.

Japan’s representative called for containing costs and ensuring the cost-effectiveness of the Plan.  He was ready to discuss projected costs, including scope options, as long as they were reasonable, but regretted that delays had increased total expenses to $1.88 billion, and sought more persuasive reasons for the increased cost.  He also strongly supported the mix of one-time and multi-year assessments for the Plan, saying that, in pursuing such an option, it was necessary to secure sufficient cash in the most practical manner and also make it less likely that a letter of credit would be needed.  A one-time payment was useful in that regard, as it would help the Organization avoid a cash-flow deficit, minimize the need to use credit facilities and offer Member States discounts through future interest earnings.

Also this morning, members addressed the Committee’s organization of work, expressing concern over the fact that, with only three weeks left before the end of the session, some of the items on the Committee’s agenda still had not been introduced, due to late issuance of documentation.  With a large number of items on the Committee’s agenda, negotiations were still continuing on many issues.

Also taking the floor today were representatives of Australia (also on behalf of Canada and New Zealand), the United States, Republic of Korea, China, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, India and the Russian Federation.

The Committee’s next meeting will be announced.

Background

The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) met this morning to take up the latest reports on the Capital Master Plan to refurbish the United Nations Headquarters complex in New York.

According to the fourth annual progress report on the Capital Master Plan (document A/61/549), now that an agreement on the phased approach to the plan has been reached in resolution 60/282, it is critical for the Assembly to decide on the funding mechanism for the renovation.  The report updates the total projected costs of the project, which have grown from some $1.59 billion, as reported last year, to over $1.64 billion as of August this year.  Also presented in the document is information on various scope options, estimated at $230.4 million.  In this connection, the Secretary-General proposes that security-related requirements, “back-up systems” and sustainability be added to the scope of the base project.  The document also provides financing options, and recommends a five-year assessment plan and the use of a letter of credit as the most appropriate financing mechanism.

The Secretary-General recommends that the Assembly approve the plan, to be completed in 2006-2014, at a total revised budget that is not to exceed $1.88 billion (exclusive of any credit charges).  The Assembly is asked to approve the funding for the Plan based on one of three options: a one-time cash assessment, multi-year cash assessments, or a mix of the two.  It is also requested to approve the establishment of a letter of credit facility and approve any drawdowns under the letter of credit -- solely for the purpose of funding the Plan.

The Secretary-General recommends that the Assembly appropriate an amount of $45 million to establish a working capital reserve under the Plan account, to be financed through an assessment on Member States in 2007 under the regular budget scale in effect for that year.  The Assembly is also asked to appropriate another $42.0 million for the plan and to decide that assessments shall be considered due and payable in full within 30 days of the date on which the assessment notices are issued.  The report also contains recommendations on the apportionment of charges from credit drawdowns.

Also before the Committee was the report of the Board of Auditors on the Capital Master Plan for the year 2005 (document A/61/5/Vol.V).  The Board mentions, among other things, the delay in the implementation of the project owing to the unavailability of the swing-space building envisioned in the original approach approved by the Assembly.  Another reason for the delay is that the option for project strategy, scope, funding plan and budget were still to be considered by the Assembly at the time of finalizing the report.  The Board is concerned about the cost implications of the delay.

Also mentioned in the report is the fact that some of the amendments to existing contracts for the design development phase contained ambiguous clauses, such as the covenant clause, which did not state the maximum amount that the United Nations was obligated to pay.  Some of the amendments also did not conform to the United Nations Procurement Manual, since the name of the contracting parties and the dates the amendments should take effect were not indicated.  These deficiencies posed a risk of disputes arising from varying interpretations of the new provisions of the contracts.

The Board recommends that a decision be taken on the renovation strategy and the financing scheme for the implementation of the Plan.  Other recommendations relate to the need to ensure that amendments to contracts are in line with the United Nations Procurement Manual; strengthen the monitoring of submission of deliverables by the professional firms; and review the propriety of the decision by the United Nations to reduce the frequency of meetings with the programme management firm and assess the impact of the cancellation of some meetings.

The Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ), in a related report (document A/61/595), notes that the estimate for construction has increased by $4.5 million, the renovation cost estimates have increased by $8.3 million, and the forecast for swing space has increased by $50.2 million.

According to the report, under construction industry practice in the United States, the building owner has to demonstrate full financial capability to complete the project.  To show evidence of such financial capability, the United Nations would have to demonstrate availability of funds for the project by such evidence as cash on deposit or a letter of credit facility for the total amount of the project.  The Advisory Committee notes in this regard that, if all Member States were assessed once and all paid on time and in full, a letter of credit facility would not need to be established.  In any other circumstances, such a facility would be necessary and that would involve additional costs, with estimated total fees between $3 million and $21 million.

Turning to the assessment options, ACABQ states that the options of one-time and multi-year assessments are straightforward, but the option of a mix of one time and multi-year assessments would require a decision by the Assembly.  In this connection, the Advisory Committee stresses that it is for the General Assembly to decide which option to approve.  As for the proposal to create a working capital reserve for the Plan, which would cover temporary cash-flow deficits, ACABQ is of the view that it is an integral part of financing arrangements for the plan and should be approved by the Assembly.  Also, now that the Assembly has pronounced itself on strategy IV, the Advisory Committee expects the Secretariat to make efforts to attract private donor funding towards the implementation of the Plan.

ACABQ recommends approval of the revised Capital Master Plan budget of $1.8 billion and appropriation of $42 million for 2007.  It also stresses the Board of Auditors’ recommendation that requires the administration to ensure that amendments to contracts are in line with the United Nations Procurement Manual.  The Advisory Committee expects that contracts will stipulate that the United Nations will not be responsible for any delays on the part of the contractor.

Introduction of Documents

WARREN SACH, Acting Under-Secretary-General for Management, introduced the Secretary-General’s report on the Capital Master Plan.  He said that the construction documents for the major design contracts for the renovation of the General Assembly and Conference buildings, the basements, the North Lawn extension building, the Secretariat and South Annex would be completed by the end of 2007.  In the next two months, he anticipated selecting a construction manager as general contractor for preconstruction advisory services and management of the overall project.  The schedule of the Plan had had to be slightly re-phased, since a decision about which strategy to follow for the refurbishment of the Headquarters complex, unfortunately, had not been reached during the main part of the sixtieth session of the General Assembly.  While work on various parts of the project would now start later, the date for its completion, early 2014, remained the same.

The delay in the schedule meant that costs would be incurred later than previously anticipated, he continued.  However, as the Plan was operating in a booming commercial real estate and construction market, costs of construction, and especially the swing space, kept climbing.  Every month of delay was estimated to cause a cost increase of some $9-10 million.  Rents for space were rising steeply, along with the costs of outfitting rental space, and it was more difficult to find the large space that was needed to accommodate some 1,000 staff that would have to move out of the Secretariat building and the Library by the end of next year.  “We have to move fast and sign contracts for renting swing space as soon as possible,” he said, before the market moved up further.  In that context, it was very important to make a decision about the Plan and its financing before the end of this year.

To include in the Plan the scope options in the total amount of $230.4 million would bring the total budget to some $1.88 billion, but it would be a financially prudent thing to do, he said.  The Secretary-General recommended that the Assembly approve the funding of the Plan through assessments on Member States, an internationally syndicated letter of credit facility for the duration of the construction contract and a working capital reserve fund to cover temporary cash flow deficits.

RAJAT SAHA, Chairman of ACABQ, provided a summary of that body’s report, adding that the Advisory Committee urged, once again, the Secretary-General to expedite the establishment of the advisory board on financing matters and overall Capital Master Plan issues, so that it could begin its work as soon as possible, on a broad geographical basis.

