CONFIDENTIAL
revenue forgone. It would be much more acceptable to the people of Hong Kong if they could look after shelter whilst UNHCR were responsible for care and maintenance up to the availability of funds. r Hartling explained that three-quarters of the money for refugees was for food and that approaches had been made to the World Food Programme (WFP) in the case of Malaysia. But it was not possible for WFP to pay for food in the case of Hong Kong, as it was still a dependent territory of a developed country. The Governor questioned this, as in other contexts, such as trade preferences, Hong Kong was considered as part of the developing world, and he asked if this point could be looked into. He was most concerned by any impression of unfairness which could lead to patience snapping. Mr Hartling commented that perhaps the UK could ask the EEC for food aid for refugees in Hong Kong. Sixty per cent of UNHCR's budget of $140 million was at present being spent on 300,000 Indo-Chinese refugees, whilst the other four to five million refugees in the world got only 40%. He agreed that UNHCR should try to reduce the cost of care and maintenance in Hong Kong. The Governor replied that symbolically it would be much better if UNHCR paid for care and maintenance and that he would prefer even if that figure was low, to augment this from Hong Kong funds so long as the principle was maintained. Mr Dayal explained that it was much easier for UNHCR to contribute to capital costs because care and maintenance meant that UNHCR would need more staff, who were badly needed for the resettlement programme, to monitor this expenditure. The thinking behind the UNHCR proposal was that if UNHCR were to pay only the capital costs, and a once and for all contribution to care and maintenance, this would be finite, identifiable expenditure, and also release staff time for other more urgent work. The High Commissioner, however, accepted that the question could be looked at again after the Conference
7.
攀
The Governor said that although UNHCR would shortly be responsible for the accommodation of 28,000 refugees Hong Kong was planning on accommodation for 100,000 and by the end of July it would be available for 70,000. A significant proportion of refugees would not, however, be able to work for hitherto they had been housed in areas where work was available and from now on this would not be the case. He did not feel that the administration of care and maintenance was so complicated; it might be dealt with on a flat rate per capita contribution by UNHCR. He proposed that the present arrangements be continued until after the Conference but that in addition the UNHCR should take over the camp at Kai Tak North and a decision on this would be helpful. Mr Hartling agreed that the programme should go on as it was until he could meet the Governor or à representative to discuss this further after the 'Conference. He was particularly pleased that the Governor had said this should be within the limitations of UNHCR's financial availability. The Governor replied that in order to defend any Hong Kong contribution towards care and maintenance he would have to show how UNHCR costs in Kalaysia related to those in Hong Kong. But for the record he would like it known that he had formally asked the High Commissioner to be responsible for capital costs, care and maintenance for all refugees on a continuing basis. However, if UNHCR could not afford this, Hong Kong would pay for the accommodation and a percentage of care and maintenance. Mr Hartling said that no new arrangements could be made
CONFIDENTIAL
/until