Chair.  Two points.  First, in re biennial budget and what is labeled in the resolution that CND adopted in reconvened session, I think there is need always both by Secretariat or delegations to always refer back to content of the resolution and in this regard I refer specifically to observation of Canada that MS have agreed to the provisional implementation of a new funding model.  That is the term of the resolution we adopted.  Therefore when it relates to budgets and budgetary matters on the importance of transparency, implications, etc. it cannot be overstated the importance of continuous dialogue between secretariat and MS based on intersessional meetings.  Also, in re Statement made by Secretariat it would be important to take into consideration and be guided by the resolution adopted by MS with relation to some of the issues – ie structure of offices in Vienna and in the field, etc.
Second element. Somewhere during the interventions by delegations, this notion of the funding, the voluntary contributions, etc., and I need to be very frank with delegations on this point. A t a certain point in time this message came through.  We are paying the funding, you do what we want.  We are not in a charity event here.  This is actually the UN.  Even if we have a slightly different model than in the UN system, nevertheless it remains the UN>  Objectives we all seek are supposed to be common.  Fighting crime, corruption, trafficking in human beings, narcotics, etc.  So I would urge MS to bear in mind that we have a common objective.  Not a discussion of who pays getting what they want, getting the technical assistance etc. or they will walk away.  Not correct undertone for our discussion.  We should always make sure that technical assistance or projects do not become overvalued or unncessesary or rejected by MS themselves.  Urge collectiveness of purpose in our fight against drugs and crime.
Another point in re strategic framework.  Two comments.  One from Canada and from US – they would be providing remarks.  Procedural issue.  We are supposed, in accordance with the agenda we have before us.  Proposed biennial program plan etc…Question I have is how do we consider that?  The proposed strategic framework (I don’t understand this).  Not only by CND but CCPCJ.  Seeks views from delegates.
Canada.  We had wondered this.  Secretariat planned to submit SF in current form along with comments from MS and we would make changes.  Can proceed other way prior to submission, but will still have to leave room for Crime Commission to express views.  Leave it in your hands.

Chair asks Secretariat.
Jean Luc.  Complex issue even more significant today.  Due to significance of debate today we should think about an intersessional after the commission.  Would allow us to revise written comments on strategic comments by setting out a deadline to receive written comments so we can discuss in an appropriate manner before making available to CPC.
Chair.  When is the CPC meeting to consider this document?
Early June of this year.  No dates yet.
Chair.  No further comments, so will consult with delegations and secretariat and will communicate to MS the options that we have before us.
US.  Idea of intersessionals raises budgetary implications.
Finland. Some questions raised by Finland during discussion.  Secretariat should respond.
Secretariat has taken notes of all comments.  Nothing else to say except to consider and move forward within strategic framework.
Division for Management.  UNODC heavily involved with development team in NY – merger team.  Scheduled deployment of system to Vienna in July 2015.  All the facilities we have today will still be maintained if not enhanced by ERP system.  System will enhance transparency and consistency in terms of applications of rules of procedure within the UN.  Would simply add that it is an ongoing process.  Not an easy process.  We are learning as we proceed with implementation.  Experience and guidance from MS channeled back into the process.  Assure delegations that guidance will be taken into account in terms of implementation of full cost recovery.  Follow guidance of two commissions, will continue to maintain open dialog with MS through existing mechanisms whether informal or formal.
Deputy Exec Director.  Full cost recovery not a new charge.  More reporting has to happen at the programming level.  As per Finland.  HR guidelines are being implemented at the program level.  Deficit in informing MS on this.  Has to be a lot of consultations and meetings to get this right.  If we get it wrong we will all be very sorry.
Chair.  Have a bilateral to clarify the rest of the issues.