Statements

KAREN LOCK (South Africa), on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China, regretted the repeated delay of implementation of the Capital Master Plan, particularly due to the host country’s unwillingness to enable construction of a swing-space building or provision of an interest-free loan, especially considering the benefits accrued by hosting Headquarters.  Nevertheless, it was time to take action on a financing strategy to avoid further delays and further cost escalations.  She welcomed the comprehensive fourth annual report of the Secretary-General on the Capital Master Plan and appreciated that it had incorporated further options to provide greater security at the Headquarters as the structure was renovated.

She noted that direct assessments were recognized by the General Assembly as the simplest way to finance the project, and was confident that agreement on one of the options could be reached.  She noted that construction industry practice required the United Nations to demonstrate full financial capability to complete the project, and sought further clarification on the establishment of a credit facility during the informal consultations.  She also underlined the General Assembly’s wish that the Secretary-General find ways to increase procurement opportunities for vendors coming from developing countries.

She noted that a primary consideration in the adoption of the comprehensive approach to the renovation of the United Nation Headquarters was that the building could be completely vacated, due to concerns for health and safety.  She said that, with the failure of the “DC-5” option and the now phased approach, it was necessary to reiterate those initial concerns.  She hoped safety measures and precautions would be implemented.  She noted the issue of the creation of an advisory board by the General Assembly, which was still outstanding.  Finally, she planned to seek clarification on the need for the project to be aligned with the United Nations Procurement Manual.

KATJA PEHRMAN ( Finland), speaking on behalf of the European Union and associated States, stressed the great importance of the Capital Master Plan and said that an early decision should be taken to enable the project to move forward quickly.  The state of the building, which had been completed in 1952, was well below New York City safety standards and continued to deteriorate.  The issue of the Capital Master Plan had been under discussion since 2000.  The negotiations had taken a considerable amount of time.  Last June, the Fifth Committee had finally taken a decision on a strategy for the Plan and now it was necessary to build on that progress and put the financing in place, so that construction could begin according to schedule.

The Secretary-General’s report updated the total projected costs and provided information on various scope options, including security-related requirements, she continued.  It also provided financing options and recommended a five-year assessment plan and the use of a letter of credit as the most appropriate financing mechanism.  She noted that the budget of the Plan had increased from $1.6 billion to nearly $1.9 billion, because of changes in construction cost, contingencies, professional fees and management costs, forward pricing escalation and swing space.  The Union would explore further in informals the rationale for the rise in costs and the scope of the options.

On financing, she reiterated the Union’s preference for multi-year direct assessments as the simplest method of financing the project.  The Union was interested in exploring the possibility of making the assessments broadly proportional to the amount needed in different phases, in order to avoid unnecessary payments in advance.  It made sense to have a mechanism in place to cover contractual obligations.  Thus, she understood the need for a letter of credit to demonstrate the full financial capability of the project.  Like ACABQ, the Union was of the view that the envisaged working capital reserve was an integral part of financing arrangements for the Plan.  Assessments for the Plan should be considered due and payable in full within 30 days of the issuance date.  She also supported the mechanism whereby charges resulting from a drawdown on the credit facility should be apportioned among Member States who had not paid in full and on time.  She was interested in hearing other views on the matter, taking into account that, as of 31 October, $66 million of Capital Master Plan total payments were outstanding.

In conclusion, she said that the Union was ready to proceed with the Plan without any further delays.  More than 38 million visitors had toured the United Nations since its opening in the early 1950s.  Countless thousands had called it their workplace.  Now, the Committee needed to finally decide on the financing of the Plan, so that the refurbishment could take place.

PETER STONE ( Australia), also on behalf of Canada and New Zealand (CANZ), favoured the approach of financing the Capital Master Plan with equal multi-year cash assessments over five years, which would be simple, transparent and easy to administer.  It would also balance the needs of Member States to spread out payments over a number of years with the Plan’s cash requirements.  He looked forward to discussing ACABQ’s questions regarding financing in informal consultations.

