Home » UN Reform Watches » 25 April 2007, No. 26

Pushing Decisions Through a Clogged Bottleneck

Should there be a Review of the Fifth Committee's Working Methods?

by Lydia Swart and Irene Martinetti
25 April 2007

Apart from important decisions on budgets and assessments, the Fifth Committee of the General Assembly also deliberates on key proposals in regard to management reform. Progress on some of these reform proposals has been slow and this analysis explores whether the working methods of the Fifth Committee may be as much to blame as the much lamented North-South divide. This analysis draws on the perspectives from current and past Fifth Committee delegates we interviewed, from both the North and the South.

PDF Version

“I’d rather be Christmas shopping,” Ambassador Dumisani Kumalo from South Africa, then Chair of the Group of 77, reportedly quipped during one of the Fifth Committee’s informal meetings on Member States’ dues in the second half of December 2006. The negotiations needed to be concluded in a matter of days as a draft resolution had to be ready for adoption in the plenary on the 22nd of December. A major disagreement on the method for assessing Member States’ dues between the European Union – which saw an increase in its share of UN dues from 37% to almost 40% – and the Group of 77 was more than evident. Calculating dues based on a State’s gross national income over a longer period was more advantageous to the EU, but disadvantageous for most developing countries. The delegation from Finland, holding the EU Presidency, came with well-prepared arguments, reminding Ambassador Kumalo, for instance, that when chairing the Non-Aligned Movement before, he had favored a longer base period for assessing dues. According to one delegate, Ambassador Kumalo caused uproarious laughter when he remarked: “That’s why they kicked me out!” In the end, there was not enough time for a more substantial and interactive debate or for extensive lobbying in the corridors, and the EU relented. Too many other key issues were facing the same deadline in the Fifth Committee.

The Fifth Committee of the General Assembly is widely recognized as the only organ that functions as a counterweight to the Security Council based on its power over budget priorities and dues assessments. One delegate went so far as to suggest that a number of Ambassadors find the Fifth Committee to be “the second most important body in the UN after the Security Council.” Furthermore, decisions on resources and management reforms taken at the Fifth Committee not only have an impact on the ground but reverberate throughout the entire UN system.

Documentation and Scheduling Issues
To perform its functions, the Fifth Committee meets more frequently than any of the other committees of the General Assembly. It is well-known that Fifth Committee delegates regularly meet until late in the evening and at times even through the night. Weekend meetings are not unusual either, especially towards the end of its sessions. The longest Fifth Committee meeting on record lasted for 26 hours, starting on a Saturday at 10 o’clock in the morning, continuing through the night, and finally finishing at noon on Sunday.1 This year, its first session was scheduled to take place from 25 September through 8 December 2006, but the Fifth Committee did not finish meeting until 21 December, with many issues postponed to the first and second resumed sessions in 2007.

The large number of issues to be dealt with, as well as the huge amount of documentation produced for each session, is staggering. It includes audited financial statements, programme budgets, reports from the Secretariat in response to resolutions, reports from advisory, oversight and inspection bodies and units, among many others. A large number of the documents from the Secretariat pertaining to the discussions are often issued only shortly before, or shortly after, the beginning of the meetings,2 making it even more difficult for delegates to stay on top of the issues.

The late issuance of documentation also affects the work of the Advisory Committee on Budget and Administrative Questions (ACABQ) which provides recommendations to Member States. For example, the former Secretary General submitted his report on human resources management ( Investing in People) on 9 August 2006. However, as the report had to be translated into the six official languages, its actual issuance date was 27 September 2006, two days after the session started. As a consequence, the ACABQ’s report on the SG report did not come out until 26 October 2006.

Too often, such late receipt of documentation results in deferring issues to the resumed sessions, as was the case in regards to the consultations on a draft resolution on the reform of the governance and oversight system of the UN. The document, A/60/883/Add.1 & 2 , was officially issued on 28 August 2006 and the ACABQ’s response to this report was not available until 1 December 2006.

The overwhelming amount of documentation that the Fifth Committee requires is one of the main impediments to a leaner working process. One delegate discussing the Fifth Committee working methods admitted that the Committee requests so many documents that it is “frankly impossible” for the Secretariat to issue all of them on time.

The heavy meeting schedule and the daunting amount of highly technical and detailed documentation tends to hinder the capability of UN missions with a small staff to make an effective contribution to the work of the Committee. This causes many of these missions to rely heavily on the various groupings, such as the G77 and the EU.

The fact that the other GA Committees often seek the approval of the Fifth Committee on the financial implications of their own draft resolutions produced in the same time period is an additional factor contributing to its overburdened meeting schedule.

