Budget Committee Takes Up Proposed Assessment Scale Used to Determine Member State Financial Contributions for 2013-2015 Period

5 October 2012
GA/AB/4038

Budget Committee Takes Up Proposed Assessment Scale Used to Determine Member State Financial Contributions for 2013-2015 Period

5 October 2012
General Assembly
GA/AB/4038
Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York

Sixty-seventh General Assembly

Fifth Committee

2nd Meeting (AM)


Budget Committee Takes Up Proposed Assessment Scale Used to Determine

 

Member State Financial Contributions for 2013-2015 Period

 


Speakers Stress Importance of Principle of ‘Capacity to Pay’,

Offer Differing Views on Whether Current Methodology Should Be Maintained


As they considered the proposed scale for assessing Member States’ financial contributions to the Organization during the 2013-2015 period, delegates in the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) today differed over whether the scale was suitable to achieve their common goal of keeping the United Nations financially sound in an era of economic belt-tightening around the globe.


Some delegates believed the complex methodology used to determine the scale should remain as is, while others said it must be fine-tuned in order to reflect each Member State’s real and current capacity to pay, while ensuring the Organization meets its expanding set of mandates.


Speaking on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China, Algeria’s delegate said the Group was committed to adopting the updated scale of assessments for the period 2013-2015, as prepared using the current methodology, even though maintaining the current methodology would lead to substantial increases in the 2013-2015 contributions for many developing countries.  He added that any moves to change the methodology that would shift the financing burden to developing countries would only generate unproductive discussion.


The Group also reaffirmed the principle of “capacity to pay” and emphasized that the core elements of the current methodology behind the scale of assessments — such as base period, gross national income (GNI), conversion rates, low per capita income adjustment and ceiling for least developed countries — had to be kept intact and were not negotiable.  Further, the current maximum rate, or ceiling, had been fixed as a political compromise, distorted the scale and should be reviewed.


The European Union delegate said the current methodology did not sufficiently account for today’s economic realities.  There was room for adjustments to turn out a more equitable distribution of Member States’ financial responsibilities, according to their capacity to pay, he added.  The Union was concerned that the low per capita income adjustment had become the largest element of redistribution in the methodology.  That shift provided limited benefits for the poorer countries it was originally created to support.


Singapore opposed proposals meant to change elements of the methodology to suit the political interests of particular countries or groups of countries.  “This would result in a completely unpredictable and impractical system of apportioning this Organization’s expenses based on political expediency,” he added.  Singapore favoured adoption of the current methodology even though it would substantially increase its assessment and he urged all Member States to look beyond cost savings and political gain.


As the Organization’s second-largest financial contributor, Japan said it was important to find a methodology to better reflect each Member State’s real and current capacity to pay in a more equitable way, based on the most current, comprehensive and comparable data available.


Committed to meeting its financial obligations, Turkey’s representative noted that the low per capita income adjustment element had produced a large scale-to-scale increase in its assessment.  Turkey had submitted a proposal for revising the methodology to the Committee on Contributions.


Contributions Committee Chairman Bernardo Greiver noted Turkey’s proposal when he introduced the Committee’s annual report at today’s meeting.  In its report, the Contributions Committee opened a proposed scale and explored the ongoing concerns surrounding the scale of assessments raised by delegates during the previous two Assembly sessions.  It contained a detailed description of the methodology used in preparing the current scale and its formula review of the elements.


Lionel Berridge, Chief of the Contributions and Policy Coordination Service, introduced the Secretary-General’s report on multi-year payments.  This report laid out the 2011 year-end status of implementing the payment plans and gave detailed information on the two remaining plans submitted by Liberia and Sao Tome and Principe.


Also speaking today were representatives of Cuba, Qatar, Russian Federation, United States, Colombia, Republic of Korea, China and Sri Lanka.


The Fifth Committee will reconvene at 10 a.m. Monday, 8 October, to discuss programme planning and reports and activities of the Office of Internal Oversight Services and the Independent Audit Advisory Committee.


Background


The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) met this morning to consider its agenda item on the scale of assessments for the apportionment of the expenses of the United Nations.


The Committee had before it the report of the Committee on Contributions’ seventy-second session (4-29 June 2012) (document A/67/11), in which the Committee reviewed the methodology of the scale of assessments for the period 2013-2015, pursuant to rule 160 of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly and Assembly resolutions 58/1 B, 61/237 and 64/248.


