united nations development programmeweb.undp.org/execbrd/archives/bluebooks/1960s/e-4451.pdfhr....

E]4451

UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

REPORT OF THE GOVERNING COUNCIL

FIFTH SESSION(9-29 January 1968)

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL

OFFICIAL RECORDS: FORTY-FIFTH SESSION

SUPPLEMENT No. 6

UNITED NATIONSNew York, 1968

CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION ........................ i - 2 1

I. ORGANIZATION OF THE SESSION ............ 3 - 7 2

II. PROGRA924E RECO~4ENDATIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATOR:UNDp (SPECIAL FUND) ............... 8 - 39 5

III. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMPONENT OF UNDP ...... 40 - 60 21

IV. POLICY MATTERS .................. 61 - 169 27

V. EXECUTION OR UNDp PROJECTS ............ 170 - 200 51

VI. ADMINISTRATIVE AND FINANCIAL MATTERS ....... 201 - 267 58

VII. UNITED NATIONS CAPITAL DEVELOPN~NT FUND ..... 268 - 276 76

VIII. UNITED NATIONS RE~JLAR PROGRAmmE OF TEC~ICALCO-OPERATION .................... 277 - 284 78

IX. ACTION TAKEN BY ORGANS OF THE UNITED NATIONS ANDRELATED AG~CTES IN 1967 ON MATTERS RELATING TOTHE UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRA~@4E ...... 285 - 286 81

X. OTHER MATTERS ................... 287 - 289 82

XI. DATE AND PROVISIONAL AGENDA OF THE SIXTHREGULAR SESSION .................. 290 - 293 83

ANNEXES

I. LIST OF DELEGATIONS ...................... 86

II. LIST OF UNDP (SPECIAL FUND) PROJECTS APPROVED BY THEC~)VERNING COUNCIL AT ITS FIFTH SESSION ............. 93

IIl. COUNTRY AND REGIONAL TARGETS APPROVED BY THE GOVERNINGCOUNCIL AT ITS FIFTH SESSION UNDER T~ TECHNICALASSISTANCE COMPONENT ...................... lO1

NOTE

Symbols of United Nations documents are composed of capital letters combined withfigures. Mention of such a symbol indicates a reference to a United Nations document.

IE/4451 ]

ABBREVIATIONS

UNDP, Programme United Nations Development Programme

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United NationsIAEA International Atomic Energy Agency

IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization

IDB Inter-American Development BankILO International Labour Organisation

IMCO Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization

ITU International Telecommunication UnionUNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and DevelopmentUNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural OrganizationUNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund

UNIDO United Nations Industrial Development Organization

- UPU Universal Postal Union

WHO World Health Organization

WMO World Meteorological Organization

-iii-

~/~q, UNITED NATIONS

~i~ ECONOMIC AND SOCI A L COUNCIL

OFFICIAL RECORDS

FORTY-FIFtH SESSION SUPPLEMENT No. 6

GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE UNITED NATIONS

DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

Report to the Economic anti Social Council on its fifth session(9-29 January 1968)

INTR0~JCTION

I. The Governing Council held its fifth session at United Nations Headquarters,Ne~ York, from 9 to 29 J~uary 1968.

S. The present report was adopted by the Governing Council at its 107th meeting,on 29 January 1968, for submission to the Economic and Social Council at itsforty-fifth session, in accordance with pars~raph h of General Assembly resolution~029 (XX).

-1-

CHAPTER I

ORGANIZATION OF THE SESSION

Attendance

3. The duly accredited representatives to the fifth session are listed inannex I to this report.

Election of officers

4. In accordance with rule ii of the rules of procedure, the Governing Council,at the opening meeting of its fifth session~ elected the following officers: 4Mr. Jan Hendrik Lubbers (Netherlands), President~ Mr. W. Natorf (Poland), FirstVice-President; Mr. Charles Delgado (Senegal), Second Vice-President;Hr. Peter S. Lai (Malaysia), Third Vice-President~ and Mr. P.W. Aitken (Jamaica),Rapporteur.

Agenda

5. The agenda adopted for the fifth session, including an additional item 19,was as follows:

i. Opening of the session

2. Election of officers

3. Adoption of the agenda (DP/L.51/Rev. I and DP/L.52)

4. Exchange of views between the Council and the Administration on mattersrelating to the United Nations Development Programme activities

5. UNDP (SF) Programme recommendations of the Administrator (DP/SF/R.5

and Corr.l, DP/SF/INF/R.I and R.2, DP/SF/R.5/Add. I and Corr.l,DP/SF/R.5/Add.2-10, DP/SF/R.5/Add. II and Corr.l, DP/SF/R.5/Add.12and Corr.l, DP/SF/R.5/Add.13 and Corr.l, DP/SF/R.5/Add.14-58,DP/SF/R.5/Add.59 and Corr.l, DP/SF/R.5/Add.60-66, DP/SF/R.5/Add.67and Corr.l, DP/SF/R.5/Add.68 and Corr.l, DP/SF/R.5/Add.69-78,DP/SF/R.5/Add.79 and Corr.l, DP/SF/R.5/Add.80-91, DP/SF/R.5/Add.92and Corr.l, DP/SF/R.5/Add.93-96, DP/SF/R.5/Add.97 and Corr.l,DP/SF/R.5/Add.98-99, DP/SF/R.5/Add.100 and Corr.l, DP/SF/R.5/Add. IOI-I04)

(~) Consideration of individual projects of the UNDP (SF) Programmein private meetings

(~) Consideration and approval of UNDP (SF) Programme recommendations

(£) Proposals for preliminary operations (DP/L.59 and Corr.l)

-2-

6. Programme of the Technical Assistance component

(~) Technical Assistance earmarkings for 1965 (DP/TA/L.13 and Add.l)

(~) Approval of the initial estimates of resources for 1969 and thed strib tion of resources (DP/ A/R.1)

(~) Approval of country and regional project targets for 1969 andthe three following years (DP/TA/R.I)

(~) Experimental project for the pre-service training of internationalexperts in educational planning (DP/TA/L.14)

7. Policy matters

(~) Criteria for: (i) determining eligibility for UNDP assistance~(ii) selection of projects~ (iii) financing of projects (DP/L.58)

(~) Steps taken to promote investment follow-up (DP/L.61)

(~) Operational assistance under the Technical Assistance component(DP/TA/L. !5

(~) Pilot projects

(~) Other policy matters

8. Financial matters

(~) Contributions (DP/L.62, DP/SF/C/L.39, DP/SF/C/L.40, DP/TA/C/L.39,DP/TA/C/ .40)