The negotiating process
In the eighties, Member States agreed to a resolution (A/41/213) stipulating that when approving budgetary items and resolutions, the “broadest possible agreement’ should be reached. This necessity to reach consensus has developed into quite an elaborate negotiating process towards the end of the session at which time delegates start frantically “exchanging brackets.” This entails negotiating their positions and ‘trading’ contentious or unresolved points from one resolution to the other, until the very last moment when draft resolutions have to be presented to the plenary of the General Assembly.

Having a deadline - the date when the GA needs to approve the draft resolutions coming out of the Fifth Committee - is in itself conducive to reach agreement as it forces Member States to find a compromise on their positions and reach agreement. Nevertheless, too many agenda items are postponed in practice.

Due to its peculiar negotiating process - and unlike the other Committees, which have specific time slots for consultations on each agenda item, clearing item by item on their agenda – the majority of the agenda items in the Fifth Committee are discussed simultaneously rather than consecutively, with most of them being concluded towards the end of the session. Member States initiate discussions on an agenda item at the beginning of a session, but because of the multitude of other agenda items; the late issuance of documentation; as well as delays that appear to be politically motivated, consultations drag on for months.

It has been suggested that the Fifth Committee allot different time slots and deadlines to each agenda item. However, reluctance of some Member States to change the procedures and stagger issues in the Fifth Committee appears to originate from the fact that it would hamper the final ‘bracket trading.’

One delegate expressed concern that the Fifth Committee often quickly approves extremely large budgets, especially in regard to peacekeeping, while small line items in the Secretariat’s budget, more politicized, are discussed at length. Another interviewee indicated that as the Security Council approves the peacekeeping budgets, following standard procedures, the Fifth Committee has as a result less influence on these.

Q&A Sessions
The Question and Answer (Q&A) sessions allow Member States to seek clarifications from the Secretariat. Some delegates think that Q&A sessions take too much time and are too repetitive. They suggest that some of these could be done in writing instead. But other delegates believe that the repetitiveness primarily occurs because Member States feel they are not getting the answers they want from the Secretariat. One interviewee thought that doing Q&A mostly in writing would likely only produce additional documentation and cause further delays.

One wonders whether scheduling Q&A sessions before the ACABQ recommendations on the issue have been received just wastes precious time. In fact, when human resources management reform was discussed at the first session in 2006, Q&A sessions were repetitive and unproductive before the issuance of the ACABQ report. Once distributed, it seemed to quickly determine which issues could be agreed upon during the session and which issues had to be postponed because they required further clarification. On the other hand, some delegates find that Q&A sessions help them become acquainted with the topics to be decided even if not all of the documents have been released.

Interaction between the Fifth Committee and the Secretariat
Several delegates indicated that the Secretariat and Member States seem to have “a bit of a rocky relationship.” Sometimes, delegates can be very harsh with staff from the Secretariat, while at other times it seems to be smooth sailing. Many delegates from the South feel that the Secretariat is too focused on Northern priorities, especially those of the Member States who pay higher dues. Southern delegates have further expressed their impression that the Secretariat is not only neglecting the concerns of most other Member States, but is also at times disrespectful. As a result, these delegates tend to distrust the answers given by the Secretariat and feel there is an overall lack of transparency. As a consequence, efforts from the South to stall some of the issues appear to be strategic, an attempt to force the attention they feel they deserve, but are not currently receiving, from the Secretariat.

Fifth Committee Delegates
The manner in which Member States engage in the Fifth Committee probably weighs on its decision-making process even more than its working methods, suggested a former Fifth Committee Chair. Ambassadors are often too busy to follow the intricacies of the work of the Fifth Committee and tend to neglect it, unless it concerns issues such as the scale of assessment or the deletion of budgetary items. Some of the interviewees feel that there is considerable apathy among the higher-level diplomats towards the Fifth Committee which has created a situation in which the decisions taken in this committee are often left to junior level delegates.

One interviewee confided that he had the impression that too many delegates do not thoroughly understand the issues that are being discussed. This may be due to the fact that every year, because of the staff rotations that are typical for most foreign ministries, a large number of delegates attend the meetings for the first time, struggling to quickly and fully comprehend the issues and to find out what transpired in previous years and why. He added that, on the other hand, some of the expert delegates intentionally keep their Ambassadors only vaguely informed by using jargon and convoluted information. Those Ambassadors, who may not wish to seem uninformed, do not sufficiently challenge their delegates’ positions.

Ambassadors and higher-level diplomats’ engagement in the working of the Fifth Committee would provide some weight to the Committee’s deliberations, as would an increased presence of more Under Secretary-Generals during Q&A sessions.3 One interviewee explained that Ambassadors would bring a much broader vision to the negotiations.

