SCALE OF ASSESSMENTS: INITIAL FIFTH COMMITTEE

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 USUN NEW YORK 002184 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/22/2011 TAGS: AORC UNGA KUNR SUBJECT: SCALE OF ASSESSMENTS: INITIAL FIFTH COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION OF MEMBER STATE PROPOSALS; WHAT LIES AHEAD Classified By: Ambassador Mark D. Wallace; Reasons: 1.4 (B) and (D). ¶1. (U) SUMMARY/COMMENT: On November 21, the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) took up initial discussion on concepts submitted by the U.S., the Group of 77 and China, Japan, the European Union, Russia, and Mexico on the scale of assessments for the period 2007-2009, with the majority of the substantial proposals coming from the first five above-mentioned delegations. The U.S., along with Japan and the EU, argued for modification of the 80 percent gradient (or discount) now given to states with low per capita income (PCI),so that those states whose PCI was below the world average but whose Gross National Income (GNI) was above one percent or more of the global market share should receive a smaller rebate because their economies were stronger. The G77 and China rejected outright any modification to the gradient, and also rejected Japan's proposal for a P-5 floor, labeling both suggestions "non-negotiable." The EU argued that as per General Assembly resolution 55/5C, the ceiling should be reviewed as a part of the current scale negotiation. The G-77 proposed that the ceiling should be raised to 25 per cent. The discussion on scales will resume on Tuesday, November 28. The Coordinator (Iran) expects to present a draft resolution to the Committee based on all of the submissions from Member States. ¶2. (C) SUMMARY/COMMENT (CONTINUED): As reflected in the November 21 discussions, the battle in the Fifth Committee over scale will center on the length of the base period (shorter base period of 3 yrs advocated by Japan, U.S.; longer period of 6 yrs proposed by EU; retention of current 4.5 yrs supported by G-77),possible modification of the gradient (i.e. 40, 50 or 60 per cent vice 80 percent as applied to large, fast-growing economies such as China, Russia, India and Brazil - supported by Japan, U.S., EU, CANZ; opposed by G-77),and attempts by the G-77 and EU to attack the U.S. on the 22 per cent ceiling by claiming the U.S. has not improved its record on arrears. In fact, the G-77 said the U.S. had reneged on its commitments made during the last scale negotiations in 2000 to repay its arrears in full in exchange for a reduction in the ceiling. The Japanese believe it may be possible to isolate the four ;states (China, Russia, India, Brazil) who currently benefit disproportionately from the current 80 per cent gradient if the U.S., Japan, CANZ and the EU stand united, but the G-77 appear unified in their demand for uniform application of an 80 per cent gradient to all states whose per capita income falls below the world average (low per capita income adjustment),even those developing states whose gross national income may be one per cent or more of global GNI. Perhaps the greatest challenge lying ahead is that the U.S. will be under siege throughout the scale negotiations defending the 22 per cent ceiling and our record on arrears. END SUMMARY/COMMENT. -------------- - SCALE OF ASSESSMENT: INTRODUCTION OF PROPOSALS -------------- - ¶3. On November 21, the Fifth Committee took up initial discussion on concepts submitted by Member States on the scale of assessments covering the period 2007-2009. The U.S., along with Japan and the EU, argued for modification of the 80 percent gradient (or discount) now given to states with low per capita income (PCI),so that those states whose PCI was below the world average but whose gross national income (GNI) was above one percent or more of the global market share should receive a reduced discount because their economies were stronger. While giving an overview of the U.S. positions as reflected in its submission, the U.S. delegate clearly and explicitly conveyed the USG position on keeping the ceiling at 22 percent. Explaining that while capacity to pay was an important factor, in keeping with the UN Charter and historical precedent since 1946, the U.S. delegate said it also was important to uphold the principle of sovereign equality of Member States, thereby preventing financial domination by or dependence on one state. He added that the U.S. believed strongly in the consensus principle for decisions taken in the Fifth Committee, but warned that the U.S. could not join consensus on any proposal advocating an increase in the current 22 per cent ceiling. ¶4. The Group of 77 and China advocated leaving the methodology as it was with two changes they deemed "technical, not political" - namely, raising the ceiling to 25 percent, and adding a mechanism to phase in large-scale-to-scale increases in equal installments over three years. Both in the explanation of their proposals and whenever these subjects were raised throughout the day's USUN NEW Y 00002184 002 OF 002 session, the G77 rejected outright proposed modifications to the gradient, leaving the ceiling at 22 percent (unless the U.S. paid off its arrears in full),and Japan's proposal for a P-5 floor. The G-77 labeled the proposals on the gradient and the P-5 floor as "non-negotiable." ¶5. The European Union, like the U.S., had four separate submissions, all of which included changing the base period to a flat six-years, and imposing a 60-80-85 percent gradient when determining the low per capita income adjustments (LPCIAs). The EU said the flat base period was the most stable solution, which prevented against unfair increases to developing countries. The current system of averaging six and three years, they argued, unduly burdened 31 countries. Under the EU proposal, that number would shrink from 31 countries to 13. The EU also argued that as per General Assembly resolution 55/5C, the ceiling should be reviewed as part of this scale negotiation. Thus, two of their submissions called for a 22 percent ceiling and two called for a 25 percent ceiling. The EU never clearly advocated imposition of a 25 per cent ceiling, however, even when pressed to do so by the G77, but merely said the issue of the ceiling merited review as per Resolution 55/5 C. The EU also attacked the G77 proposal to factor in population size in the capacity to pay, saying the most important factor for determining capacity to pay was a country's strength of economy and world market share as reflected in gross national income figures. ¶6. Mexico proposed two changes to the current methodology - moving the base period from an average of six and three years to an average of six and two years. The Mexican delegate said they believed such a move would foster the necessary balance between accuracy and political motivations. In their explanation of position, Mexico indicated that they would have preferred a base period averaging six and one years; however, based on the Secretariat's earlier indications to their delegation, a six and one year base period would be too difficult to implement at this time. As a result, the six and two year base period would serve as a just compromise. Mexico stated that a shortened base period was detrimental to least developed countries (LDCs) and economies in transition since such nations encountered wide economic fluctuations. Separately, the Mexican delegate also called for a low per capita income adjustment of 80 percent, with the threshold per capita income limit of the average per capita gross national product of all Member States to be absorbed by high per capita income States. ¶7. (U) In keeping with their proposals submitted in March of this year, Japan submitted two variations for alterations to the current methodology. Both proposals called for shortening the base period to three years, basing LPCIAs on debt stock, maintaining a ceiling at 22 percent, and an annual recalculation of the rate of assessment. The first Japanese proposal called for a P-5 floor of three or five percent, while the second proposed a multiple gradient of between 60 and 80 percent. Based on the explanations given during the informal discussion and comments made by Japan in private meetings, shortening the base period and instituting a P-5 floor remained their top priorities, as Japan believed these two elements best reflected capacity to pay. ¶8. (U) The Russian Federation proposed that the scale methodology remain as it was currently, based on the same criterion negotiated in 2000 (Resolution 55/5 B). They noted that the present methodology was more balanced and less political than the submissions of various delegations. ¶9. (U) The Fifth Committee will resume discussion on scale of assessments on November 28. The discussion Coordinator (Iran) expects to present a draft resolution to the Committee based on all submissions by Member States at that time. The UN Statistics Division also is expected to distribute charts ("machine scales") showing the various calculations for each Member State based on the various methodological formulas submitted by delegations, including the United States. BOLTON