25. Other Administrative and Financial Matters (continued)
25. Autres questions administratives et financières (suite)
25. Otros asuntos administrativos y financieros (continuación)
25.2. Replenishment and Level of the Working Capital Fund (continued)
25.2. Reconstitution et niveau du Fonds de roulement (suite)
25.2. Reposición y cuantía del Fondo de Operaciones (continuación)
Francisco MORA (Costa Rica): La Delegación de Costa Rica quiere apoyar el aumento del Fondo de Operaciones en los términos expuestos en el documento C 87/LIM/12, por cuanto Costa Rica, como miembro del Comité de Finanzas - muy cercano al desarrollo de las actividades financieras de la FAO -, ha podido constatar la necesidad de la creación, del fortalecimiento y del aumento que se propone del Fondo de Operaciones.
La experiencia de los últimos años en cuanto a las constantes devaluaciones del dólar han sido extremadamente claras respecto a la necesidad de mantener y, en este caso, fortalecer el Fondo; de tal manera que Costa Rica, como lo han manifestado aquí otras Delegaciones, apoya el mantenimiento y, en este caso, el aumento propuesto para el Fondo de Operaciones.
Sra. Virginia ESPINOSA DE CARRION (Nicaragua): Solamente queríamos decir que Nicaragua apoya el proyecto de resolución referente al aumento de la cuantía del Fondo de Operaciones, ya que considera que la actual cuantía del Fondo no permite el deseable desempeño de las funciones previstas en el artículo 6.2 del Reglamento Financiero.
CHAIRMAN: Does any other delegation wish to speak on the Working Capital Fund?
Patrick Oliver RYAN (Ireland): I will be very brief in speaking on this resolution to increase the level of the Working Capital Fund. We are not very happy about the specific circumstances which give rise to the need for this resolution. Speaking as a member of the delegation of Ireland, a country which pays its contribution in January of each year and has external debts and budget problems which I think rank on a scale with that of any developing or developed country on a per capita basis, we do appreciate the need to increase the Working Capital Fund. The maximum level was at a rather lower level, and it seems to us reasonable to increase it to $ US 20 million and we are prepared to support this resolution.
T.F.F. MALUZA (Zambia): Yesterday my delegation said that we supported the increase in the level of the Working Capital Fund and also the proposal of the distinguished delegate of Italy that perhaps we could have a compromise due to the fact that a number of delegations did not support the resolution as it now stands, that we increase the amount to US$ 20 million. In your summing up yesterday, Mr Chairman, I think you intimated that there was a lot of argument on this particular topic. I do not know whether there has been any negotiations going on around the corridors to see if we can all agree with the US$ 20 million.
I do not know whether it appears from what we said yesterday. It is better to go from your summing-up yesterday and see how we can agree to that US$ 20 million. My delegation is agreeable to US$ 26 million, but as a concession we would also agree to US$ 20 million.
J.J. NG'ONGOLO (Tanzania): Mr Chairman, since this is my first time speaking in this Commission, let me first congratulate you on your election to Chair this Commission. My delegation is very pleased with the way you have so far conducted our discussions.
Yesterday I listened carefully to the deliberations on the subject before us. Among other things, you explained the use of the Working Capital Fund. You said that the Working Capital Fund was intended to finance emergency expenditure which was not included in the Programme Budget, and that it was also intended to act as a buffer fund when it happened that actual expenditure exceeded planned expenditure for various reasons, among others short falls in financial flows. On the basis of this explanation, my delegation has realized the importance of the Working Capital Fund and that the proposed increase is actually intended to improve the operational ability of FAO.
When deliberating the Programme Budget in Commission II my country supported the Programme Budget increase on the basis that the Programme Budget increase was intended to enhance the realization of the objectives of the Organization. Since the proposed increase of the size of the Working Capital Fund complements what we have already agreed, my delegation supports the Draft Resolution despite the financial consequences it will have on my country.
We do so because my country attaches great importance to FAO, since my country is among the target group of the Organization. Although my country has partly fulfilled her obligations to the Organization, I would like to assure you that my country has a strong will to meet her obligations to FAO. The problem is that my country's efforts to do so are thwarted by forces beyond her control.