(~) Status of the Revolving ~nd (DP/L.53 and Corr.l)

(~) Audit reports (A/S706/Add.l and Corr.l, A/6901 and A/6902)

(~) Special Industrial Services Trust Fund (DP/L.60)

9- Budget estimates for the Administrative and Programme Support Servicesof UNDP for the year 1968 (DP/L.54)

I0. Question of financing of technical advisers to be appointed in someoffices of Resident Representatives (DP/L.56)

Ii. Execution of UNDP projects - progress reports on:

(~) The question of recruitment (DP/L.55)

(k) Awards of subcontracts (DP/SF/L.15)

Major equipment purchases (DP/SF/L.16)

-3-

12. Future needs for pre-investment activity in relation to the administrativecapacity of the United Nations system to programme and implement suchactivities (DP/L.57 and Corr.l and 2)

13. Information paper on action taken in 1967 by organs of the United Nationsand related agencies on matters relating to the United NationsDevelopment Programme (DP/L.63 and Add.l)

14. United Nations regular programme of technical co-operation (DP/RP/4)

15. Provisional agenda for the sixth regular session of the Governing Council(rule $ of the rules of procedure)

16. Date of the sixth regular session

17. Other matters

18. Draft repor~ of the Governing Council to the forty-fifth session of theEconomic and Social Council

19. United Nations Capital Development Fund

Summary records of meetings

6. The summary records of the meetings of the fifth session were issued asdocuments DP/SR.83-107.

Private meetings

7. Three private meetings were held on questions arising in connexion with theUNDP (Special Fund) programme recommendations.

-4-

CHAPTER II

PROGRAMME RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATOR: UNDP (SPECIAL FUND

Analysis of requests received from i April to 30 September 1967

8. As reported to the Governing Council of the United Nations DevelopmentProgramme at its fourth session, 1,314 requests for project assistance had beensubmitted to the DIVDP (Special Fund) by Governments up to 31 March 1967, callingfor an expenditure of approximately $1,277 million in international resources

(E/4398, para. 130). ~/ Between i April and 30 September 1967, a further i08requests were received, bringing the total number of requests received to 1,422and the total amount requested to approximately $1,383 million.

9. The 108 new requests were in the following fields of activity:

Table i

Number Amount

Subject area of requestedrequests in US dollars

Surveys

Mineral and geological i0 11,076,000Water power, hydraulic and meteorological 2 1,494,000River basin 2 717,000Land and water use 6 5,584,000Transport and communications 4 2,871~000Fisheries 5 6,340,000Forestry 3 2,645,000Manufacturing industries 1 1,093,000Other 4 3,423,000

Sub-total 37 35,243,000

Research

Agricultural, forestry, veterinary and fishery 13 17,249,000Manufacturing, mining and power 9 6,638,000Other 9 7~520,000

Sub-total 31 31,407,000

See Official Records of the Economic and Social Council~ Forty-third Session,Supplement No. 6A.

-5-

Table i (continued)

Number AmountSubject area of requested

requests in US dollars

Training

Agricultural, forestry, veterinary and fishery 12 9,888,000Industrial ii 11,580,000Transport and communications 6 6,294~000Secondary school teacher 2 3,562,000Public administration and other 4 3,376,000

Sub-total 35 347700,000

Economic development planning 5 4,904,000

TOTAL i05 106,254,000

iO. The distribution of these new requests by economic sector was as shown below:

Table 2

INumber Amount

Economic sector of requestedrequests in US dollars

Agriculture/¯ a

Multi-purpose agrzculture-~ 8 8,8347000Land and water use 6 4,918,O00Plant production and protection 8 9,0717000 IAnimal production and health 5 6,391,000Rural institutions and services 4 37070,000Forestry 4 3,3057000Fishing 5 5,088,000

Sub-total 40 40,677,000

Industry!

Industry, general~/ iO iO,186~0OOMining 7 6,370,000Other individual industries 8 7,192,OOO

Sub-total 25 2377487000

-6-

Table 2 (continued)

Number Amount

Economic sector of requestedrequests in US dollars

Public utilities

Power 5 4,933,000Transport 5 4,642,000Communications 5 4,523,000

Water supply and sewerage i 1,393,000

Sub-total 16 15,491,0OO

Housing, building and physical planning 3 3,563,000

Multi-sector

General planning~/ 2 2,664,000

River basin development 2 717,000

Other 2 893,000

Sub-total 6 4,274,000

Health

Disease control and prevention 2 1,651,000

Environmental sanitation I 662,000

Sub-total 3 2,313,000

Educatiob/

Secondary 2 3,562,000Technical 3 2,300,000University 3 4,632,000

Sub-total 8 10,494,0OO

Public administration and other services

Technical services 7 5,694,000

TOTAL i08 106,254,OOO

~/ Covers activities in more than one sub-sector.

Assistance to a specific sector or sub-sector is classified under the sectoror sub-sector concerned.

ii. The geographical distribution of the new requests, as well as the cumulativetotal of all requests received was as shown below:

-7-

Table 3

Requests received Requests CumulativeGeographical area i April to previously total to

30 September 1967 received 30 September 1967

Africa 44 434 478The Americas 33 324 357Asia and the Far East 25 340 365Middle East 5 117 122Europe i 97 98Inter-regional - 2 2

TOTAL 108 1,314 1,422

12. Of the 307 requests under consideration (108 new requests mentioned above,198 pending as of 31 March 1967, and one request whose consideration by the fourthsession of the Governing Council was postponed at the request of the Governmentinvolved), 95 were recommended for approval at the January 1968 session of theGoverning Council, 16 were withdrawn by the requesting Governments, and, in onecase, the Government concerned was informed that its request was not being keptunder review. As of 30 September 1967, therefore, 195 projects were underconsideration for possible inclusion in future programmes to be recommended tothe Governing Council. In addition, there were some 115 further requests withunofficial status, and some 60 instances of "advance information" concerningpossible requests for Special Fund sector assistance which were underconsideration.

Programme recommendations

13. The Administrator recommended that the Governing Council approve 95 projects

and five supplementary earmarkings 2/ (see annex II below). This programmetotalled $228,317,200, of which $91,122,200 represented UNDP (Special Fund)earmarkings and $137,195,000 contributions from recipient Governments.

14. The distribution of recommended projects by principal field of activity, byeconomic sector, and by geographical region, both for the recommended programmeand cumulatively, was as shown in tables 4, 5 and 6.