He added that the multi-year cash assessments required the General Assembly to authorize the Secretary-General to enter into a letter of credit for the duration of the project, which he believed was an unavoidable commercial reality for such a large project in New York.  He believed that the magnitude of the cost of the measure was directly related to Member States paying their assessments in full and on time.  He added that no Member State should carry an additional financial burden as a result of others not fulfilling their obligations, and he pledged to carefully consider the Secretary-General’s proposed mechanism for attributing charges accrued by utilization of the credit facility.

He also warned that decisions on the scope options could no longer be deferred.  He said the Plan provided an ideal opportunity to improve security, redundancy, contingency, and sustainability, and looked forward in the informal sessions to receiving additional information on the matter.  He noted there had been a 4 per cent escalation in the cost of the Plan, due to the increase in cost of swing space, and called for every effort to deliver the project within the budget agreed to by the General Assembly, including making the decisions necessary by the end of the main session to avoid further cost escalations.  Finally, he was also pleased to learn that the project was still due to be completed in 2014.  The selection of a construction manager and completion of the design development phase indicated progress, as did the fact that all relevant staff members had completed required financial disclosures.  But, he was disappointed that the Secretary-General had been unable to appoint an advisory board for the Plan, as requested by the General Assembly, ACABQ, and internal and external auditors.

TROY TORRINGTON ( Guyana), on behalf of the Rio Group, said he recognized the need for expeditious action to renovate and refurbish United Nations Headquarters in order to comply with health and safety standards.  He also noted, though, that the present estimate for construction had increased by $4.5 million.  He was concerned over the high escalation of costs each time the General Assembly delayed a decision and hoped agreement on financing could be reached by the end of the session.  The Secretary-General must abide, as far as possible, by the calendar of construction as already presented.  He took into account the fact that the host country had benefited significantly and would continue to do so, and was convinced that such a position carried special responsibilities.  He regretted that the host country had not complied with those responsibilities.

His group was persuaded that funding the plan via assessed contributions offered the simplest option, and was favourably disposed to considering the payment of the associated cost through a number of instalments.  He opposed on principle the introduction of interest on arrears in the payment of Member States, and called for careful study of the proposed mechanism for credit utilization charges.  He was seriously concerned that appropriate care be exercised by the Secretariat in the handling and preservation of artefacts, gifts, and other valuable works contained in the building, which expressed in a meaningful way the variety and uniqueness of the cultures of all Member States.  He called for consultations with Member States that donated the items over their handling and storage.

MARK D. WALLACE ( United States) supported the Capital Master Plan and appreciated all the work done to date to ensure that the project would continue to move ahead.  He noted the Government’s readiness to make important decisions on the project budget and financing during the current session of the General Assembly.  He noted that there were technical issues related to those decisions that needed to be resolved during informal consultations.  He also expected that the Secretary-General would take all steps needed to ensure the project was managed within the presented project budget.  He noted that the Secretary-General himself recommended that the General Assembly approve a project “to be completed in the period 2006-2014” and with a budget “not to exceed $1,876.7 million”.  It was important for the United Nations to continually seek ways to contain costs and achieve greater efficiencies and use sound project management processes to control scope and schedule, he said.

YOO DAE-JONG ( Republic of Korea) said that the discussion of the issue was long overdue and the Committee should move with urgency on it.  He appreciated the Secretariat’s efforts to minimize any negative impact on the schedule and project budget during the six-month period that had ended in June.  That said, he could not fail to notice that the cost estimates for the Plan had continued to rise.  It would be appreciated if the Secretariat could elaborate in more detail on what monetary impact the time delays had had on the Plan.