The Committee reaffirmed its recommendation that the scale should be based on the most current, comprehensive and comparable data available for gross national income (GNI) and that market exchange rates be used to prepare the scale, except when exchange rates created excessive fluctuations and distortions in income.


The Committee also decided to further study the questions of automatic annual recalculation and large scale-to-scale changes in rates of assessment, based on guidance provided by the Assembly.


Regarding multi-year payment plans, the Committee noted Liberia’s completion of payments under its plan.  It recommended that the Assembly encourage other Member States in arrears, under Article 19 of the United Nations Charter, to consider submitting multi-year payment plans.  It noted that no new multi-year payment plans had been submitted.


With regard to exemptions from the application of Article 19, the Committee recommended the following Member States be permitted to vote in the Assembly until the end of its sixty-seventh session:  Central African Republic; Comoros; Guinea-Bissau; Sao Tome and Principe; and Somalia.


The Committee also recommended a rate of assessment of 0.003 per cent for South Sudan for 2011 and 2012, and a notional rate of assessment of 0.001 per cent for the Holy See, as a non-member State, for the period 2013-2015.


The Committee decided to hold its seventy-third session from 3 to 21 June 2013.


Also before the Committee was the Secretary-General’s report on multi-year payment plans (document A/67/75), submitted in connection with resolution 57/4 B, on the year-end status of Member States’ payment plans.  It provides a summary of the most recent payment plans submitted by Liberia and Sao Tome and Principe as of 31 December 2011.


For Liberia, payments and credits from 2006 to 2011 totalled $1.15 million.  The outstanding assessed contributions for Liberia on 31 December 2011 totalled $235,171.  Payments made by the Government of Sao Tome and Principe have fallen below the level expected for the 2002-2009 period.  Payments and credits of $34,254 were applied for that period, compared with anticipated payments of $694,411, which had been set out in its schedule for those years.  Credits amounting to $356 and $506 were applied in 2010 and 2011, respectively.  The outstanding assessed contributions for the country totalled $835,325.


The Assembly may wish to note the present report and encourage Member States with significant arrears in contributions to consider submitting multi-year payment plans.


Introduction of Reports


BERNARDO GREIVER, Chairman of the Committee on Contributions, introduced the report of the Committee on Contributions’ seventy-second session (document A/67/11).  At its recent meeting, the Committee addressed the issues that were raised by Member States in the Fifth Committee during their sixty-fifth and sixty-sixth sessions.  The Committee’s review of the methodology used to prepare the scale of assessments is part of its report.


The Committee reaffirmed its recommendation that the scale of assessments for the period 2013-2015 should be based on the most current, comprehensive and comparable data available for GNI.  It also reaffirmed its recommendation that conversion rates based on market exchange rates should be used to prepare the scale for the period 2013-2015, except when these exchange rates created excessive fluctuations and distortions in GNI, expressed in United States dollars, of some Member States.  In those cases, price-adjusted rates of exchange (PARES) or other appropriate conversion rates should be applied, and, if so, on case-by-case bases.


Income data expressed in United States dollars had to be averaged over a designated base period, he said.  The Committee agreed that, once selected, there were advantages in using the same base for as long as possible and believed there was no rationale for changing the existing combined approach based on both the three-year and six-year periods.


He said the Committee had first considered the question of automatic annual recalculation of the scale in 1997 and several times since then.  A detailed study was carried out at its seventieth session.  The Committee decided to further study the questions of automatic annual recalculation of the scale and large scale-to-scale increases in the rates of assessment, based on guidance provided by the Assembly.


The Committee had considered and taken note of a representation from Turkey related to proposals for a methodology for the preparation of the scale of assessment for 2013-2015, he said.


Regarding multi-year payment plans, the Committee noted Liberia’s completion of payments under its plan.  It recommended that the Assembly encourage other Member States in arrears, under Article 19 of the United Nations Charter, to consider submitting multi-year payment plans.  It noted that no new multi-year payment plans had been submitted.


With regard to exemptions from the application of Article 19, the Committee recommended the following Member States be permitted to vote in the Assembly until the end of its sixty-seventh session:  Central African Republic; Comoros; Guinea-Bissau; Sao Tome and Principe; and Somalia.  It noted that the failure to pay the full minimum amount was beyond their control, he said.