For the Malagasy Republic: supplementary assistance to surveys of themineral and groundwater resources of southern Madagascar; for Singapore:establishment of a metal industries development centre through supplementaryassistance to the foundry demonstration and service unit; for Somalia:training school for animal health assistants, Mogadiscio (supplementaryassistance); for Kenya: supplementary assistance to mineral resourcessurvey in western Kenya; for Lebanon: supplementary assistance togroundwater survey.

-8-

Table

Distribution of projects by principal field of activity

Previous pro~rammes Present pro~Tamme CumulativeNumber of Number of Number of

Field of activity projects Earmarking ~projects Earmarking projects Earmarking

Mineral and geological 55 $ 49,95~,532 8 $ 6,93&,6~/ 63 $ 56,889,132

Water power, hydraulic andmeteorological 26 23,&26,725 3 1,753,800 29 25,180,525

River basin 30 35,192,381 i 383,400~! 31 35,575,781

Tand and water uee i00 87,~68,320 8 8,~79,100~ 108 95,7~7,~20

Transport and comunicatio~s 39 31,30~, 509 5 2,798,900 ~ 3&,iO3,~09

Manufacturing industries 5 ~,888,000 - - 5 4,888,000

Fisheries 2& 27,2~3,200 2 1,363, ~O0 26 28,606,600

Forestry 29 2A, 556,~OO 6 4,987,600 35 29, 5~4,O00

Other 20 I~,286.550 _~i 517.~00~ 21 I~.803.950

362 $326~S1"/Sub-%o~al 328 $299,120,617 3~ $27,218,2OO~ ~

ResearchAgricultural, forestry, veterinaryand fishery 85 $ 83,828,113 13 $14,829,7OO - 98 $ 98,657,813

Manufacturing, mining and power ~9 ~5,356,814 7 6,199,300~/ 56 51,556,11~

Other 27 27 ~ 25~j ~00 _~ i, ~12~ 800~/ _~ 28.567.200

Sub-total 161 $156s~39,327 23 $22,341,800~ 18A $178,781,127

Agricultural, forestry, veterinary ~d/ 65 $ 65,&06,500and fishery 51 $ 50,557,000 14 $14,847,5~A~

Industrial 136 139,34~1,39& 8~

14A IA.6~OK

Transport and communications 30 ~2~6678~776 A 34 36,63A,376

Secondary school teacher 29 ~00~00 3 3,881,300 ~2 3%981.700

Public administration and other 288 _26,~68j700 _~ . ~:no~ ~ ~ ~:~6~_900

Su~Tatal 27~. $285,146,270 35 $37,065,100 309 $322,211,370

TOTAL 778 $770,610,014 95 $91,122,20~ba -/°-/d-/. 1== 873 _ $861,732,2.14. ..:=====

2======

a_/ Includes a supplementary earmarking of $65,400 for Kenya: mineral resources survey in western Kenya, aproject approved at the eleventh session of the Special Fund’s Governing Council in January 196~ (seedocument SF/R. 8/Add.44), and a supplementary earmarking of $245,500 for the Malagasy Republic: surveysof the mineral and groundwater resources of southern Madagascar, a project approved at the tenth sessionof the Special Fund’s Governing Council in June 1963 (see doeumen~ S F/R.7/Add.23).

b_/ Includes a supplementary earmarking of $~21,000 for Lebanon: groundwater survey, a proOect approved at theeighth session of the Special Fund’s Governing Council in May 1962. See document SF/R.5/Add.16.

c~ Includes a supplementary earmarking of $696,~00 for Singapore: foundry demonstration and service unit,a project approved at the fourth session of UNDP’s Governing Council in June 1967. See documentDP/SF/R. 4/Add. 44.

d_/ Includes a supplementary earmarking of $158,200 for Somalia: training school for animal health assistants,Mogadiscio, a project approved at the second session of UNDP’s Governing Council in June 1966. Seedocument DP/SF/R. 2/Add. 4 ~.

-9-

Table 5

Distribution of Pro~ects by Economic Sector

Previous pro6rsm~es Present programme CumulativeNumber of Number of Number of

\Economic sector ~orojects L Earmarking projects Earmarking l~roJects Earm_arkingA~riculture ,Mult~PmrPese~ 60 $ 67,31A,185 6 $ 6,3~jS00h/ 66 $ 73,662,685Land and water use 93 82,607,016 8 9,0?9,400:j i01 91,686,~16Plant produc, and protec. 2~ 25,156,900 A ~,095,700 . 28 29,252;600Animal produc, and health 39 3~,727,8OO 8 9,07~,2OO~ ~7 A3,802jOO0Rural institutions and

services iO 7,537,575 7 7,O7~, 3OO 17 i~,611,875Forek~ry &6 38~ 7~J+,913 7 6,563,600 53 A5,308,513Fishing 19 20.869,100 _~ 3.864.000... 2~ 2~.733.100

Sub-total 291 $276,957,~89 &5 $~6,099,700~c-/ 33~ $~23,o57,z~Industry_ /General~ IOZ $ 9~,~95,38~ 9 $ 7,975,600~/ Ii0 $!O2~0~98~Kining 57 51,598,O32 7 5~4~.800~ 6~ 57,052,832Other individua] Imdms-

tries 53 48.8~8,700 6 5.030.I~ . 59 53.878,800Su~-total 211 $19~, 9&2,116 2--2 $i8j~60,500.~Je-/

233 ~13,~02, 6!6Pubiic utilitiesFewer 20 |- ~O75,925 i $ 58~,?oo 21 $18,660,625Transport 53 ~8,851,285 5 2,835,100 58 51,686,385Communications 23 21,33~,300 A 3,919,&OO 27 25,253,700

Sub-total ~ $ 99,556,610 ~ $ 7,856,60u

Housing. Buildin~ an~Physical Planning 13 $ 12,807,~2~ i $ 57O~QO i~ $13.3~77.82A

River basin development 26 31,9A6,800 2 513,~00 28 32,~60~200Other _88 9,758,152 2 ].. 1~/.~., 500 ZQ 10,,902.6~52 ’~

~hZ~-tOt~ ~5 $ 63,818,675 5 $ 3,600,000 50 $ 67,~18,675

Health and ss~mA.~t@tlon 6 $ ~,032,200 2 $ 3,251,300 8 $ 7,283,500Educatio~f/

Primary ~ 1 $ 1,701,300 Z $ 1,701,300Teacher training (secon-

dary) 29 $ ~ 2 2~80, 000 31 ~Sj 280, ~00Technical 22 ~;6~l,&OO 1 i, O88,200 23 26,759, 600University 20 26,298,800 1 912,600 21 27,211, ~00- ,,.29 .6oo l 1.29 .6oo