Lack of Transparency and Influence Peddling
One of the distinctive characteristics of the Fifth Committee’s negotiating process is the amount of haggling and horse-trading done behind the scene, that contribute to lack of transparency. It does not always seem clear that decisions are taken on merit. One gets the impression that delegates from many Member States use the budget process to pursue national or even personal interests.4 Some delegates have specific pet issues they feel passionate about and they appear to lose sight of the bigger picture. And especially the domination of just a handful of the more expert or vocal delegates in the Fifth Committee has at times seriously and negatively impacted the work of the Fifth Committee. These ‘spoilers’ – using the consensus building process to their advantage – can often by themselves determine the outcome of negotiations. One interviewee felt, however, that the so-called spoilers are often rightfully challenging some of the prevailing trends and positions.

Is the size of the Fifth Committee a problem?
In September 2006, a report of an independent Steering Committee, entrusted by the Secretary General with providing recommendations on how to strengthen the oversight and governance mechanisms of the UN, stirred up strong feelings5 by mentioning the universal membership of the Fifth Committee as a substantial obstacle to the swift reaching of agreement on budgetary matters. The report suggested that the Fifth Committee should become a budget committee with a smaller, more manageable size.

However, too many Member States see the Fifth Committee as a unique organ that cannot be equated to the financial board of a corporation or smaller agency, and the recommendation was simply disregarded. Moreover, the size of the Fifth Committee in itself may not make it less effective. As one delegate explained: “…within the modus operandi of the Fifth Committee there is a natural selection process. A de facto downsizing of the Committee occurs when Member States are negotiating a resolution at midnight on 22 December. Then you will only see States which have a real interest in the outcomes of the resolution being discussed, certainly not all of them. Also, the fact that a considerable number of Member States work in groups, such as the EU and the G77, already functions as a rationalizing factor.” In fact, although all 192 Member States are represented in the Fifth Committee, one rarely sees more than 50 delegates at the informal meetings where most of the work takes place. Of the roughly 50 delegates present at the informal meetings, less than half pose questions or provide comments, and many of these are made on behalf of a large grouping.

Resolutions
The Fifth Committee is one of the most prolific among the GA committees. During the past session, it produced 52 resolutions (with its 68 resolutions, only the Third Committee produced more). However, with the exception of the resolutions on the scale of assessment, which are monitored carefully as they affect the functioning of the UN and the interests of each Member State, the implementation of most resolutions is not scrutinized properly. In particular, the resolutions addressing reform issues would benefit from an agreement between the Member States and the Secretariat on specific timeframes and on ways to monitor the implementation of the resolutions. All resolutions taken by the Fifth Committee can be found on the UN’s website, but there currently is no tool, such as a database, that organizes the various resolutions by subject which would help to identify possible overlap – or even contradictions - between resolutions and monitor the progress on their implementation. Such a tool could potentially prevent the repetitiveness of many of the resolutions.6

A Role for Civil Society
Because the Fifth Committee deals with very technical issues, NGOs have tended not to pay much attention to its work and resolutions. Yet, the budget and reform decisions made at the Fifth Committee will often impact the issues they do focus on. NGOs working on human rights should realize that funding decisions will determine whether the ad hoc tribunals on the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, for example, will be sufficiently funded to effectively do their work. Environmental organizations should take an interest in UNEP’s budget which has become too dependent on voluntary – and typically earmarked - contributions. NGOs that work to make the UN more effective need to take an interest in the reform proposals being discussed at the Fifth Committee. Though the UN’s Department of Public Information produces excellent accounts of plenary sessions, it does not cover the bulk of the work of the Fifth Committee that takes place in informal sessions. For a handful of NGOs to be able to report on these informal sessions would much improve the transparency of the Committee’s work and decision-making processes. In addition, according to a former Fifth delegate, having NGOs with relevant expertise provide input on the draft budget would potentially benefit the process. Posting draft and approved budgets as well as audits on the UN’s website could enhance transparency and invite expert input as well.

Conclusion
Regretfully, the Fifth Committee is not the efficient and effective budget and oversight body one would hope for. It often works under less than ideal circumstances for good decision making. Some of its delegates lack capacity or expertise to do their jobs properly and Fifth Committee dynamics mean that the agenda is often hijacked by a few delegates, most times to the detriment of the majority. The Fifth Committee has become the committee in the GA where the fault lines in the UN membership are most visible: the power of the purse (rich, dominant members) versus the power of the majority, compounded by a difference in priorities: security issues are high on the agenda of the North, while development is the key issue for the South.