A. Daniel WEYGANDT (United States of America): I would like to begin by apologizing for any confusion that my previous intervention might have created. I was only trying to clarify the situation and certainly not to cast any new issues into the discussion. There is a certain amount of confusion already prevalent on the subject we have before us. It is not my understanding that the Working Capital Fund is being established to provide for emergency expenditures not foreseen in the budget. I do not think that is what the Working Capital Fund is there for. It seems that previous speakers have indicated that that is the case.
I very much appreciate the clarification given by Mr Crowther in his response to our discussions yesterday afternoon, particularly in so far as he made it quite clear that there are two main points here: one is that the overall rate of payment - with the exception of, I have to admit, our own delegation's contributions-is actually not too bad. The contribution level, leaving aside that of my delegation, is a bit better, if I undestand him correctly, than it normally is. He also made clear that this increase in the Working Capital Fund cannot be possibly conceived of as in any way offsetting the lack of payments from the United States. The order of magnitude is very different.
With that in mind, I really wonder whether we have demonstrated in our discussions a clear need for an increase in the Working Capital Fund. It seems to me that there is a very pronounced problem facing the Organization. I cannot pretend that I am very happy about the fact that the United States' own withholding, if you will, or shortfall in its payments, is contributing to the problems within the Organization. That is not a situation that makes anybody from my delegation very happy. However, it does not seem to me that it is a situation that means that we therefore need to have an increase in the Working Capital Fund.
I said yesterday chat the Italian proposal to increase the Working Capital Fund only to a level of US$ 20 million was an interesting suggestion, and one that might find greater support amongst the delegations which spoke. I would like to clarify however, that my delegation is opposed to any increase in the Working Capital Fund. We would obviously prefer to see a limited increase in the Working Capital Fund but we do not feel that an increase in the Working Capital Fund is justified under the circumstances, because what in effect it means is that there will be an additional assessment imposed on all members - in the first instance, an additional assessment of some US$ 6 million or US$ 7 million to increase the level to US$ 20 million and this precisely at a time when many delegations are not in a position to fulfill their obligations.
I can assure the members of the Commission that if the situation were different, that if my delegation were fully paid up and some other delegations were not, we would be extremely upset at any proposal that would increase assessments on us because of non-payments of others. We understand that this is a serious principle that has to be maintained.
Unfortunately, I am not in a position to present a solution to the Organization's Liquidity problem right here. This is a problem that is going to be with the Organization for some time to come, regrettably. It seems to me that by increasing assessments, that by increasing the level of the Working Capital Fund, at this time, you are simply not going to solve the liquidity problem that faces the Organization. Regardless of the outcome of our discussions on this issue, we should all be clear that by increasing the level of the Working Capital Fund we are not going to be solving the liquidity problem of the FAO in one blow.
Rainer PRESTIEN (Germany, Federal Republic of) (original language German): Yesterday afternoon, Mr Chairman, you asked whether member countries could agree to an increase in the Working Capital Fund to US$ 20 million by way of a compromise, thereby foregoing the second stage of increase to US$ 26 million. A lot of delegations yesterday afternoon spoke against that proposal. We feel that the suggested compromise would not actually change the underlying cause of the financial problems of the Organization. Therefore, I would endorse what has just been said by the United States of America. My delegation therefore sticks to what it said yesterday, namely that we cannot vote in favour of an increase in the Working Capital Fund and cannot adopt the Resolution suggested.
DONG QING SONG (China) (original language Chinese): When the Council discussed the increase in the Working Capital Fund the Chinese delegate expressed his support for the increase in the Working Capital Fund to the level of US$ 20 million. Here I would like to reaffirm our support for the draft resolution.
After listening to the proposal by the Italian delegation, we also support that proposal - namely to limit the increase to the level of US$ 20 million.
Ms Janet Lesley TOMI (Australia): My delegation would like to associate itself with the remarks made by the delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany. The Australian delegation, together with many other delegations, made very clear yesterday the rationale for their decision that an increase in the Working Capital Fund was unacceptable at this time. Therefore, the Italian proposal that an increase be confined to only US$ 20 million at this stage is something that would still remain unacceptable to us because the position of the Australian delegation is that we believe that there should be no increase requested through additional levies on the Member States at this point.