Social welfare i public~dmln, and other service s 33 ~ _~ $ A.I07.000 36 $ 3A.531.900

TOTAL 778 $770,610,0.~ 95 $gz,zz~,:..~x:)P-/.c-/,r~/ 873 ~61,732,214

a_/ Covers activities in more than one sub-sector.

b/ Includes a supplementary earmarking of $~21,000 for Lebanon: groundwater survey, a project approvedat the eighth session of the Special Fund’s Governing Council in May 1962. See document SF/R.~/Add.16.

c/ Includes a supplementary earmarking of $158~200 for Somalia: training school for animal healthassistants, Mogadiscio, a project approved at the second session of the Governing Council inJune 1966. See document DP/SF/R.2/Add.43.

d/ Includes a supplementary earmarking of $65,400 for Kenya: mineral resources survey in ~estern Kenya~a project approved at the eleventh session of the Special Fund’s Governing Council in January 1964(see document SF/R.8/Add.44), and a supplementary earmarking of $245,500 for the Malagasy Republic,surveys of the mineral and groundwater resources of southern Madagascar, a project approved at thetenth session of the Special Fund’s Governing C0uncil in June 1963 (see document SF/R.7/Add.23).

e/ Includes a supplementary earmarking of $696~400 for Singapore: foundry demonstration and serviceunit, a project approved at the fourth session of UNDP’s Governing Council in June 1967. Seedocument DP/SF/R.4/Add.44. I_f/ Assistance to a specific sector or sub-sector is classified under the sector or sub-sector concerned.

-lO-

Table 6

Distribution of Projects by Geographical Region

Previous programmes Present programme CumulativeGeographical Number of Number of Number of

region projects Earmarking projects Earmarking projects Earmarking(US dollars) (US dollars) (US dollars~

Africa 276 282,435,017 41 37,257,800~/ 317 319,692,817

The Americas 199 198,027,355 17 16,798,700 216 2147826,055

Asia and theFar East 193 188,732,171 24 24,942,500~/ 217 213,674~67i

Middle East 57 447792,284 7 5,926,500~/ 64 50,718,784

Europe 52 52,757,187 6 6,196,700 58 58,953,887

Inter-Regional i 3,866,000 - - i 3,866~000

TOTAL 778 770,610,O14 95 91,122,20(~a/~/- 873 861,7327214

Includes supplementary earmarkings as follows: $65,400 for Kenya - mineralresources survey in western Kenya (see document SF/R.8/Add.44); $245,500 forthe Malagasy Republic - surveys of the mineral and groundwater resources ofsouthern Madagascar (see document SF/R.7/Add.23); and $158,200 for Somalia training school for animal health assistants, Mogadiscio (see documentDP/SF/R. 2/Add ).

~/Includes a supplementary earmarking of $696,400 for Singapore: foundrydemonstration and service unit. See document DP/SF/R.4/Add.44.

Includes a supplementary earmarking of $221,000 for Lebanon: groundwatersurvey. See document SF/R.5/Add.16.

Features of particular interest in the new programme

15. The attention of the Governing Council was drawn by the Administrator tocertain features of particular interest in the new programme:

(~) The size of the programme reflected a constant increase in the numberof requests received from Governments, and a gradual increase in the number offields where UNDP assistance could be provided in response to the growing needsand changing priorities of requesting Governments.

(~) From the nature of many of the requests, it was apparent that individualparticipating and executing agencies, while retaining project administrative

-ii-

responsibility, would increasingly have to work in close association with one ormore other agencies in the actual execution of projects, particularly those onprojects related to industrialization and to rural development.

(~) With the continuing emphasis placed by developing countries on problemsof industrialization, it was hoped that UNID0 would increase its activities. Thenew programme included pilot and demonstration projects, including experimentalindustrial units, in Bolivia and the United Arab Republic and a growing number ofprojects calling for inter-agency collaboration. Examples of the latter were thein-plant training centre for engineers and a small-scale industries trainingproject in Turkey, and projects related to industrialization in India, Singapore,and the United Arab Republic. In Algeria, UNID0 was to provide industrialconsultant services.

(~) It was also noted that UNID0 had taken over responsibility from theUnited Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs for the execution ofpreviously approved projects in the field of industrialization in Algeria, Iran,Jordan, Pakistan, Paraguay, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Thailand, Tunisia and the UnitedArab Republic and the United Republic of Tanzania, and two regional projects,namely, the Centre for Industrial Studies for the Maghreb and the Central AmericanResearch Institute for Industry.

(~) The increasing need for inter-agency collaboration was particularlyrelevant to the implementation of projects dealing with broad, related issuesof rural development and migration, accelerated urban growth and urban employment,increasing world food shortages, and so forth. The manpower organization andplanning project in Algeria was cited as an example of a national global approach !to unemployment problems.

(~) The transformation and adaptation of primary school education to localneeds was one of the most important factors in economic development and, withrespect to countries whose economies were predominantly agricultural, a fundamentalstep in this direction consisted of adapting the primary school teacher trainingcurriculum to rural needs. Preliminary operations approved by the Council at itsfourth session for a project in Cameroon would emphasize the "ruralization" ofprimary school teacher training and requests for similar assistance were inpreparation by other Governments. Attention was drawn to the scope of such projectsand to the recurrent government expenditures that their implementation might entail.In relation to the problem of unemployed rural youth, the rural developmentprogramme in the Congo (Brazzaville) represented the first phase of a jointinter-departmental and inter-agency effort to provide major employment opportunitiesfor the young outside of the major urban centres, as well as to create socio-economic conditions in pilot rural areas attractive emough to help keep itspopulation on the land. The project in Mali represented another new approach aimedat adapting basic training facilities for children and young people to the socio-economic milieu in which they lived and worked. Not unrelated were functionaladult literacy projects, such as the new project in Ethiopia. Other projects werealso designed to improve the life of rural populations, by developing andstrengthening co-operative movements such as those in Cameroon~ Ivory Coast, andTunisia.

(8) Regarding the urgent need for increasing world food production, mention was made of UNDP’s growing financial support of requests specifically designed to !increase agricultural output, as illustrated by the project for Ghana. With

-12-

reference to the increasing number of countries now able to benefit from thetechnical, sociological, managerial and financial guidance provided by agriculturaldemonstration schemes and their related research and training activities, mentionwas made of projects to improve agricultural productJon and provide an effectivechannelling of agricultural investment in Afghanistan, Brazil, Iraq, Lebanon, andSyria. Projects related to agrarian reform (Philippines, Upper Volta),agricultural research (India), and plant breeding and seed production (Romania)were among other projects in the agricultural sector.