Though politics to a large extent underlies the ineffectiveness of the Fifth Committee, an exploration of the Fifth Committee’s working methods seems warranted. Possible improvements could include:

  1. Allocate specific time slots with clear deadlines for specific issues, depending on all relevant documentation being received.
  2. Make the Q&A sessions more effective, avoiding repetitiveness, by pooling questions received in writing. Then give the Secretariat sufficient time to provide comprehensive answers, after which one interactive and concluding debate on all the issues raised could take place.7
  3. Ensure more engagement from Ambassadors which could bring a broader vision to the negotiations.
  4. Ensure more engagement from Under-Secretary-Generals (or the Heads of offices when there is no USG) from the Secretariat during the Q&A session to ensure that Member States’ concerns are fully understood at the highest levels.
  5. Allow limited and appropriate engagement from relevant representative experts from Civil Society which would contribute to making the Fifth Committee negotiating process more transparent.
  6. Review the process of nominating, appointing, and remunerating members to advisory bodies with the view to ensure the independence of these members
  7. Create a database that would monitor the implementation of resolutions from the Fifth Committee and also help identify duplications or contradictions in draft resolutions.
  8. Post budgets and audits on the UN’s website to allow for expert input and increased transparency.

Proposals to review the Working Methods of the Fifth Committee have been around for a long time. In the past, the consensus process allowed such proposals to be shot down by just a few Member States. Nevertheless, increased transparency and a rationalization of the work in the Fifth Committee fits well in the overall reform efforts currently taking place at the United Nations. It is time for Member States to take a genuine look at a process that has too often been dismissed as rather bizarre and unproductive.


  1. This meeting took place in December 1997 and dealt, among other issues, with Kofi Annan’s first UN reform proposals.
  2. See Status of preparedness of documentation for the Fifth Committee during the main part of the sixty-first session of the General Assembly (A/C.5/61/L.1).
  3. According to one interviewee, USGs should not travel from mid-October through mid-December so they can participate in Q&As.
  4. When delegates that participate in negotiations are subsequently hired by the Secretariat or appointed to positions on the ACABQ by Member States, this raises obvious concerns about conflict of interest.
  5. The delegate from South Africa, on behalf of the G77, referred to this reduction in size as the ‘elephant in the room.’
  6. Such a database would be even more useful if it also provided summaries of Q&As from previous sessions.
  7. One interviewee felt that as the Secretariat will not necessarily answer the questions fully and satisfactory, one concluding debate is unlikely to suffice.

Published in UN Reform Watches, 25 April 2007, No. 26

» printer friendly version

Latest Updates

21 Member States Launch ACT, a New Initiative for Better Working Methods of the UN Security Council
by William Pace, 12 May 2013
On Thursday, 2 May 2013, ACT (Accountability, Coherence, and Transparency) officially launched its initiative for better working methods of the Security Council. This initiative is a follow up to the multi-year efforts from the S5, in particular in regard to its draft resolution L.42 Rev.2 from May 2012.

Chapter 1b on Security Council Reform: September 2007-May 2013
7 May 2013
The Center is updating its 2008 publication on "Managing Change at the UN." Chapter 1b has now been made available online. The publication is intended to serve as a resource for academics, media, NGOs, and newly arrived diplomats.

No Strong Support for Drafting of Concise Working Document: Chair Proposes to Put Negotiations on "Strategic Hold."
Updated 7 May 2013
On 16 and 17 April 2013, Member States discussed ways on how to proceed with the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform, reacting to the proposals made by the Chair in July 2012. The Chair of the negotiations, Amb.Zahir Tanin of Afghanistan, believes that without a working document that could lead to actual give-and-take negotiations, it might be better to "put the negotiations on strategic hold."

Draft Resolutions on Security Council Reform: Growing Convergence between Developing Countries?
By Lydia Swart, 4 March 2013
Includes draft resolutions from L69 (2012) and CARICOM (2013)

Update on Security Council Reform: Another impasse?
By Lydia Swart, 1 February 2013
An update on Security Council reform efforts from July 2012 - 30 January 2013

Annual debate on the working methods of the Security Council - DPI report
26 November 2012

Joint Debate in the General Assembly on the Report of the Security Council & the Question of equitable representation and increase in its membership - DPI report
15 November 2012

67th Session Third Committee Preview
By Tamara Johnson, 24 October 2012
As the Third Committee progresses with its 67th session, here are some hot button issues with which the NGO community and some delegations (the off the record nature of the consultations informing this article prevents specifics) are particularly concerned.

Report on the Security Council Open Debate on Children in Armed Conflict
By Tamara Johnson, 28 September 2012
The Security Council, on 19 September 2012, held an open debate pertaining to The Report of the Secretary-General A/66/782-S/2012/26 on the status of children in armed conflicts and Resolution 2068(2012), the Security Council’s response to the Secretary-General’s report. While this subject of protecting children seems noncontroversial, the resolution proved more polemical than one may have expected. The principle subject under dispute was the reach of the Security Council’s mandate to protect children in armed conflict. The modalities of such protection and the efficacy or appropriateness of different options were also discussed. This report outlines key aspects of the resolution and the lines of argument the debate followed.