Regarding the scope options, he understood that additional security, redundancy, contingency and sustainability would not be readily achievable as stand-alone projects, so the Plan offered a unique opportunity in those areas.  He supported the ACABQ recommendation for the approval of the renewed Plan budget of some $1.88 billion, including the scope options.  A number of issues still needed to be addressed, including the waving of financial regulations, assessment options, the composition of the advisory board, and the recommendations by the Board of Auditors on amendments to procurement contracts.  Regarding assessment options, serious consideration would be needed.  He hoped that Member States would work quickly to come up with constructive and open-minded positions, so that the Committee did not lose any more valuable time.  Also, as mentioned in the ACABQ report, the possibility of private-donor funding should be explored in line with General Assembly resolution 60/256.

Member States owed the Secretariat staff safe and efficient working conditions, he said. “As we ask the Secretariat staff to adjust to wide-ranging reforms, including stricter measures of performance, it is our responsibility to ensure that they are given the necessary tools to meet our high standards, and that includes a decent and appropriate workplace that meets contemporary standards,” he said.  The Plan was an urgent priority.

KEN MUKAI ( Japan) called for diligence in containing costs, and conduct of the work in a cost-effective manner.  He was ready to discuss projected costs, including scope options, as long as they were reasonable, but regretted that delays had substantially increased total expenses to $1.88 billion.  He sought more persuasive reasons from the Secretariat for the increased cost.  He said the most pressing task was to arrive at a stable and practical plan, as the United Nations would need to make payments to construction companies over many years.

Smooth implementation of the Capital Master Plan required establishment of a sufficient cash flow, taking into consideration the fiscal year and financial situation of Member States, and based on a flexible and practical assessment plan.  He fully agreed that it was necessary for Member States to decide on an assessment option, and strongly supported the mix of one-time and multi-year assessment.  That option should be pursued in such a way as to secure sufficient cash in the most practical manner and also make it less likely that a letter of credit would be needed.  He believed a one-time payment was useful in that regard, as it would help the Organization avoid a cash-flow deficit, minimize the need to use credit facilities, and offer Member States discounts made possible through future interest earnings.  He said, if the multi-year payment should be based on the five-year option, the schedule for issuing assessments should be adjusted for each country’s budgetary cycle.

During informal sessions, he hoped to make comments on the conditions for establishing credit facilities, the need for calculating credit utilization charges on a monthly basis, and the schedule for phasing out the working capital reserve.

THOMAS STAHLI ( Switzerland) commended the Office of the Capital Master Plan for the quality and concise nature of its report.  Due to time constraints, the discussion in the Committee should focus on the two proposed scope options and three financing models, including the mechanism for charging credit utilization charges to Member States.  A decision needed to be taken by the end of the session in order to avoid any further delays and cost escalation of the project.  He appreciated all the efforts to keep 2014 as the originally envisaged project end date.

Regarding the scope options, he noted in particular the increased security-related requirements, such as blast protection, and building operations measures.  The scope of such a large-scale project as the Capital Master Plan could not be entirely determined in advance and needed to be adapted periodically.  Nevertheless, he would like to further examine in informals the circumstances that had led to additional requirements of $69.4 million, in particular with regard to additional redundancy measures.  The Secretary-General indicated that those options could not be completed as stand-alone projects.  The Plan would offer a unique opportunity to incorporate the latest technology in a state-of-the-art solution.  Bearing in mind the time horizon of the project, he supported the inclusion of the scope options in the base project.  Furthermore, his delegation had a special interest in the environmental sustainability of the project and would seek further information on respective scope options listed under Tier 2 in the report.

Turning to the financing options, he noted the increased overall cost of the Plan, which stood at $1.65 million, not including the proposed scope options.  He supported the proposed financing option of a multi-year assessment over a period of five years.  However, he would like to receive additional information on the potential savings for Member States preferring the one-time upfront assessment.  Taking into account the unpredictable cash-flow of any large-scale project, his delegation would like to underline the need for prudent cash-flow planning and minimizing the risk of having to drawdown from the letter of credit facilities.  He was confident that the proposed option took those concerns into account.  He also welcomed the proposed mechanism, which would assure that Member States that had paid their contributions in full and on time would not bear any financial liabilities resulting from the use of credit facilities.  It was now imperative to proceed rapidly with the implementation of the Plan.  The Fifth Committee should pronounce itself on the financing of the project before the end of the main session, to avoid any further delays.