(h) In the field of fisheries, the new programme included projects in theMalaga~y Republic, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, and Mauritius.

(~) Further support was proposed for animal health projects in Iraq and theUnited Arab Republic, and similar projects were proposed in Peru and Uruguay. Inaddition, efforts would be made to introduce modern wool marketing techniques andforeign breeds for cross-breeding with indigenous species in Ethiopia and Somaliabased on the experience gained in a previously approved project at Rajasthan.

(j) The protection and utilization of wildlife as a source of protein was thesubject of a project in Zambia, where it was hoped not only to conserve but also toutilize as a valuable source of food the extensive big game resources of the LuangwaValley, to open up the area for tourism, and to teach improved agriculturaltechniques to the small and scattered population of the valley.

(k) A continuing demand for vocational training was illustrated by projectsfor training in engineering (Dominican Republic), meteorology (Mongolian People’sRepublic), civil aviation (Lebanon), postal services and telecommunications(Indonesia, Pakistan, Sudan, and on a continental scale, in the regionaltelecommunications project in South America), training of management consultants(Thailand), as well as other training projects in the Mongolian People’s Republic,Morocco and Zambia. Special mention was made of a new type of educational projectin Chile, the first to address itself to the training of school administrators. Inthis connexion, attention was drawn to the basic knowledge required for makingdecisions on school curricula and other activities and on enrolment of pupils atdifferent types of schools, as well as to the continuous administrativeresponsibility of school administrators in the apportionment of scarce resourceswithin the education sector.

(~) In response to the need felt by a number of Governments for a review their own internal administrative structure, projects in Iran and Ceylon wereproposed, and it was expected that other requests for the reorganization of civilservices and for assistance in general planning would be presented in the future.

(m) A continuous interest in mining, hydro-geological and geological surveyswas noted, as illustrated by projects in Botswana, Burundi, Dahomey, DemocraticRepublic of Congo, Iran, Somalia, Trinidad and Tobago, and Zambia. Groundwatersurveys were the subject of projects in Bolivia, Burma, the Malagasy Republic andMauritius and the management of other water resources on a unified basis was theaim of projects in Afghanistan, Kuwait and Lebanon.

(n) With regard to health training, the Pan-American Programme for HealthPlanni~g would complement an already wide range of activities undertaken by the

Latin American Regional Institute for Economic and Social Planning.

-13-

(~) In another regional project, in Africa, the machinery for inter-countryactivities in the Senegal Basin would be further reinforced by the development ofagricultural research in the Senegal River basin, for which preliminary operationswere approved at the fourth session of the Governing Council.

Participating and executing agency overhead costs

16. A tabular summary of overhead costs~ by participating and executing agency,both for the present and previous programmes, was submitted to the Council (seetable 7).

Preparatory assistance

17. For fifty-five of the ninety-five projects and five supplementary earmarkingsbeing recommended, the Administrator made use of preparatory assistance funds forrevision, reformulation or evaluation of the requests, either by sending expert orconsultant missions to the field or by referring the request to a consultant for Iopinion.

Summary of discussion

18. Nearly all members who spoke commented approvingly on the growth in size ofthe programme before the Council. Some also noted that the quality of the projectshad been maintained and welcomed the balance of the programme between sectors, andas between geographic regions. One supported in particular the emphasis on Africa, ¯which corresponded to the needs of that continent.

19. Several members commented on the growing need for more resources for theprogramme. In the light of this need, the representative of Belgium annonncedto the Council that it was increasing its contribution by nearly i0 per cent to$2 million. Some developing countries appealed to the developed countries toincrease their contributions in order to allow the continued growth of theprogramme. A solution suggested by one member was to reduce the amount of fundsin the pipeline to ensure that each phase of a project could stand on its own.Another suggested that the eligibility of certain countries to receive aid fromUNDP was a key problem in this context, to be discussed under another item ofthe Council’s agenda. One member expressed regret that more resources weredevoted to space exploration than to helping the development of the less developedcountries.

20. The growing need for co-operation among agencies was referred to by manymembers. Some welcomed the evidence of growing inter-agency co-operation and"team spirit". The recent agreement between UNIDO and the ILO on their areasof competence was mentioned with approval by two members. Another welcomed theadoption by the Economic and Social Council of resolution 1262 (XLIII) co-ordination at the country level. Some delegations spoke approvingly of thegrowing resort to multi-agency projects to solve special problems of development,one of them stressing the need for more information on the role that participatingand executing agencies would play and for the avoidance of overlapping in functions. |Two members supported the Administrator’s proposal that continuing responsibility !be given to one agency in the case of multi-phase projects.

-14-

Table 7

Participating and executing agency overhead costs

Previous programmes Present programme CumulativeParticipating and Participating and iOarticipating and

Project executing agency Project executing agency Project executing agency

Agency costs ~/ overhead costs costs ~/ overhead costs costs a/ overhead costs

(US dollars) (US dollars) (US dollars) .... (US dollars) (US doll~rs) (US dollars)

United Nations 130,136,15~ / 12,284,850-b/ 14,489,200 1,579,100 144,625,359 13,863,950

!L0 75,214,194 7,611,600 10,606,500 1,165,300 85,820,694 8,776,900

FA0 268,641,639 26,960,050 30,154,300 3,304,900 298,795,939 30,264,950

U~ESC0 121,244,350 11,284,950 9,080,500 998,400 130,324,850 12,283,350

WHO 15,899,000 1,583,100 3,395,800 372,900 19,294,800 1,956,000

IBRD 32,043,536 505,110 2,197,900 29,000 34,241,436 534,110

ICA0 11,892,576 839,600 893,300 98,300 12,785,876 937,900

’ ITU 18,263,500 1,814,800 2,670,600 293,400 20,934,100 2,108,200

WMO 14,030,100 1,35},200 936,100 i03,000 14,966,200 1,456,200

~EA 2,246,100 212,500 1,279,800 139,900 3,525,900 352,400

UNIDO 14,986,600 ~b/ !,562,500~/ 5,747,400 631,200 20,7}4,000 2,19},700

ID~ / .... 860,800 94,600 860,800 94,600

TOTAL 704,597,754 66,012,260 $2,312,200 8,810,000 786,909,954 74,822,260

a/ Includes UND~ (Special Fund) direct costs.