Report on Rio+20 Outcome and Migration: Including all stakeholders in the future we want
By Tamara Johnson, 30 August 2012
On 22 August 2012, the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR), the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the International Organization for Migration (IOM), and the MacArthur Foundation hosted a seminar to review issues surrounding migration policy in a human rights-based framework, as outlined in the Rio+20 outcome document, "The Future We Want.” This report summarizes the statements made at the event.

Report on the Committee for Development Policy Strategy Beyond 2015
By Tamara Johnson, 10 August 2012
On 23 July 2012, the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) heard a briefing by members of the Committee for Development Policy (CDP) regarding development strategy post-2015. The Vice-President of the Council, H.E. Mr. Luis Alfonso de Alba, opened the meeting. CDP members Ms. Sakiko Fukuda-Parr, Professor of International Affairs, The New School; and Mr. Norman Girvan, Professional Research Fellow, UWI Graduate Institute of International Relations, University of the West Indies, Trinidad and Tobago reviewed the Committee’s recent report, United Nations Development Strategy Beyond 2015. This article provides a summary of the briefing and the CDP report.

Report on ECOSOC Panel Discussion: "Improving capacities for evidence-based humanitarian decision-making”
By Tamara Johnson, 5 August 2012
On 19 July 2012, the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) held a panel discussion, “Improving capacities for evidence-based humanitarian decision-making,” as part of its humanitarian affairs segment on special economic, humanitarian and disaster relief assistance. This report provides a summary of the meeting.

Letter of the Chair of the Intergovernmental Negotiations on SC Reform outlines negotiations thus far and possible ways to move the process along
By Lydia Swart
On 25 July 2012, Amb. Zahir Tanin, in his capacity as Chair of the Intergovernmental Negotiations on Security Council reform, wrote a letter to the President of the General Assembly, H.E. Mr. Nassir Abdulaziz Al-Nasser, in which he provided an overview of the intergovernmental negotiations to date while also outlining possible ways to move the process along, including a concise working document to be drafted by the Chair. It is noteworthy that in spite of this bold move, Amb. Tanin was reappointed by the President of the General Assembly of the 67th Session as Chair of the negotiations.

Report on the Security Council Open Debate on the Peacebuilding Commission
By Tamara Johnson, 20 July 2012
On 12 July 2012, The Security Council (SC) met with representatives of the World Bank and the Chair and former Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) to debate the PBC’s efficacy and relevance. SC President and Minister for Foreign Affairs of Colombia, Her Excellency María Angela Holguín, convened the debate pursuant to the Report of the Peacebuilding Commission on its fifth session (S/2012/70) and a Note Verbale dated 2 July 2012 from the Permanent Mission of Colombia to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General (S/2012/511). This report provides a summary of the meeting.

Report on ECOSOC Panel Discussion: “Mobilizing partnerships for development, including in the field of education.”
By Tamara Johnson, 22 July 2012
On 11 July 2012, the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) held a panel discussion, “Mobilizing partnerships for development, including in the field of education.” Vice-President of the Council, H.E. Mr. Mootaz Ahmadein Khalil (Egypt) chaired the panel, which was moderated by Ms. Sigrid Kaag, Assistant Secretary-General and Assistant Administrator and Director of the Bureau of External Relations and Advocacy, United Nations Development Programme. This report provides a summary of the meeting.

Report of the 4th Thematic Meeting in the Ad Hoc Working Group on Revitalization of the work of the General Assembly
By Mie Hansen,28 June 2012
On 1 June 2012, the Ad Hoc Working Group (AHWG) on Revitalization of the work of the General Assembly met for the fourth and final thematic meeting, dedicated to a discussion of “ Enhancing the functions of the Office of the President of the General Assembly including Strengthening its institutional memory and its relationship with the Secretariat”. This report provides a summary of the meeting.

Report on the 2nd and 3rd Thematic Meeting in the Ad Hoc Working Group on Revitalization of the work of the General Assembly
By Mie Hansen,17 May 2012
On 30 April 2012 and 10 May 2012 the Ad Hoc Working Group (AHWG) on the revitalization of the work of the General Assembly held its 2nd and 3rd thematic meetings, discussing respectively “Working methods of the General Assembly, implementation of GA resolutions and the agenda, as well as operational and technical issues” and “The role of the General Assembly in the selection and appointment of the Secretary-General of the UN, as well as in the selection of candidatures for other executive Heads of the UN system”. This report provides a summary of the two meetings

Report on Security Council Reform Meeting 10 April 2012
By Kirsten Schlosser
4 May 2012
On 10 April 2012 the fifth meeting of the eighth round of Intergovernmental Negotiations was held on Security Council reform. This meeting was devoted to the reform initiative of the C-10, presented by the Member State Sierra Leone. This summary is based on statements given by Member States at the meeting.