REN YISHENG ( China) recounted the developments in the Capital Master Plan since the proposal on the project had been made in 2000.  In his view, strategy IV -– a phased approach to renovation -– was the most realistic one and the cost involved was reasonable.  He noted however, that, five years after its approval, the Plan still remained on paper.  In the meantime, the projected cost had been increasing at an annual rate of 8 to 12 per cent, due to the escalation of housing and construction costs in New York.  He urged Member States, therefore, to make greater efforts to advance the actual implementation of the Plan, for the sake of the image of the United Nations and the safety and health of Member States’ representatives, Secretariat staff and other people concerned, bearing in mind the need for cost effectiveness and efficiency.

Funding was the key to successful implementation of the Plan, he continued.  In calculating the total project cost, it was necessary to aim at maximizing the value of the funds.  As for the modality of financing, he was in favour of direct cash assessment among Member States, while being flexible as to whether it should be a one-time or multi-year assessment.  He hoped the Secretary-General would establish a mechanism to ensure that Member States who paid their assessments in full and on time would not bear any financial liabilities or other obligations derived from possible utilization of credit facilities.

In resolution 60/282, the Assembly had noted the benefits accruing to host countries from the presence of the United Nations and the costs incurred, and stressed the special role of the host Government with regard to support, including financial support, he continued.  He hoped that the host country would respond to the appeal of the vast majority of Member States and take positive steps to help implement the Plan.  The same resolution also requested the Secretary-General to increase procurement opportunities for vendors from developing countries and economies in transition.  The current session was considering the issue of United Nations procurement reform.  He believed that the procurement concerns of the above-mentioned countries should be taken into full account in the implementation of the Plan on the basis of fairness, transparency and cost-effectiveness.

He added that China supported the Plan, which was of critical importance for the safety of the Headquarters buildings and security and the well-being of the people concerned.  China had already paid part of its assessment for the Plan and would pay the balance soon.  He hoped that the implementation of the Plan could proceed expeditiously.

Responding to the questions raised, Mr. SACH stated his belief that it really was within the grasp of the Committee to come to a successful conclusion on the matter before the end of the main part of the General Assembly.  He said the comments about the need to create a Plan advisory board were well taken.  That would be a priority early in the next year.

Regarding financial mechanisms, he pointed out that the arrangements proposed for apportioning the costs of drawing down the credit facility, resulting from assessments not paid in full and on time, were based on the guidance from the sixtieth session of the General Assembly.  He pleaded with the Committee to avoid the temptation to create ever-more complex financing mechanisms, and urged it to stay within the present document.  He added that the Plan and budget teams would be available to support discussion throughout informal consultations to ensure a successful conclusion on the matter.

Turning to the organization of work, Ms. LOCK ( South Africa) expressed the concern of the Group of 77 and China over the slow progress in negotiations, with only three weeks left before the end of the session.  Many issues were still being considered that traditionally would have been concluded by now, and several issues still remained to be introduced, she said.  From the status of documentation, it seemed that some issues would only be ready for consideration by the end of December.  The Committee was placed in a situation where it was asked to tackle many important issues, but not given the tools to do so.  She wanted to get an indication from the Secretariat as to how many reports were coming in the next weeks and the expected dates of introduction of some of the budget and reform issues.

Committee Secretary, MOVSES ABELIAN, said that documents that still remained to be introduced concerned the budget outline, safety and security, conditions of service of non-Secretariat officials, the Human Rights Council, the United Nations Join Staff Pension Fund, the first performance report for the biennium, statements of budget implications from other Main Committees and the plenary, and financing of the International Tribunals.

Mr. SAHA updated the Committee on the status of consideration of its reports by ACABQ. 