Earmarkings for projects originally undertaken by the United ~Tations and transferred from theUnited Nations to UNID0 during 1967.

~/ An executing agency.

21. Several members noted with approval the allocation of a number of projects toUNIDO and welcomed the growing involvement of that agency in the Programme. Onemember wondered whether the agencies would have the capacity for the growing numberof projects~ another welcomed the resort to new executing agencies, including UNIDOand the Inter-American Development Bank, as a solution to this problem and suggestedthat increasing resort to sub-contracting would help to expand the absorptivecapacity of the executing agencies. In this context, the fall in resources to bedevoted to sub-contracting was noted with regret.

22. With respect to the Phase II projects before the Council, one member expressedfull support for such projects as a natural sequel to the initial project, whileanother expressed concern at this procedure for instituticn building or naturalresources projects. Some members expressed the view that it would be useful if incases where this was possible the Administrator would indicate at the time of theapproval of the initial project that further phases were likely. Replying to asuggestion that the Council should be given an indication of the full duration ofa project when it considered the initial project, the Administrator stated that itwas not always possible or desirable to foresee the period of time required forinstitution-building projects. Careful evaluation was required to determine theneed for continued operations.

23. A number of members commented favourably on regional projects before theCouncil. One member pointed to the need for more information on the division ofresponsibilities between participating countries. Another expressed the hopethat UNDP might take the initiative in promoting more regional projects, andsuggested the Congo Basin as one suitable area.

24. Some members questioned the desirability of giving aid to dependentTerritories on the grounds that such projects should be financed solely by theadministering Power. The representative of the United Kingdom made it clear that,so far as British Territories were concerned, UNDP assistance did not replace butwas additional to aid already given by his Government; exposure to internationalaid was an essential part of preparing Territories for independence, and recipientTerritories were well aware that the aid came from UNDP and were grateful to theProgramme. He mentioned General Assembly resolution 2311 (XXII) on the need forassociating the agencies of the United Nations family in the work of decolonization.One member said that that resolution referred to national liberation movements.

25. Some members categorically opposed the approval of the projects for theRepublic of Korea, the Philippines, and Thailand~ which had used their ownresources to co~Jmit aggression and not to promote economic development. Thisposition was categorically rejected by some other members who stated that suchconsiderations were irrelevant.

26. Many members spoke approvingly of the variety of activities included in theprogramme before the Council. One member expressed the view that greater emphasisshould be placed on the projects which were most likely to be fruitful~ which meantthat natural resources projects should be selected realistically. In his view,priority should be given to social, training and demonstration projects. Twomembers mentioned in particular the fields of rural development, food productionand agricultural training. However, the need to balance industrial and agriculturaldevelopment was also stressed by one member. Another member stressed the need formore projects in the field of family planning, proteins, trade promotion and natural !

-16-

resources. In this connexion, the Administrator said that the United Nations had~in recent years, been interested in housing problems and was already concernedwith new questions such as population control and proteins. UNDP had indicatedthat it would be happy to provide assistance to any interested country and wouldtake account of the views expressed on natural resources. One member stressedthe urgency of paying more attention to the social aspects of projects which wereprimarily economic in nature and he expressed concern that only 4 per cent ofprogramme costs was devoted to the financing of fellowships for the training ofcounterpart personnel. Another suggested that increasing resort to projects inthe field of housing might help the Programme to make greater use of localresources. Two members noted with regret the paucity of pilot projects in theProgramme. One member questioned whether the pilot projects being considered forapproval conformed to existing criteria. The need for projects to solve theproblems of growing population pressure in the cities was mentioned by two members.

27. The administration of projects and problems relating thereto were discussedby a number of members. Some referred to the problem of agency costs. One member,noting that while agencies had a standard cost percentage of ii per cent~ theInternational Bank level was only i per cent, called for more details on thissubject. Concern at the growth in administrative and overhead costs was expressedby another member. In reply, the Administrator stated that all of theparticipating and executing agencies~ with the exception of the World Bank,considered the present level of agency costs of ii per cent was inadequate, andhad suggested that the Advisory Committee for Administrative and BudgetaryQuestions make a detailed study of the question. The Governing Council requestedthe Administrator to inform the Council at its next session of the extent to whichparticipating and executing agencies account for the sums they receive foradministrative and overhead costs and to give the Council a summary of suchinformation as was available. He was also requested to include in his reporta comparative study of the IBRD methods of charging administrative and overheadcosts.

28. Counterpart contributions were commented on by a few members, two of whomasked how the level of recipient government contributions was worked out forindividual projects. Several members suggested that the question be re-examinedand that the Administrator should make full use of his discretion to waive the15 per cent local costs for the least developed countries.

29. Improved methods for informing the Council concerning projects were suggestedby some members. One suggested advance distribution of documentation, the listingof projects by sectors, and improved facilities for consultation between theAdministration and delegations. A number of members called for information onprojects which did not reach the Council. The Administrator explained thatprojects not submitted to the Council were cancelled by joint agreement betweenthe Administration and the requesting country.

30. The delay in the selection and execution of projects was mentioned by a fewmembers. One suggested that projects should be cancelled if Plans of Operationwere not approved in due time. Two members called for details on the time takenbetween the initial request and the approval of the project by the GoverningCouncil, and for progress reports on the signature of Plans of Operation. Another

requested progress reports on projects in process of execution. The Administratorindicated that reports on progress in signing Plans of Operation were available ifrequired.

-17-

Decision of the Governing Council

31. Following the discussion under item 5 (~) of its agenda, the Council, subjectto the observations and reservations expressed on some projects, decided:

(~) To approve the proposed programme (see annex II below);

(~) To earmark for each of the projects in annex II the sums shown in thatannex under the heading "Governing Council earmarking"~

(~) To authorize the Administrator to make the appropriate arrangementswith Governments and participating and executing agencies for the execution ofthese projects~

(d) To earmark an additional $7,289,776 (equivalent to 8 per cent of total ~overning Council earmarkings for the present programme) as a reserve forthe Administrator’s contingency authority.

Preliminary operations

32. Under item 5 (~) of its agenda the Council considered the Administrator’srequest for advance approval of preliminary operations on five Special Fundprojects, and the Administrator’s report of preliminary operations on eightadditional projects which had been approved by him between the fourth and fifthsessions of the Governing Council (DP/L.59). The procedures for preliminaryoperations had been approved initially for an experimental period of one year bythe Council at its second (June 1966) session, and extended for a further year the fourth (June 1967) session.