Report on Security Council Reform Meeting 13 March 2012
By Kirsten Schlosser
4 May 2012
On 13 March 2012 the fourth meeting of the eighth round of Intergovernmental Negotiations was held on Security Council reform. This meeting was devoted to the reform initiative of the L.69 Group, presented by the Member State Jamaica. This summary is based on statements given by Member States at the meeting.

Report on the first thematic meeting of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Revitalization of the work of the General Assembly
By Mie Hansen, 25 April 2012
Last Thursday, 19 April 2012, the ad hoc working group on the revitalization of the work of the General Assembly met for the first thematic meeting of the session, dedicated to “The role and authority of the General Assembly and its relationship to the principal organs of the United Nations and other groups outside the United Nations”

Harmonization of Business Practices: System-wide Coherence reform 2008 to Present
By Katie Jagel 23 April 2012
Harmonization of business practices was first introduced to the UN in 1977 within resolution 32/197 which resolved, “…measures should be taken to achieve maximum uniformity of administrative, financial, budgetary, personnel and planning procedures, including the establishment of [...] harmonized budget and programme cycles”. The idea made its resurgence as one of the five surviving clusters of the 2006 High Panel on system-wide coherence (SWC). In a 2009 outcome document from a joint meeting between the executive heads of UNDP, UNFPA, UNICEF, and WFP, it stipulates, “While simplification and harmonization of business practices in the UN system are not new initiatives, the urgency and momentum, the scope, and the approach are now new aspects of those initiatives.” ECOSOC has subsumed the initiative to a large degree, often with collaboration from the CEB, UNDG, and WFP, with progress shifting away from 'harmonization' and towards 'simplification' starting in 2010.

Improving the Funding System of Operational Activities for Development: System-wide Coherence 2008 to Present
By Katie Jagel 23 April 2012
Funding reform has been, and continues to be, a necessary reform to enhance UN efficiency. This article covers the progress of Funding as a cluster within system-wide coherence in 2008, to the present efforts of improving the funding system of operational activities for development taken on by the Fifth Committee, ECOSOC, UNESDA, and the CEB.

Strengthening Governance of Operational Activities for Development: System-wide Coherence 2008 to Present
By Katie Jagel 18 April 2012
Governance reform within the UN is one of the most active sites for comprehensive UN reform. Since 2006, simple ‘governance’ reform has transformed into the more formal “Strengthening Governance of Operational Activities for Development” and has been a fixture on several UN organ agendas. This article maps the efforts, debates, outcome documents, resolutions, since 2008 but focuses mainly, on the actual progress made by the UN on the governance front.

The “Delivering as One" (DaO) Initiative: System-wide Coherence reform.
By Katie Jagel 18 April 2012
This article is a summary of the Delivering as One initiative, monitoring the events which took place from inception up through implementation and subsequent evaluations. It tracks the events and debates which took place since 2008 up through the latest Quadrennial Comprehensive Policy Review planning documents, planned for late spring of 2012.

The Creation of a Composite Gender Entity: System-wide Coherence reform 2008-present.
By Katie Jagel 16 April 2012
The Creation of a Composite Gender Entity was one of the recommendations of the 2006 High-Level of System-wide Coherence. This article maps the progress of the making of UN Women since 2008. The years 2005-early 2008 are covered in the previous article by Jonas von Freiesleben in Chapter 3 on System-wide Coherence in the Center’s 2008 Edition of Managing Change at the United Nations . This article starts in 2008 and covers the Member State disputes, many concept notes and debates, and what the UN Women organization has been up to since its start date in February of 2011.

The S5 presents draft resolution on the Improvement the Working Methods of the Security Council
By Mie Hansen 10 April 2012
On 4 April 2012 the S5 (Jordan, Liechtenstein, Costa Rica, Singapore and Switzerland) presented a draft resolution on improving the working methods of the Security Council. At the meeting the S5 called for the General Assembly to take a stand to on the issue and suggested 16 May as a possible date for a vote. This article provides a summary of the proposal and the meeting held on it.

First Meeting of the 66th GA session in the Ad Hoc Working Group on Revitalization of the Work of the General Assembly
By Mie Hansen 30 March 2012
On 27 March 2012 the ad hoc working group on revitalization of the work of the General Assembly held its first meeting of the 66th General Assembly session. The working group, established pursuant to resolution 65/315, is during the current session Co-Chaired by Ambassador Alexander Lomaia of Georgia and Ambassador Susan Waffa-Ogoo of the Gambia. The meeting was dedicated to a general exchange of views among the Member States on all of the issues included in the revitalization of the work of the General Assembly. This article provides a summary of the meeting and the statements made.

