This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS PARIS 007733 
 
SIPDIS 
 
FROM USMISSION UNESCO PARIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: CJAN ABUD AFIN AORC UNESCO
SUBJECT:  UNESCO: ADMINISTRATION COMMISSION:  PROGRAM AND 
BUDGET FORMAT OK'ED, DESPITE DISSATISFACTION 
 
¶1.  Summary.  The Administrative Commission of UNESCO's 
General Conference considered budget, administrative and 
personnel issues.  It approved the administrative items in 
the two-year overall program and budget after debate focused 
on the budget's unsatisfactorily long and complex format. 
Member State interventions often invoked the need for 
reform, but decisions generally continued the status quo, 
sometimes with a provision that changes could be made during 
semi-annual meetings of UNESCO's Executive Board.  End 
summary. 
 
¶2.  The Administrative Commission met twelve times October 4 
to 13.  Items it considered generally fell within the 
category of budget preparation, financial and administrative 
costs and reforms, and personnel matters. 
 
¶3.  The length and complexity of the budget documents 
received unfavorable review.  USDEL noted that the budget 
should be a policy document, but that the costs of 
developing normative instruments had not been reflected in 
the last budget and that the costs of translating 
proceedings into six languages were not stated in this 
proposed budget.  Delegations generally agreed that the 
budget should highlight major expenses of this nature.  The 
decision of the Administrative Commission generally approves 
the present budget format, it does allow the Executive Board 
to direct changes. 
 
¶4.  Following up on discussions at the Executive Board, the 
USG and others stressed that expenses should be paid within 
the year time limit set forth in UNESCO's Official Financial 
Regulations and the GC decision repeats the Board's 
concerns. 
 
¶5.  The USG, supported by Great Britain and Nordic 
representatives, succeeded in placing some limits (none now 
exist) on the DG's power to engage in external borrowing (DG 
must exhaust internal borrowing possibilities first and must 
report any external borrowing to the next meeting of the 
Executive Board). 
 
¶6.  Thanks to USG insistence, the Administrative 
Commission's vote to approve the budget applied only to the 
administrative sections, rather than to the whole budget, as 
originally proposed. 
 
¶7.  USG and others noted strongly that UNESCO must decide 
whether proposals to be funded through extrabudgetary 
contributions are consistent with UNESCO priorities before 
accepting the funding.  USG and others pointed out that 
regular budget now supports administrative expenses 
associated with some, but not all, extrabugetary projects. 
The Secretariat conceded inconsistency in determining 
administrative charges for extrabudgetary accounts and noted 
that it is preparing a comprehensive report on this for the 
Executive Board. 
 
¶8.  Personnel policies were discussed in the presence of 
staff association leaders.  USG insisted that the decision 
noting progress in the reform of the personnel system pick 
up on the emphasis in DDG Barbosa's presentation on changing 
attitudes within the Secretariat.  As a result, the first 
paragraph of the decision now refers to the "profound 
changes" necessary within the Secretariat.  USG joined other 
Member States in questioning the apparently ad-hoc decisions 
concerning whether to offer a buy-out to employees. 
 
¶9.  After painstaking debate, a working group recommended 
that some countries that had not paid their contributions 
nevertheless be allowed to vote, given circumstances beyond 
their control.  Iraq was included in this group, which is 
consistent with USG policy. 
 
¶10.  Note.  Many delegations praised USG interventions as 
thoughtful and helpful.  One UNESCO long-timer said that the 
USG rep interventions had managed to change the course of 
the debate on several occasions.  End Note. 
 
Koss