The Committee also recommended a rate of assessment of 0.003 per cent for South Sudan for 2011 and 2012, and a notional rate of assessment of 0.001 per cent for the Holy See, as a non-member State, for the period 2013-2015, he said.


LIONEL BERRIDGE, Chief, Contributions and Policy Coordination Service, introduced the Secretary-General’s report on multi-year payments (document A/67/75).  He recalled that it was reported last year that five Member States had previously completed payments under the multi-year payment plan system since its inception in 2002.  The present report discussed the status of implementing the plan as of 31 December 2011 and gave detailed information on the two remaining plans submitted by Liberia and Sao Tome and Principe.  Since the report was issued, Liberia had implemented successfully its payment plan in the first half of 2012.  The updated status, as of 29 June 2012, of the sole remaining payment plan was indicated in report A/67/11 of the Committee on Contributions.  Since 2002, a total of six Member States had successfully implemented plans under the payment system.  No new payment plans or schedules to eliminate arrears had been submitted in recent years.  But, several Member States had indicated to the Committee on Contributions that the matter was under consideration.


Statements


Speaking on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China, MOURAD BENMEHIDI ( Algeria), reaffirmed its long-standing position that the financial resources of the Organization had to meet its legislative mandates.  Without adequate resources, the Organization could not be expected to implement its mandates effectively.  It believed all Member States had to fulfil their legal obligations.  It stressed that some developed countries had genuine difficulties that prevented them from temporarily meeting their financial obligations.  The Group emphasized the importance of dealing with the issue of Article 19 on an urgent basis.


The Group reaffirmed that the Fifth Committee was the sole Main Committee entrusted with responsibilities for administrative, financial and budgetary matters.  The Group also reaffirmed the principal of the “capacity to pay” and emphasized that the core elements of the current methodology for the scale of assessments — such as base period, GNI, conversion rates, low per capita income adjustment, and ceiling for least developed countries — had to be kept intact and were not negotiable.  It stressed that the current maximum assessment rate, or ceiling, had been fixed as a political compromise and was contrary to the principle of capacity to pay.  It was a fundamental source of distortion in the scale of assessments.  The Group urged the General Assembly to review the arrangement.


The Group was committed to adopting the updated scale of assessments for the period 2013-2015 as prepared on the current methodology.  Any attempt to change the methodology that would shift the burden of financing the Organization to developing countries would only entail unproductive discussions.  The Group was committed to fulfilling its responsibilities even though maintaining the current methodology would lead to substantial increases in the 2013-2015 contributions for many developing countries.


The Group stressed that any negotiations on the issue had to be conducted openly, and it was strongly opposed to decision-making by small groups and the imposition of any conditionalities during talks, he added.


Regarding multi-year payments, the Group repeated that those plans should remain voluntary and take a Member State’s financial condition into account.  “It should not be used as a way of exerting pressure on Member States that are already in difficult circumstances,” he said, adding it should not be included as a factor when considering exemptions under Article 19 of the Charter.  It endorsed the Committee’s recommendations to let the five countries named in its report vote until the current session’s end.


IOANNIS VRAILAS, Deputy Head of the Delegation of the European Union, said it was important that the Committee make the right decision on the scale of assessments to ensure the sustainability of an Organization that the Union viewed as being at the apex of the international system.  Funding the Organization was the joint responsibility of the entire membership and Members’ financial contributions should be based on their relative capacity to pay.  He noted that the total contribution of Union Member States still exceeded their share of world GNI, so there could be no doubt that the current methodology did not sufficiently account for economic realities.  There was room to improve the methodology, so it would reflect a more equitable and balanced distribution of Member States’ financial responsibility, according to their capacity to pay, he added.


That view prompted the Assembly to agree, during its sixty-fourth session, to undertake a comprehensive review of all elements of the methodology, a review that regretfully never took place.  The Union had consistently expressed concerns with some serious problems in the current methodology.  It was concerned to learn from the Committee on Contributions that the low per capita income adjustment had become the largest element of redistribution in the methodology, since that redistribution provided only limited benefits for the poorer members it was originally created to support.  These Member States were in real need of the adjustment.  The problems caused by the debt-burden adjustment, as observed by the Committee, were also worrying.  Given the need to respect the capacity to pay, any option that would lead to additional distortions was inconceivable for the Union, he said.


