United Nations General Assembly: Fifth Committee
9 October 2006
Item 122. Scale of Assessments
Statement by H.E. Robert Hill
Ambassador and Permanent Representative
Permanent Mission of Australia to the United Nations
On behalf of Canada, Australia and New Zealand
(Check against delivery)
Mr Chairman
I have the honour to speak today on behalf of Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
Our delegations would like to thank Mr Bernado Greiver, Chairman of the Committee on Contributions, for his presentation of the report of the Committee (A/61/11) and thank all members of the Committee for their work during its 66th session in June. Thanks also to the UN Controller, Mr Warren Sach, for introducing the Secretary-General’s report on multi-year payment plans (A/61/68).
Mr Chairman
As the Secretary-General highlighted in his recent report to us on the work of the United Nations, our Organisation has developed into a truly global service provider, working on the ground in virtually every corner of the world to improve the lives of people who need help. This work requires significant resources – and it is the responsibility of all 192 UN member states to contribute to the provision of these.
For 60 years, the methodology used to apportion our Organisation’s expenses has consistently incorporated four core elements:
1. a measure of income, to assess each member state’s capacity to pay
2. a low per capita income adjustment, to make the scale progressive
3. ceilings, to ensure the Organisation is not excessively dependent on any one state for resources and that there is no undue burden placed on least developed countries, and
4. a floor, forming an appropriate de minimus level of contribution for a sovereign member state accepted as a member of the United Nations.
CANZ supports retention of all of these well proven elements in the next scale of assessments, although improvements to their application can be considered. For example, the low per capita income adjustment might be more effective with more than one gradient to reflect differences in income level, in order, for example, to provide the highest rates of adjustment to the poorest countries. The redistribution of the related points can be re-examined.
Mr Chairman
Other elements incorporated in the current scale are less soundly based than the four core elements. CANZ is open to considering changes to these.
For example, the debt adjustment element, first introduced in 1986, has little, if any, demonstrable link to member states’ capacity to pay as the effects of debt servicing costs are already incorporated into the current income measure of Gross National Income (GNI).
On the statistical base period, current capacity to pay is best assessed using the most recent and accurate data available. This is why we favour a shorter base period, with the possibility of adjusting the scale each year in line with changing data. Consistency in the base period over time should also be an important element in the scale methodology. The current approach makes little technical sense, being the result of a compromise made six years ago. We should be able to improve on this for the next scale.
During the last session, several delegations presented proposals for the introduction of new elements, or significant adjustments to existing elements, of the scale. CANZ is open to considering the practical application of proposals within the framework of the principle of capacity to pay.
However, in doing so we must ensure that this Committee not compromise its fundamental responsibility for this session, which is to reach agreement on a new scale to apply from 1 January 2007. The Secretary-General requires a new scale to be able to legally issue the assessment notices that will secure the funds to maintain the work of the Organisation. The current scale expires at the end of this year and cannot be applied again without the explicit approval of the General Assembly. Such a decision would effectively constitute agreement on a new scale.
Mr Chairman
Due to the lack of precision in the guidance that this Committee provided to the Committee on Contributions this year, we do not have a single recommendation on the scale before us. The Committee has nevertheless produced a comprehensive report. We urge this Committee to use the illustrative table presented on pages 12 to 25 of the report of the Committee on Contributions (A/61/11) as the most appropriate starting point for our negotiation.
Thank you, Mr Chairman