Report on Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) March 7th Special Panel Discussion on “ECOSOC and Global Governance”
By Katie Jagel, 21 March 2012
On March 7th ECOSOC hosted a Special Panel Discussion in New York centered around Global governance. The Discussion hosted three distinguished panelists and was designed by the President of ECOSOC, H.E. Miloš Koterec, as an 'open free-flowing discussion with no formal statements' between Member States and the panelists. Based on questions and statements from Member States, ECOSOC's role in global governance within the UN system is unquestioned but needs to be better defined and articulated in order for it to utilize its mandate as a 'logical platform and good compliment alongside the G20 and the Bretton Woods Institutions (BWI's)'.

Report on Security Council Reform Meeting 21 February 2011
By Mie Hansen, 12 March 2012
On 21 February 2012 the third meeting in the eighth round of the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform was held, dedicated to the reform initiative of the Uniting for Consensus group. Based on statements delivered by Member States at the meeting as well as conversations with delegates and observers to the process, this report provides a summary of the meeting as well as an update on the current state of the negotiations.

The Human Rights Council: Is it filling its mission as the World’s premier human rights protector?
By Thomas Colerick 23 February 2012
This posting provides an update of the Center’s 2008 article “The establishment of the Humans Rights Council”. It analyzes the achievements of as well as challenges to the Council since 2008 as seen from the perspectives of different stakeholder including civil society, UN Officials and UN Member States.

Update on Security Council Reform: Meeting from 26 January 2012
By Alicia Stott, 15 Febraury 2012
In a letter by the current chair of the Intergovernmental Negotiations to the Member States and the President of the General Assembly, it was stated that in the interest of facilitating more in-depth discussion and evaluation the remainder of the meetings for the eighth round of the group will be providing each of the representatives of the five major initiatives the opportunity to present their most current proposals for Security Council reform, beginning with the G-4.

The Council on Foreign Relations posts video talk on Security Council Reform
On 11 January 2012 the Council on Foreign Relations posted a video talk by Stewart M. Patrick on Security Council Reform, entitled “UN Security Council Reform: Is it Time?”. Click here to watch the video talk on the CFR website

Meeting on General Assembly Revitalization 1 December 2011
By Mie Hansen, 5 January 2012
On 1 December 2011 the General Assembly met to discuss Agenda Item 120: Implementation of the Resolutions of the United Nations and Agenda Item 121: Revitalization of the Work of the General Assembly.
This article provides an overview of the debate.

Former consultant with the Center for UN Reform Education wins prestigious award
By Thomas Colerick, 13 December 2011

Meeting in the General Assembly on Security Council Reform, 8 and 9 November 2011
By Mie Hansen, 7 December 2011
On 8 and 9 November 2011 the 51st and 52nd plenary meetings of the 66th General Assembly session were held with a discussion of Agenda Item 122: Question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and related matters. This article gives an overview of the debate and the statements made during the meetings, as well as an update on the developments in regard to Security Council reform leading up to the debate.

The 2011 Annual Report of the Human Rights Council
By Thomas Colerick, 8 November 2011
The 2011 Annual Report of the Council is now available.

Highlights of the Human Rights Council’s 18th Regular session
By Thomas Colerick, 11 October 2011

New report on the Human Rights Council’s fifth year
By Thomas Colerick, 4 October 2011

The Human Rights Council’s 18th Session (12-30 September 2011)
By Thomas Colerick, 28 September 2011

Update on Revitalization of the General Assembly: A RECAP OF DEVELOPMENTS DURING THE 65th GA SESSION
By Mie Hansen, 27 September 2011
Even before heads of state from around the world gathered last week at UN headquarters in New York for the opening of the 66th annual session of the UN General Assembly, the world’s main deliberative body, continuation of the ongoing negotiations to make the Assembly more effective, efficient and relevant were assured for yet another year. Member States have been discussing the “Revitalization of the General Assembly” for the past twenty years, but according to some critics only minor improvements have been made, leaving deep-seated reforms untouched. Even though all Member States seem to agree that reform of the Assembly is vital, recent developments confirm that it is still very difficult to reach an agreement on what should be done.

Chronology: The Human Rights Council – elections, sessions and important developments
By Thomas Colerick, 23 September 2011
As the Center for UN Reform Education once again will be covering the Human Rights Council more systematically, this chronology of the Council is provided. It includes elections, selected sessions and major developments and takes the reader from the Council’s birth in 2006 to today where the Council is currently holding its 18th Session in Geneva, Switzerland.