Regarding multi-year payment plans, the Union was content to endorse the Committee recommendation that permitted the countries that requested exemptions under Article 19 to vote until the end of the session.  The Union looked forward to working with Member States of all groups towards an outcome that would better reflect the principle of capacity to pay.


MONDO YAMAMOTO ( Japan) said that the scale of assessments was of great importance to Japan, as it was the second largest financial contributor to the United Nations.  Japan had paid its dues faithfully, despite economic and financial difficulties at home.  The basic principle that each Member State should pay its assessed contributions according to its capacity to pay should be respected and maintained.  Bearing in mind the world’s changing economic situation, it was important to find a methodology that would better reflect each Member State’s real and current capacity to pay in a more equitable way, based on the most current, comprehensive and comparable data available.  Japan would actively participate in the upcoming negotiation process, so that it could reach consensus on how to maintain the Organization’s future sustainability.  He endorsed the Committee on Contribution’s recommendations concerning exemptions to the application of Article 19 of the Charter.


OSCAR LEÓN GONZÁLEZ( Cuba) said the existing ceiling on the scale of assessments, whose percentage was politically motivated, distorted the capacity-to-pay principle.  He called for its review, in line with the capacity-to-pay principle and relevant provisions of Assembly resolution 55/5 C.  Any change in the methodology that did not seriously consider abolishing the ceiling did not make sense.  In recent times, there had been a hypocritical attempt to transfer financial burdens to developing countries that had nothing to do with the unfair implementation of the principle, or the current circumstances under which the performance of national economies were analysed.  Regardless of the data provided by the mechanical scale, it was important to note the special situations in some countries that impacted their ability to pay.  He was dismayed that year after year the largest shares of United Nations budgets had been allocated to peace and security issues, thus turning the Organization into a de facto military pact, while funding for socio-economic programmes had been cut.  There was growing pressure to silence developing countries in decision-making and a crisis of global governance, in which small groups of powerful countries attempted to make decisions for all, in blatant violation of the principle of the sovereign equality of States.

Cuba would oppose any attempt to modify the scale of assessments in a way that limited developing countries’ participation in the Organization’s work, he said.  Under the current methodology, most developing countries’ contributions would increase considerably.  Any attempt to change it would be selective in nature, clearly politicized and meaningless if the ceiling was not eliminated.  He called for exempting expeditiously, as recommended by the Committee on Contributions’ recommendation, five countries from application of Article 19 of the Charter.  He reaffirmed support for the multi-year payments mechanism.


Further, despite the unilateral blockade against it, Cuba reaffirmed its willingness to meet its financial obligations to the Organization.


Mr. AL-MUTAWAH ( Qatar) supported the statement by Algeria’s representative on behalf of the Group of 77 and China.  Qatar was facing many challenges due to the world economic crisis.  Nevertheless, it was committed to its legal obligation to pay its contributions to the United Nations in full.  He called on all Member States to follow suit, in line with Article 17 of the Charter.  It was important to take into account the economic difficulties that may temporarily prevent Member States from paying their dues on time and in full.  He supported the Committee on Contributions’ recommendation to grant five Member States an exemption under Article 19 of the Charter and allow them to vote during the session.  He lauded those States that had set up multi-year payment plans.  But, he stressed that such plans must remain voluntary and there must be no pressure on States to create them.  The current methodology for the scale of assessments must reflect changes in the economic situation of Member States.  The capacity to pay must remain fundamental in that regard.  Qatar would reject any elements in the change of methodology that would financially burden Member States.  The fundamental elements of the current methodology must remain non-negotiable.  All elements must be implemented effectively.  National income or median individual income could not be used as a stand-alone factor.  He also stressed the importance of transparency in carrying out the Committee’s work.


KEN SIAH ( Singapore) aligned himself with the statement by Algeria’s representative on behalf of the Group of 77 and China.  While the scale of assessments was not perfect, the current methodology adequately reflected the capacity-to-pay principle.  The apportionment of expenses could never be perfect, as each country’s idea of a perfect methodology was different.  The apportionment was also a zero-sum game.  When one country’s contribution increased, another’s decreased.  The purpose of a practical methodology was to strike a reasonable, workable compromise.  The current methodology captured changes in nations’ relative economic performance.  Countries with relatively stronger economic performance had assumed a greater share of the assessments, while the share had decreased for those with relatively weaker performance.  The consistent application of the same methodology during the last 12 years had allowed the scale to reflect readjustments in a stable, predictable way.  He favoured preserving that stability by adopting the current methodology for the 2013-2015 scale.


