Member States are supposed to approve the UN regular budget for 2006 and 2007 by 31 December. The US has proposed passing a budget for only four or six months in order to allow the budget to be shaped by the various UN reform proposals the Secretary-General is expected to present to the General Assembly by the end of the first quarter of 2006. Nearly all the other Member States are willing to pass a full two-year budget - perhaps with the significant exception of Japan. However, it appears hard to argue with the logic of the US on this point. The Secretary-General is currently part way through a review of all UN mandates (what the UN does), and is expected to submit proposals for changes to the UN’s mandates to the GA next year. In addition, the GA has asked the SG to propose improvements to the UN’s human resource and budgeting rules, to help improve the efficiency and effectiveness of UN. The UN regular budget is detailed. It stipulates exactly how much each department receives, and the SG has no power to move funds between offices or funds once the budget has been passed. Therefore, it would seem very strange to lock in a budget for two years without considering the SG’s proposed reforms. The SG’s proposals are expected to result in a shift in priorities from some programmes to others. So locking a budget in for two years before considering the reform proposals would probably render those proposals dead before arrival, because the next chance to implement them effectively would be two years away.