Ronald DEARE (United Kingdom): What I said yesterday about the United Kingdom's position remains exactly the same whether we are considering an increase to US$ 20 million or to US$ 26 million. Like delegates who have just spoken, we are opposed to any increase in the Working Capital Fund and we will vote against this resolution or any compromise resolution for that reason.
Raúl LOPEZ LIRA (Mexico): A propósito de lo que he estado escuchando, nuestro país se manifestó ayer, en el sentido de que, por razones de tipo económico, nosotros no podríamos apoyar este incremento en el Fondo de Operaciones, pero que invitábamos a aquellos países que estuvieran en una mejor condición económica a que dieran soluciones al respecto.
Como igualmente mencioné ayer, nos desayunamos con la mala noticia de que el peso mexicano se había devaluado cerca de un 40 por ciento, y estas razones nos impiden apoyar a la Organización, pero invitamos a todos aquellos países que sí pueden hacerlo a que lo hagan. Quisiera disociar mi oposición a las otras razones, porque no es que México esté en contra de apoyar a la Organización, sino que por motivos económicos y de la crisis que estamos sufriendo, no podemos contribuir en esta ocasión.
J. HEIDSMA (Netherlands): Since the idea of restricting the increase to $20 million came up again this morning, I would like to repeat that we fully agree with what the United States delegation has said. This solution - we described it as a stop gap measure - will not solve the problems of the Organization, and we frankly have some doubts as to whether this proposal would have come forward at all under normal circumstances. However, again, since this proposal will not solve the abnormal circumstances but will only result in an initial assessment, which indeed will be paid on time and in full by exactly those Member States who are paying their contributions on time and in full now, we simply cannot support this proposal.
I would also like to respond to something which the Mexican delegate said just now, and to point out to him that at least as far as my country is concerned we do already, and have done for many years, make additional payments to the Organization in some form or another. To give just one example: we were prepared to defer our proportion of the cash surplus - we have indicated so. We are also financing from time to time certain activities of the Organization in terms of support activities that would normally be paid from the Regular Budget, and not as an extrabudgetary contribution. We. are therefore doing our best to meet any assessment laid upon us and, as a country which always pays on time and regularly, we simply cannot support that suggestion.
J. LYNCH (Canada): There are two reasons, as I understand it, for this proposal to be before us. If we look at the preambulary paragraphs of the draft resolution, the second preambulary paragraph talks basically about the economic crisis facing this Organization. My delegation agree with other delegations which have said that if the primary reason for this proposed increase in the Working Capital Fund is the economic crisis, then it would be illogical for us to approve it, because, with respect to the budget itself, no changes will be made: there are no contingency plan measures, there are no deductions in the Programme.
The classic two ways of dealing with a budgetary crisis, whether it be of a personal or a constitutional nature, are to cut expenses and to draw down on savings. We are not cutting ; expenses, therefore it would appear illogical to draw down on savings to meet the crisis. It appears that the crisis, at least in terms of the proposals made by the Secretariat on the budget, is not of a sufficient nature to take that type of extreme measure: therefore, in terms of the particular basis of what we are discussing now, my delegation agrees with those of the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, the United States, the Federal Republic of Germany, and those who have said that there is not sufficient reason to do what is now proposed, and there are a host of reasons on the other side why we should not, the primary one being that this will put an additional financial burden on the good payers at a time when they also are facing financial problems in their own home governments, and this would cause them at least difficulties of conscience as to whether or not they are going to pay it.
There is a second reason why the Secretariat is proposing this particular initiative, and that is to be found in preambulatory paragraph 3: that is, that the Working Capital Fund of this Organization has historically been lower than that of comparable organizations. This is not something new .. Mr Crowther can probably correct me, but to my understanding it has existed for several years. In my country's view, to bring Working Capital Funds across the United Nations system to realistic levels is a laudable goal, and in normal circumstances we would support this type of thing because we believe that it is something of a long-term reform which all United Nations institutions should institute. Our difficulty here is that the Secretariat is attempting to play "catch-up" too quickly, and is attempting to bring this Organization into conformity with others in a way which does not seem to be warranted, except by way of the financial crisis, which this Organization is refusing to look at in terms of the budget or of programme reduction.