Ms. LOCK said that she had been in the Committee for five years, and she had not seen a situation like the current one.  With many outstanding items, the Committee was being asked to perform miracles.  It could probably do so, but only if it had the required documentation.  It was time that the Committee seriously looked at the way it worked and began approaching its programme of work in a different manner.

In the current year, she continued, there were such important issues as three reform resolutions, the scale of assessments, the budget issues, peacekeeping resolutions and Tribunal budgets –- and all of those could not be deferred.  Thus, she felt very uncomfortable.  An extraordinary effort was required, not only from the Committee, but also from ACABQ.  It was not acceptable that reports that had been before the Advisory Committee for weeks were not yet before the Committee.  The Group of 77 was committed to finishing all the items before the Committee by the end of the year, working day and night, but all the documents must be issued sooner.  There was a tendency to focus only on time-bound issues, but she did not support such an interpretation.  Not only budget-related, but reform and other items needed to be concluded in the coming weeks.  It was clear that the Committee would be unable to conclude all its items, unless it started to move into informal informals after working hours and during weekends.

HESHAM MOHAMED EMAN AFIFI ( Egypt) said that, based on the information coming from the Secretariat and ACABQ, completion of the programme of work would be almost impossible.  It was hard to prove the existence of a bottleneck somewhere, and he was worried that there were only 10 days left to hand completed work to the General Assembly.  He said his delegation was willing to work constructively, including working overtime and beyond the usual working hours.  The Committee should keep in mind that language of resolutions should be realistic enough, so that they could move forward.

Ms. PEHRMAN ( Finland) said there were 30 items to discuss in the next three weeks.  She wanted to believe in miracles, but that was a clear challenge.  It was in the Committee’s interest to conclude as many items as possible by the end of the year, and discuss which could be postponed to resumed sessions.  If there was any move to weekend or evening sessions, the coordinators must be prepared so the sessions were worthwhile.  Those sentiments were echoed by ANDRIY NIKITOV ( Ukraine).

MOHAMMAD TAL ( Jordan) said he did not feel the usual sense of crisis.  Instead, he sensed indifference, and he was particularly worried that there was no serious engagement to conclude the non-contentious items.  Postponement would overburden future sessions, and concluding the majority of agenda items was the only acceptable outcome.

MHD. NAJIB ELJI ( Syria) agreed, and called for sessions after 6 p.m. with full services.  He also worried that ACABQ was spending too much time renegotiating on items that had already been negotiated, which was outside its technical mandate.

NAGESH SINGH ( India) added that no artificial time constraint should be placed upon the Committee’s work.

KHUSHALI PARIKH SHAH ( United States) called for the Committee to be realistic about what could be reasonably concluded.

In response to some of those remarks, Mr. SAHA said he hoped to introduce and distribute oral statements in writing and, therefore, at least finish several statements on budget implications.  Regarding the report of the Steering Committee, he said the range of discussions required by the report made it enormously difficult to conclude, but he hoped to complete it this week.  He noted that he had personally spoken with the Under-Secretary-General of the Department for General Assembly and Conference Management, Chen Jian, regarding publication of materials in all official languages.

Regarding the concern about negotiations in the Advisory Committee, he said members were free to discuss any subject, but when it got beyond technical issues he had to stop the debate, and that was what was meant by negotiations.  Finally, he said the Advisory Committee was working to, not only receive and study reports, but also to examine what came from the Secretariat, which he believed the Committee ultimately preferred.  However, he pledged bring to the attention of the Advisory Committee’s members the concerns just now expressed.

Mr. ELJI ( Syria) said he understood that oral reports only in English could be taken up in situations of urgency.  But, for standard practice, all reports should come to the Committee in advance in all official languages.

Ms. LOCK said she hoped that a way forward could be presented to the Committee as soon as possible.

MAXIM N. GOLOVINOV ( Russian Federation) called for more support for “informal informal” meetings.  They should be planned so all delegations interested could attend, they should be held in the meeting room and they should have sound services and microphones.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record