Panel on Improving Security Council Working Methods
On 23 June 2011, The Center for UN Reform Education held a panel discussion on “Improving the Working Methods of the Security Council”. The basis for the discussion was the most recent version of the S5 draft proposal on Reforming the Working Methods of the Security Council.




Qatar hosts workshop on Security Council Reform
On 12 & 13 May 2011, Qatar hosted a workshop on Security Council Reform in Doha. Lydia Swart of the Center was invited and she shared ten observations on this key reform process.

To move the process along, Member States, the Chair of the Intergovernmental Negotiations, and/or the President of the General Assembly will need to provide leadership by proposing a timeline/trajectory for the negotiations and by formulating a compromise solution that can garner support from all factions.




S5 presents draft resolution on Improving the Working Methods of the Security Council
By Mie Hansen, 2 May 2011
On 14 April, 2011, the Small Five Group (S5), consisting of Costa Rica, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Singapore and Switzerland, presented a draft resolution for Improving the Working Methods of the Security Council. The resolution was presented under agenda item 115 of the General Assembly (GA) that deals with follow-up to the outcome of the Millennium Summit. The S5 had presented its first draft resolution on the topic (A/60/L.49) in 2006 also as follow-up to the 2000/2005 Summits.

Update on Security Council Reform
By Mie Hansen, 5 April 2011
Since the Center’s latest update of 22 June 2010, Members States conducted text-based negotiations on 21 October 2010, 11 November 2010, 14 December 2010, and on 2 March 2011 in their efforts to reform the Security Council. Some countries apparently continue to slow down the negotiations, while others may push for a vote sooner rather than later.

Book Launch, The Group of 77: Perspectives on its Role in the UN General Assembly.
25 April 2011
Pictured from right to left: Center President William R. Pace, Minister Marcelo Suarez Salvia from Argentina (current G77 Chair), Ambassador Maged Abdelaziz of Egypt, Ambassador Herman Schaper of the Netherlands, and co-author Lydia Swart. For their remarks, click here: Minister Suarez, Ambassador Schaper, Ambassador Abdelaziz (pending) and Lydia Swart.





Text-based Negotiations in Full Swing
22 June 2010
On June 16th the negotiations on Security Council reform proceeded with the third meeting of the fifth round. The meeting aimed at getting member states to discuss specific language on the fourth “key issue”. Many countries seemed to have misunderstood the intention of the Chair, however, and restated their positions rather than making suggestions for specific changes to the document at hand.

Potentially Historic Text on Security Council Reform
By Jakob Lund, 13 May 2010
On May 10th, Zahir Tanin, the Chair of the intergovernmental negotiations on the question of equitable representation and increase in the membership of the Security Council and other matters related to the Security Council, sent out a long-awaited fax to all member states containing a “negotiation text”. The text and the annex can be accessed on the website of the PGA. The text includes the proposals sent by member states to Tanin's office since he opened the process of moving towards a text-based solution.

Open Debate on the Working Methods of the Security Council
By Jakob Silas Lund, 28 April 2010
On April 22nd, the Security Council’s Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Issues held an open debate on the working methods of the Council. The debate raised some key questions that are relevant to the ongoing Security Council reform negotiations. Furthermore, to keep the issue of its working methods on the agenda of the Security Council is, in and of itself, an accomplishment.

A New Phase in Security Council Reform Has Started
10 February, 2010
On February 5th, the Chair of the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform, Ambassador Tanin of Afghanistan, sent out a letter to all member states with an attachment of sixty pages. The document (available here and here) includes all “substantive input” submitted by Member States to the Chair thus far in the fourth round of negotiations. This marks the beginning of the fifth round, which, for the first time, will be text-based.

Moving Towards Text-Based Negotiations?
By Jakob Silas Lund, 21 January 2010
The previous month was an eventful one in terms of the Security Council reform process. On December 23rd, a group of countries sent a letter to the Chair of the intergovernmental negotiations, Ambassador Tanin of Afghanistan, urging him to present a composite paper. Following that, Tanin received a number of other letters concerning the process and on January 14th he replied with his own letter to all member states. This all culminated in the latest round of negotiations on January 19th and 20th in which the consequences of the letter exchanges were discussed.

Pros and Cons of Security Council reform
By Jakob Silas Lund, 19 January 2010
Through extensive interviews with experts as well as current and former Ambassadors and diplomats who have been close to the reform process, this article outlines and analyzes the advantages and disadvantages of the components incorporated in the proposals currently on the table.

The Long and Winding Road
by Jakob Silas Lund, 11 December, 2009
On November 16th, the chair of the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform, Ambassador Zahir Tanin of Afghanistan, sent a letter to all member states inviting them to the first meeting of the fourth round of negotiations. The negotiations ended up spanning over two days rather than the planned one-day session.