He opposed proposals aimed at changing elements of the methodology when they suited the political interests of a particular country and group of countries, thus creating an unpredictable, impractical system of apportioning expenses based on political expediency.  Singapore favoured the current methodology even though it would substantially increase its assessment.  He urged all Member States to look beyond cost savings and political gain, and to fulfil their responsibilities to the United Nations.  Some major contributors sought to change the methodology in a bid to transfer a greater burden to developing countries, while refusing to surrender any of their privileges.  He opposed any change that unjustly imposed more obligations on developing countries.  “Attempts to change the methodology to satisfy a small group of countries’ politically motivated wishes will never be acceptable,” he said. 


DMITRY S.CHUMAKOV( Russian Federation) said his Government attached great importance to the fair appropriation of expenses among Member States and their payment of obligations fully, on time and without any conditions.  That was essential for the United Nations to successfully implement its many comprehensive tasks, which were expanding each year.  He was disappointed that during discussion of the current scale of assessments, the principle of consensus had been disrupted.  Five United Nations Members ignored the application of the current methodology of per capita income without appropriate justification.  A repeat would be unacceptable.


He hoped there could be deep discussion to craft a consensus in the future.  To be more effective, the Committee on Contributions had to agree upon its working methods.  He believed the creation of additional groups of persons to discuss matters would just complicate the drafting of recommendations.  He emphasized that the current methodology used to calculate contributions was the result of complex negotiations, and it did not require any significant change.


He noted and agreed with the Committee’s recommendation permitting countries with debt to continue to vote until the Assembly’s end.


JOSEPH TORSELLA ( United States) said the triennial comprehensive review gave the Assembly a chance to review whether the existing apportionment of United Nations expenses was appropriate for today’s world.  Since the scale of assessment was last negotiated, developing countries had continued their impressive economic growth.  The Assembly must adequately reflect those economic realities in the scale of assessments for 2013-2015, while continuing to respect the capacity-to-pay principle and avoidance of overreliance on any one contributor.  Countries whose economies had grown should welcome the change to become a larger stakeholder in the Organization’s work.  He hoped the Assembly could adopt the scale for the 2013-2015 period well in advance of the winter holidays.  To that end, the United States stood ready to work with all delegations to expeditiously achieve consensus on the scale of assessments.


MIGUEL CAMILO RUIZ ( Colombia) said Member States must pay their assessments fully and unconditionally.  The scale of assessments for the period 2013-2015 must be based on current, comprehensive, comparable data on gross domestic product (GDP), without being applied in a way that would excessively burden countries grappling with challenges in development and poverty reduction.  The scale of assessments proposed for the 2013-2015 budget cycle entailed a considerable increase for developing countries.  Therefore, he recommended setting a maximum limit on the increase from one scale to another.  That would eliminate discontinuity and offset the substantial increases in the scale of assessments and the subsequent impact on Member States’ financial obligations to other United Nations organs.


He called for assessing whether it was feasible to introduce elements that could mitigate the impact of the disproportionate increase in assessments for some Member States, particularly developing countries, as well as introducing a mechanism to gradually implement increases over a base period.  It was fundamental to maintain the current methodology to determine the scale of assessments for the period 2013-2015.  Adjustments due to debt burdens and low per capita income were integral parts of the methodology and they should remain unchanged.  Any discussion on the scale of assessments must be tackled in a transparent, open fashion within the framework of the Committee.  While Colombia would have to make significant efforts to comply with its financial obligations to the Organization during the period 2013-2015, it was committed to doing so.


SUL KYUNG-HOON ( Republic of Korea) said the issue of scale assessment continued to pose complex, contentious challenges.  Especially at a time of economic downturns and financial constraints, it was necessary to approach the issue with a more open mind and a desire to achieve consensus.  It was also critical to find a fairer and more reasonable burden-sharing mechanism for United Nations activities and operations.  In that regard, it was necessary to focus less on how much the methodology of the scale of assessments affected Member States’ assessment rates, and more on whether the agreed methodology would result in more equitable and sustainable scales.