The position of my delegation therefore is that if the proposed resolution goes forward, we will oppose it. If the Italian amendment goes forward we will oppose it, because in effect all the Italian amendment is doing is reducing a burden, not for the coming biennium, but for some future date - in fact, the Italian amendment does not change the financial burden on Member States by one Lira. The Italian amendment is the same proposal in terms of its effect on Member States during the coming biennium, which is what we are talking about in terms of the future financial burden.
I therefore think that if we are to look at any sort of compromise proposal which could command any sort of realistic support and any fully informed support, we have to look at something further than the Italian proposal. Having heard the statements by delegations here, I do not think that any further type of proposal would command enough support, unless delegates were to again intervene and say, "look, what we are doing here is not realistic - people are taking a position of principle on one side, and over-reacting on the other"
So I would suggest that perhaps we entertain the possibility of either a vote now on the basis of the resolution, or looking at more realistic possibilities.
Jean-Luc GRAEVE (France): J'ai déjà parlé hier, je voudrais donc faire des remarques nouvelles j'espère qu'elles seront nouvelles, à la lumière de notre discussion. Premièrement, la proposition de compromis qui nous est proposée de ne parler que des 20 millions de dollars me semble une fausse proposition de compromis. L'important, en substance, c'est ce qui est demandé aux Etats Membres et ce qui peut aider l'Organisation au cours du prochain biennium. La seconde augmentation de 6 millions de dollars, (20 à 26 millions de dollars) concerne le biennium (qui commencera dans deux ans). On a le temps de voir; certes si nous décidions maintenant d'une augmentation cela rapporterait un réconfort psychologique au Secrétariat, mais cela ne lui apporterait pas un sou. Alors, la question importante c'est de savoir si l'on est d'accord ou non pour l'augmentation de 6,75 millions de dollars pour le prochain biennium.
Ce qui est important c'est de trancher sur les 20 millions de dollars pour le prochain biennium. Ne. pas parler des 26 millions de dollars ne changera rien à la substance du débat. Il a été dit, à la fois par M. Crowther et par la délégation américaine,que l'augmentation demandée du Fonds du roulement (je parle de la première période concernant 6 millions de dollars et quelques) n'était pas a la mesure du défaut de contribution du plus important Etat bailleur de fonds.
Je suis tout à fait d'accord avec cette analyse. Elle n'est pas à la mesure du manque de contributions passé et peut-être à venir, mais dans tous les cas elle aide certainement cette Organisation à passer le cap en terme de trésorerie.
Alors, j'en viens assez logiquement à la troisième remarque, sur l'organisation de nos débats. Il me semble que la discussion sur le Fonds de roulement aurait été plus rationnelle si nous en avions parlé après que le Secrétariat se soit exprimé sur l'ensemble des problèmes d'exécution du budget et que les délégations aient pu en discuter. Je crois que le compte de réserve spécial • que nous avons examiné est un problème différent parce qu'il a trait aux taux de change mais il faut bien dire que nous devons parler dans le vague. Je voudrais préciser enfin la position française en ce qui concerne les voix. Nous avons dû en rester, en l'absence d'indications, sur les problèmes d'exécution proprement dite du budget. Nous en restons à notre position de principe qui est de réserve car nous pensons que l'augmentation demandée du Fonds de roulement aboutit, comme l'ont bien dit les Pays-Bas, à reporter une partie de - la charge du non-paiement des contributions sur les Etats non payeurs. En cas de vote notre délégation s'abstiendra.
Vincenzo BARILLA (Italie): La proposition italienne concernant la résolution relative au Fonds de roulement est une proposition d'amendement formelle. Hier, l'Ambassadeur Pascarelli a confirmé l'augmentation à 20 millions de dollars pour le prochain biennium.
Hidayat Ganda ATMADJA (Indonesia): We discussed for quite some time yesterday the need to increase the Working Capital Fund. Some members are in favour of it and some members are opposed to the increase. After all that, there was a proposed amendment by the delegate of Italy, in an attempt to reach consensus. When I entered this room this morning, I expected that we would discuss in detail the proposal by the Italian delegation. Unfortunately, however, I have not seen this amendment, and now we start again to discuss the basic subject of the Working Capital Fund on which we faced difficulties yesterday. I do not believe that a discussion will help us to solve the problem, in view of the significant differences between Member States. I would therefore suggest that we postpone this discussion until we have the official amendment from the Italian delegation.