33. After a brief introduction of the Administrator’s proposals, there was adiscussion in which the majority of the members took part. A few membersquestioned various aspects of the Administrator’s report~ the questions centred |on the nature of the criteria applied by the Administrator in deciding to authorize,or to seek advance Council approval for, preliminary operations, and specificallyon the definition of the criterion of "urgency" which, under the proceduresestablished at the second session, was the principal factor to be considered inthe decision to invoke the preliminary operations procedure on particular projects.Questions were also raised as to whether means could not be found of informingmembers of the Council on projects for which preliminary operations were underconsideration between sessions, and their advance approval sought. It wasobserved that this possibility had been mentioned during earlier Councildiscussions and that mail polls and similar techniques had been appliedsuccessfully under other international programmes. Several members mentioned thedesirability of fuller supporting information in the Administrator’s futurerecommendations, and one member suggested that the date on which the request hadbeen received should be included. Another member felt that the presentation ofpreliminary operations proposals should be brought more nearly into line with thepresentation of conventional Special Fund projects. One member asked, with regardto the preliminary operations proposals before the Council at the fifth session, !

-18-

for an indication of the session at which the Administrator expected to recommendthe full project for Council approval.

34. The majority of the members strongly supported the Administrator’s proposalsfor preliminary operations as well as the action taken by the Administrator inbeginning preliminary operations on eight projects between the fourth and fifthsessions of the Council. Among the members who held this general view, somestressed the importance of the preliminary operations device as an element offlexibility available to the Administrator which would permit delays to be avoidedin exceptionally urgent cases, and observed that the need to bring projects intooperation without excessive delay had been a continuing preoccupation of theCouncil. Some members felt that the preliminary operations procedures were intendedto give the Administrator discretionary powers in a carefully defined sphere, thatit was important to preserve his freedom of action, and that it was not feasibleto define the factor of "urgency" with any great precision. In the course of thedebate, several members remarked that the Administrator was working in this regardwithin the policy framework established at the second session, and indicated thatthey would wish to discuss the policy aspects of preliminary operations underitem 7 of the agenda of the present session. A few members, while supporting theAdministrator’s proposals generally, wished to record their reservations concerningthe preliminary operations for the Tubewell irrigation project in the Republic ofKorea. Two members observed that there was no apparent factor of urgency presentin two of the projects included in the Administrator’s report.

Observations of the Administration

35- In reply to specific questions raised, the Assistant Administrator andDirector of the Bureau of Operations and Programming observed that the Administratorhad attempted faithfully to follow the policies governing preliminary operationsestablished by the Council at its second session. Preliminary operations wereregarded as exceptional procedures, to be invoked to save time when time was ofthe essence. An exceptional factor of urgency had to be present. That factormight relate to seasonal considerations in the case of resource surveys, to theacademic year in the case of certain training activities, or to the imminence ofinvestment decisions. While an effort had been made to describe the urgency factorin each of the cases before the Council, an attempt would be made to provide moredetailed information in future presentations. The date on which the originalrequest was received could of course be shown, though the relevance of thatinformation was doubtful, since often the factor of urgency arose through changedcircumstances in the country after a request had been under consideration forsome time.

36. The preliminary project operations approved by the Council at its fourthsession were all included in full projects currently before the Council. Thepreliminary operations listed in the document now under examination were expectedto be included in conventional programme recommendations to the sixth and seventhsessions. In reply to a question on this point the Assistant Administratorobserved that the submission of a project to the seventh session for whichpreliminary operations were now proposed did not mean that the factor of urgencywas not present. The need for urgent action was being fulfilled throughpreliminary operations. The appropriate dimensions of the full project mightbecome known to the Administrator only after the deadline (March 1968) for

-19-

submission of documents to the Inter-Agency Consultative Board for the sixth sessionof the Governing Council had passed.

37. With regard to arrangements for keeping Council members informed of preliminaryoperations approved by the Administrator between sessions of the Council, anydecisions the Council might wish to take would of course be strictly observed. Inone of the cases of preliminary operations before the Council at its fifth session,the basic justification was the need to maintain continuity in a project which hadbeen under operation under other sponsorship. Normally the requirement forcontinuity would have been met through other means but, in the case in question,UNDP was informed of the project too late to permit alternative solutions.


38. At the conclusion of the discussion, the Governing Council approved theproposed preliminary operations on the following five projects:

Central African Republic - In-service training for agricultural extensionworkers ($119,900)

Central African Republic - Vocational training for rural artisans ($143~900)

Chad - Regional development of Ouaddai ($135,000)

Jordan - Jordan Housing Corporation ($57,000)

Niger - Teacher training college at Zinder ($49~150)

39. The Council took note of the preliminary operations authorized by theAdministrator between the fourth and fifth sessions of the Council on thefollowing eight projects:

Algeria - Development of pasture lands and fodder crops ($167,300)

Brazil - Strengthening of basic science teaching and research atthe Federal University of Bahia ($72,100)

Colombia - Development of the Choco Valley - Phase I, surveying andmapping ($125,000)

Kenya - Pilot beef fattening under quarantine conditions ($80,000)

Republicof Korea - Tubewell irrigation project ($135,000)

Morocco Development of water resources and supply ($149,000)

Pakistan - Assistance to the planning commission ($207,000)

Sudan - Land and water resources survey of South Kordofan ($136,000)

q-20-

CHAPTER III

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMPONENT OF UNDP

(~) Technical Assistance earmarkings for 1968

40. Under item 6 (a) of its agenda, the Governing Council considered a report the level of TechniCal Assistance earmarkings for 1968 (DP/TA/L.13 and Add.l). this report, the Co-Administrator reminded the Council that, at its November 1966ad hoc session, the Council had approved a 1967-1968 biennial Category I fieldprogramme for the Technical Assistance component and earmarked $55,325,498 for theimplementation of that programme in 1967 amounting to 50 per cent ef its cost.Earmarkings of $55,325,497 corresponding to the remaining 50 per cent, to financethe 1968 portion of the programme were recommended to the Council at the fifthsession as a follow up action. The Council, at its November 1966 ad hoc session,had also recommended that resources amounting to $2,500,000 be set aside to financea biennial programme for Indonesia. At its fourth session~ the Council approved aprogramme for Indonesia amounting to $934,400 in 1967 and $1,329,700 in 1968 andauthorized the Administrator to approve additional projects up to the balance of$235,900. Additional earmarkings of $9,000 for 1967 and $31,0OO for 1968 wererecommended to the Council at its fifth session to cover the cost of additionalprojects approved by the Administrator on the basis of this authorization.