As for the current methodology, there was room for further enhancement based on equitability, sustainability and simplicity, as well as the principle of capacity to pay.  The deviation between the scales and GNI shares after applying various adjustment mechanisms should be within a reasonable range, he said.  “We now need to take a fresh look at whether we can improve the application of the debt burden adjustment by using the actual data, instead of theoretical or hypothetical assumptions, as more accurate data, including debt flow and public debt, are now easily available,” he said.  “This will enable us to reflect the capacity to pay in a more accurate and equitable manner.”


WANG MIN ( China) said the report of the Committee on Contributions had recommended a scale of assessments that could entail a big increase for quite a number of Group of 77 members and some emerging economies, including his own.  Since the scale of assessments must be formulated strictly in accordance with the principle of capacity to pay, which was a fundamental principle in the General Assembly’s Rules of Procedure, discussions in the Committee and proposals and ideas presented must be in line with that principle.  Further, given that developing countries were constrained by weak economies, ignoring their per capita income and simply using gross national income to measure the actual capacity to pay was partial and unfair.


Continuing, he said the application of the capacity-to-pay principle necessitated the consistent application of low per capita income adjustment to all qualified Member States and the impermissibility of discriminatory practices.  Adjustment threshold and per capita income remained the only criteria and no other factors should be included.  The United Nations scale methodology should also remain relatively stable and avoid frequent and drastic adjustments, to ensure that it is conducive to maintaining a stable and sound fiscal foundation for the organization.  For China’s part, a projected assessment rate increase would be a heavy burden, given that it remained a developing country, he said.  “It has a huge population with a tremendous number of people living in poverty and its economic development is very uneven.  These are indisputable facts of China’s national situation,” he said, noting that evaluating China’s capacity to pay should be done in an objective way and should not be separated from its national conditions and the overall international economic environment.


PALITHA T.B. KOHONA (Sri Lanka) stressed the importance of providing adequate financial resources to the Organization so it could implement its mandate effectively.  Any inclination to implement mandates selectively must be resisted.  All Member States must fulfil their legal obligation to pay their assessed dues to the Organization on time, in full and unconditionally, so the Organization could function smoothly.  The Secretariat must utilize the resources it received from Member States effectively, while cutting costs wherever possible.  The goal must be to create a more efficient, effective Organization from which all Member States could benefit.


He recognized that some developing countries faced genuine difficulties that prevented them temporarily from meeting their financial obligations.  Those situations should be examined individually, in line with Article 19 of the Charter.  The current methodology for determining the scale of assessments was a reflection of Member States’ relative economic circumstances.  He reaffirmed the principle of the capacity to pay as the fundamental criterion for apportioning dues.  He rejected any changes to it aimed at increasing developing countries’ contributions.  The Fifth Committee was the only Committee in the United Nations responsible for budgetary, financial and administrative matters.  As such, such matters should only be discussed in the Fifth Committee.


ÖZGÜR PEHLIVAN ( Turkey) said that while capacity to pay should be the key principle for a fair and balanced assessment of Member States’ contributions to the regular budget, and did serve as the basis of current methodology, adjustments to that methodology had created distortions.  As per General Assembly resolution 64/248, the current methodology for determining the scale of assessments was to be reviewed, but there had not yet been any progress.  The Fifth Committee needed to embrace constructive and open dialogue to reach consensus.


Noting that Turkey was honouring its budgetary obligations fully and in a timely manner, he said that all Member States should do so.  As the country’s economy emerged, that evolving economic strength should be reflected in the scale of assessments in accordance with the principle of capacity to pay.  However, due to the low per capita income adjustment element of the current methodology, Turkey faced a large scale-to-scale increase in its rate.  He requested a review of the modalities for provision of temporary relief in the form of a ceiling on one-time increases for Member States facing large increases, to mitigate their effects on national budgets.  Such a phased approach for a restricted, transitional time period would avoid creating a persistent distortion in the system, he said.


Finally, he endorsed the recommendations of the Committee on Contributions for States requesting exemptions under Article 19, while also encouraging Member States with unpaid assessed contributions to implement voluntary, multi-year payment plans.


Mr. GREIVER thanked the Member States for their comments, which were very important and would be conveyed to the Committee on Contributions and incorporated into the report in the coming year.  Acknowledging that the financial crisis had strongly impacted the financial conditions of some countries, he said that situation would be noted during the Committee’s upcoming discussions on the scale of assessments.


* *** *

For information media • not an official record
For information media. Not an official record.