CHAIRMAN: As I told the meeting just now, what I am trying to do is to complete the list of speakers; I shall then give the floor to Mr Crowther who will elaborate on the amendment suggested by Italy, and after that I shall sum up. After that, the amendment will be put for consideration by the Commission and then, if there are objections - as I believe there are - we will put the matter to vote, so as to settle the issue once and for all.
Mourad BENCHEIKH (Algérie): La délégation algérienne a eu l'occasion de s'exprimer lors du dernierConseil au sujet des contributions supplémentaires demandées par le Secrétariat pour faire face àcrise financière que traverse notre Organisation.
La question de l'augmentation de fonds de roulement ne saurait nous convenir pour trois raisons principales.
Premièrement, et c'est la raison la plus évidente, c'est que nous envisageons d'accepter les propositions du budget présentées par le Directeur général et ce geste de l'Algérie témoigne de son attachement à la coopération multilatérale et constitue en même temps un sacrifice assez considérable pour l'Algérie.
La seconde raison c'est que, en définitive, l'Algérie du fait des chutes considérables de ses recettes d'exportation, et notamment les hydrocarbures qu'elle exporte sur les marchés extérieurs a entraîné une politique très stricte d'austérité économique fondée sur la préservation des investissements essentiels au développement et l'élimination des dépenses accessoires. La priorité étant réservée à la réalisation des objectifs de développement.
Vous comprendrez, Monsieur le Président, que dans ces conditions, il ne soit pas possible d'accepter la résolution qui nous est proposée.
La troisième raison que nous avons déjà évoquée lors de la discussion de cette résolution au Conseil, en novembre dernier, c'est qu'à bien considérer, la résolution s'inscrit dans un contexte de crise lié à la constatation d'évidence qui équivaut à demander aux bons payeurs des sacrifices financiers supplémentaires alors que la crise financière actuelle de la FAO résulte, bien évidemment, des arriérés de contributions que plusieurs Etats Membres, et pas seulement pour des questions économiques, ont manqué à notre Organisation. La délégation algérienne considère qu'il y a là une démarche injuste à laquelle nous ne pouvons souscrire.
Je voudrais ici souligner et bien faire comprendre que quelle que soit l'issue des discussions l'Algérie ne sera pas en mesure de faire face à des contributions supplémentaires. Je pense, que dans un souci de réalisme, il faudrait tenir compte de cette situation et ne pas amener les Etats Membres, qui ne sont pas en mesure de souscrire à des contributions supplémentaires, à entrer eux aussi dans la voie des arriérés.
Je voudrais préciser à cet égard que la propostion italienne, bien qu'attrayante, pour autant qu'elle permette des facilités de paiements, ne change rien au fond du problème; donc de ce fait elle ne peut être acceptable pour la délégation algérienne.
Je voudrais conclure en disant qu'à bien réfléchir la solution des problème de la FAO devrait être vue d'une façon globale. J'ai eu l'occasion de m'exprimer à ce sujet et cette façon globale, où serait pris en compte, en même temps le règlement des arriérés et des engagements que les contributions, se feront désormais sur des bases régulières, et adopter ainsi dans ce grand contexte le problème desréformes qui viseraient à accroître l'efficacité de notre Organisation.
Voici, exprimée en termes très simples et très clairs la position de la délégation algérienne qui vaut d'ailleurs (mais je ne voudrais pas anticiper sur les débats futurs) pour les autres propositions d'augmentation des contributions.
Nils Ragnar KAMSVAG (Norway): Let me just make a couple of comments to the question we have before us. We are certainly among those who are less than impressed by the Secretariat'-s income side in the proposed budget. We can certainly also agree with what has been said by several delegations here about the proposal to increase the Working Capital Fund's shortcomings as a stopgap measure for these things. Furthermore, I can also agree with the Netherlands when he talked about - and supported now by Algeria - that this probably means that good payers once again have to cover up for bad payers. Furthermore, Canada may also be right when they pointed to the fact that this question could have been raised a long time ago.
