RESTRICTED
6
19. A further question concerns projections of costs. The UNHCR Secretariat found it possible to set out in the assistance document projections of regular programme costs for the year ahead. But they said that it was impossible to do the same thing for special operations. Admittedly, some of the special operations are emergency affairs and are unpredictable. But others are already long-established and clearly some fairly thorough planning for the future of such operations must take place. Here again, no adequate answer was given to the UK dele- gation's question about the possibility of supplying projections for such special operations. Perhaps the ACABQ might wish to consider this matter. The US delegation also focussed on the method of budgeting the special operations. They too noted that some of these operations had become long-term. Citing the particular example of the operation in Thailand, the US wondered whether special operations of this type might not become absorbed into the UNHCR's regular programme.
The High Commissioner said that the US proposal would need careful study.
20.
An interesting development at this session was the muted criticism of the importance given to special operations vis-à-vis the regular programme. A few delegations made the now ritual statements about the High Commissioner's protection function. Similarly, a few delegations also regretted that special operations were still over-shadowing the regular programme activities, but such statements were not given the same emphasis as in previous years. Presumably, the High Commissioner's statement to ECOSOC 61 and that Council's resolution 2011, have helped establish the place of special operations in the UNHCR's activities.
Regular Programme Target
21. Several delegations, including the UK, complained that the UNHCR never seemed to keep expenditure within the target it set for itself at the beginning of the year. The Nordic and Netherlands delegations suggested that the regular programme targets were unrealistic and should be set at a higher level to begin with. This subsequently led to the Secretariat suggesting during the discussions of items 6 and 7 of the agenda, that the regular programme target for 1977 should be increased by $1.5 million to $18.1 million. They suggested that the additional money should go into the programme reserve which would need to be enlarged from 10% to 20% of the regular programme to accommodate these funds. They also suggested that the programme reserve should in consequence be used not only to combat effects of inflationary pressures on the regular programme (its current main function) but also for new emergency refugee situations ie. that the programme reserve should be made into a kind of second emergency fund. The Netherlands and Nordic delegations welcomed these suggestions. It is understood that the Swedes in particular would find it easier to obtain additional funds for the UNHCR's mid-year appeal (it was made clear that the pro- posed changes would not affect the incidence of mid-year appeals) if the money were needed to make up a short-fall in the target. The Swedish authorities were more difficult to convince to contribute to an entirely new target. This package of proposals was presented orally just before lunch on Friday and the Chairman suggested that the Executive Committee might decide on their adoption that same afternoon. Surprisingly, the UK was the only delegation to plead for more time and for the proposals to be placed before the Committee in writing. This led to a postpone- ment of consideration of these proposals until the following Monday.
RESTRICTED
/In the
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.