However, having said this, we think that each proposal has to be judged on its own merits. There is no doubt that the Working Capital Fund of the FAO is much lower than in any other Organization and that this proposal would have been justified also if we had not been in the particular economic situation we face today. So although the timing could have been somewhat more fortunate, as long as we think that the proposal, judged on its own merits, is correct, we will support it if it is either the proposal we have before us or if it will be the amendment put forward by Italy.
Souleymane SAKO (cote d'Ivoire): Je voudrais simplement vous dire que la délégation ivoirienne fait sienne l'entière déclaration de l'Ambassadeur de l'Algérie. Il vous suffira de remplacer "pétrole" par "café et cacao".
Dedan Robinson KAMAU (Kenya): The Kenya delegation would also like to be very brief in view of the time constraint that we have. I would like, because of brevity, to just support the proposals as presented by the distinguished delegate from Algeria, noting of course that the increase of the Capital Fund from US$ 13 million to US$ 20 million would amount to more than a 507% increase at a time when the financial crisis of the Organization mainly emanates from the non-payment by members, and realizing that any increase would have to be made up by additional contributions by members. Developing countries would find it very difficult to meet any increases.
Dean K. CROWTHER (Assistant Director-General, Administration and Finance Department): There are a number of clarifications either that have been requested or that seem to be called for. First, I think that it would be important to go back to this question on the necessity for the increase. Several representatives have made reference to the fact that the increase has been requested on the basis that it might solve the financial crisis facing the Organization. The financial crisis : clearly exacerbated the situation, but the request for the increase in the Working Capital Fund certainly will not solve that. It is intended to solve a part of that continuing crisis that has been with the Organization for many, many years, that is the non-payment on time of contributions. As I mentioned yesterday, we normally have arrears other than that of the United States of approximately 8% each year and after that, each biennium. We have limited the Working Capital Fund in the past to approximately 3%. We shall end this biennium with an amount of arrears - again,
other than the United States - in an amount coming very close to US$ 26 million. US$ 13 million will clearly not cover that US$ 26 million. That is the basis upon which the request had beenidentified, not to solve the financial crisis but to attempt to allow us to carry out the Programme of Work and Budget for those delays in payments of member countries that are normal.
What this means is that it takes more than one biennium to collect the biennium's contributions. It is difficult and slow. And as the normal inflation and costs arise and the budget increases, therefore the percentage of arrears increases. This year we have collected from more countries which have made their contributions on time - in fact earlier than they have in many past years. Nonetheless, the amount of arrears in raw dollar terms has increased. We are in excess of the amount - again other than the United States - that we normally would except to have, although the percentage remains very constant. The 3% in Working Capital Fund is not enough. Several delegates have asked, therefore, why now? It is a very difficult time to ask for an increase. Why now, because it has been exacerbated by the financial crisis, and it has been almost impossible for us to otherwise absorb the normal arrearages that exist. We have called upon every safety net that is there. Would we have come forward with a request, had the financial crisis not existed? In this instance, probably so. The amounts now have reached the stage where the US$ 13 million is not a sufficient safety net to cover US$ 26 million in arrears. It is just not possible. The Organization must assure its members that it can reasonably meet the Programme of Work and Budget that is adopted by the members.
Recognizing the amount of arrears that normally occur, the Working Capital Fund is the appropriate instrument by which we can make that assurance. It has just not been available to do that.
Several members have made reference to the fact that the good payers must absorb the problem of the bad payers, so to speak. Well, there are no bad payers; anybody who pays is a good payer. The prob-Lem is the delay in which it is received. The members may recall - and we do report regularly to the Finance Committee and Council and eventually to the Conference on the rate of payment into the Working Capital Fund, and yes, it did take a number of years for all countries to pay their proportionate share of the existing base. We did not collect it in one biennium or two. It took a number. But nonetheless, any increase in the Working Capital Fund at this stage by whoever pays is obviously going to help. Eventually, whatever increase may be adopted by the Conference would be paid in by all the member nations. It has been their custom. We can all be very proud to say that the representative countries to the FAO have been very good in payments. Sometimes it just takes a long time. Ultimately, the entire increase would be collected, but we do recognize that it would not occur in the first biennium.
Finally Mr Chairman, I think there is some degree of confusion over the Italian proposal. Some have said it does not change anything because it merely reduces the total increase to 20 million. Perhaps they are right, but that is not my understanding.
If I may, I would like to make reference to the statement made by Ambassador Pascarelli yesterday. If I recall correctly Ambassador Pascarelli during his last statement put forward a proposal to the Commission that would say, let us do limit the total increase to 20 million but carry it over two biennium, and he suggested that in the first biennium we attempt to collect 3 750 000, and in the second biennium we attempt to collect 3 million, which brings that total 6 750 000 increase on top of the existing base and would make it 20 million at the conclusion of the two biennium. He is in effect cutting the total request for an increase in half, and cutting the request for the first tranche almost in half as well. These are the figures that he put out to the Commission yesterday. Perhaps I understood them incorrectly, but that is the way I recorded them in my notes at least. And if that is the case, then that is the proposal that should be considered by the members insofar as the Italian proposal needs to be considered. I am not suggesting that the Secretariat has a view on that issue one way or the other. I am only saying that there seems to be some degree of confusion on that issue.
From the Secretariat's point of view the current base is clearly not enough to handle the arrears that exist, the normal arrears that exist. Twenty million is not enough to handle the normal arrears that exist. The timing - yes it is unfortunate, but nonetheless the Organization has to continue to operate in these times either way. If we are going to continue to assist the developing countries, we have no choice, we have to continue. Therefore there is certainly justification in our view for a request to the Working Capital Fund. Certainly it is up to the members as to whether they will accept and if so when.
The only thing we can do is to put forth the justification to need and hopefully, the degree of understanding that is there. We do appreciate the debate, the candid discussion that has gone forth, and certainly the understanding of the economic situation of the individual countries that are involved. They are certainly the members of this Organization and the ones that we must rely upon, therefore, for support. We appreciate that very much.
I think that touches on the items that needed some degree of clarification, but if there is anything further when we continue discussion we can go into that at that point.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much Mr Crowther. In the debate today we have seen some new countries who have spoken and voiced their position. In my counting I gather that five new speakers have agreed to the Resolution whereas another four have disagreed. Again, on balance, from those who have taken the floor yesterday and today, in my view there is still a slight majority who are in favour of the Resolution, and I still believe, as I said yesterday, that if the Resolution is amended according to the proposal made by Italy I think more countries would be in a position to agree with it. Of course as we have heard today, quite a number of countries who had already clarified their position yesterday have reiterated that they would continuously object to the Resolution even if on the amendment. In that case I have no other choice but to put the matter to the vote in the Commission, and I have to check whether there is a sufficient quorum for the vote, because if I recall correctly the vote, if it is taken, the total number of votes cast for and against..
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
J. LYNCH (Canada): This will come up later, Mr Chairman, but my point of order is what are we going to vote on? You are probably going to explain that, but one thing is that I think Mr Crowther clarified something, that there is a very big misunderstanding about what the Italian proposal is, and I am not the only one who is under the misunderstanding - I think it is shared by at least two other delegates here - but if we are going to do anything with respect to the Italian proposal we are going to really have to make sure that it is clear, and perhaps if it could be written out it might be useful.
CHAIRMAN: Yes, I agree with you distinguished delegate of Canada. So before we proceed further it might be useful if Mr Crowther can read out the amendment so that everybody will be clear what we will be voting for.
Dean K. CROWTHER (Assistant Director-General, Administration and Finance): If we can refer to the Resolution in Document C 87/LIM/12 and more specifically to the last paragraph of the LIM document, the changes that would occur are in the two numbers that are presented. The US$20 000 000 that exist in the present version from 1 January 1988 would be changed to 17 million. The second number, the US$26 million as from 1 January 1990 would be changed to US$20 million. With these two changes the last paragraph would then read: "Decides that the authorized level of the Working Capital Fund shall be US$17 million as from 1 January 1988 and US$20 million as from 1 January 1990 and that Member Nations shall be re-assessed in accordance with the provisions of Financial Regulations 6.2(b)(iv) and (v) as from 1 January 1988 and 1 January 1990 on the basis of the Scales of Contributions then in effect". Only the two numbers change if I understand the proposal correctly.
The meeting rose at 12 hours
La séance est levée à 12 heures
Se levanta la sesión a las 12 horas