41. Similarly the Council, at its November 1966 ad hoc session, approved lump-sumamounts for the overhead costs of the participating and executing agencies for the1967-1968 biennium and earmarked half of these amounts for 1967. Earmarkings of$8~061,252, corresponding to the other half, were recommended to the Council atits fifth session for 1968. An additional allocation of $iO,000 to the WorldMeteorological Organization and $20,000 to the Inter-Governmental MaritimeConsultative Organization were also recommended under the flexibility provisionof Economic and Social Council resolution 1060 (XXXIX).


42. One member expressed concern at the increase in overhead costs of theparticipating and executing agencies and assumed that detailed justification forthese increases was available. He pointed out in particular that the over-allincrease in salary levels would not justify an increase in the proportion of fundsallocated to overhead costs. Another member said that it was his understandingthat allocations to the participating and executing agencies would be limited to96 per cent of the recolmmended earmarking and inquired whether this decision couldbe reviewed in the light of the latest estimates of contributions. TheCo-Administrator indicated that this would be done.

-21-


43. Following the discussion, the Council decided: I

(~) To earmark $55,325,497 ~/ to finance the 1968 portion of the Category Technical Assistance field programme, excluding the Indonesian programme.

(~) With respect to the Indonesian 1967-1968 programme:

(i) To increase by $9,000 to $949,400 the earmarking authorizedfor 1967 at its fourth session~

(ii) To earmark an amount of $1,360,700 for 1968;~/

(iii) To authorize the Administrator to approve additional projects,subject to formal review and approval by the Council at itssixth session, within the unprogrammed balance of $195,900(remaining unearmarked from the $2.5 million target authorizedat the ad hoc session of the Council held in November 1966).

(~) To earmark a total of $8,O91,252 for overhead costs of the participatingand executing agencies for 1968, as follows:

(i) An amount of $8,O61,252, being the balance of the amountapproved for overhead costs for the 1967-1968 biennium at thead hoc session of the Council in November 1966;

(ii) An increase by $IO,0OO (from $208,620 to $218,620) in the WMOallocation for overhead costs for 1968;

(iii) An increase by $20,000 (from $45,000 to $65,000) in the IMCOallocation for overhead costs for 1968.

(~) Estimates and distribution of resources including country and regionaltargets

44. Under items 6 (~) and (~) of its agenda, the Governing Council had before a report giving the initial estimates of resources for the Technical Assistancecomponent of the United Nations Development Programme in 1969 and the proposeddistribution of these resources, including country and regional project targetsfor 1969 and the three following years (DP/TA/R.I).

45. Introducing the report, the Co-Administrator indicated, with reference to thelevel of resources, that the first rough estimates had been disappointing as themodest increase in contributions reported at the October 1967 pledging conferencehad been more than offset by a series of factors. These included the need to make

2/ This earmarking includes $2,497,575 for UNIDO’s share of the Category Iprogramme.

~/ This earmarking includes $102,4OO for UNIDO’s share of the Indonesian d

!programme.

-22-

provision for an Indonesian target, not included in the originally approvedProgramme for 1967-1968. Targets also had to be provided for the first time for

a number of small countries whose total needs were met in 1967 and 1968 from thecontingency authority. Moreover, the proportions of total resources set asidefor regional targets and for the planning reserve had both been increased bydecision of the Coverning Council.

46. This left little room for manoeuvring at a time when such room was needed toachieve a more equitable realignment of country targets since they would, ineffect, establish a floor above which the level of assistance would, in fact, haveto be maintained for a number of years. Two important easements were introducedto alleviate this situation. In the first place, it was decided to commit inadvance a substantial slice of the increased planning reserve and, secondly~ theAdministrator indicated his readiness to allocate to the Technical Assistancecomponent sufficient funds drawn from undivided pledges to validate the estimatesof Technical Assistance resources.

47. On this basis it was possible to recommend to the Council a moderaterealignment of target figures including fifty-three modest increases andthirty-one decreases of which a few were significant, but many were no more thantoken changes. The Co-Administrator recognized that in a few cases recommendedreductions, although justified, would result in difficult problems if on-goingactivities had to be curtailed. He stated that the Administrator’s planningreserve would make it possible to make adjustments in target figures in specificcases when such difficulties were likely to occur. Entirely new situations wouldbe dealt with under the contingency authority.

48. The proposed distribution of financial resources for regional projects wasbased on a simple mathematical formula endorsed by the Council, which hadauthorized a i per cent increase in the proportion of resources devoted to suchactivities.

49. Turning to the question of the criteria used to determine the bestdistribution of technical assistance resources, the Co-Administrator indicatedthat the aim had been to be equitable without losing sight of effectiveness. Thet~Jo most important criteria of need for assistance among developing countries weresize of population and per capita national income. Other things being equal, bigcountries needed more help than small countries; very poor countries needed morethan those less poor.

50. An arbitrary limit had, however, been set for the targets of a few largecountries despite their low per capita income. Without this limit, these wouldabsorb a disproportionate share of technical assistance resources with consequentheavy cuts for the others. This applied particularly to India, Pakistan, andIndonesia, and to a lesser degree to Brazil and Nigeria. The Co-Administratoralso pointed out that very small countries tended to be favoured by an arbitraryminimum figure below which useful activities could not be undertaken.

51. Recognition was also given to special needs such as those reflected in highilliteracy and high mortality rates, though, in practice, these were closelycorrelated with low per capita incomes. Local budgetary possibilities and theavailability of foreign exchange resources were not ignored. Specialcircumstances such as preparation for and the early experience of new nationhood

-23-

were taken into account as well. The long-term consequences of nationalemergencies which hindered the economic development of a country had also to beconsidered. At the same time account was taken of the degree of interest shownby Governments in United Nations Development Programme assistance, and theirreadiness to co-operate in making effective the assistance rendered. Finally,the application of all these criteria was affected by various practicalconsiderations - such as the opportunity to do a specially effective job at aparticular time, or the desirability of continuingpromising work which mighthave been compromised by otherwise justifiable reductions.

52. The Co-Administrator drew the Council’s attention to the fact that the reportincluded no targets for the Republic of Viet-Nam, the Republic of Yemen and thenewly established People’s Republic of Southern Yemen. At a later meeting,however, the Co-Administrator recommended to the Council that targets for thesethree countries be approved at a level corresponding to that established for the1967-1968 biennium, i.e. $362,500 for the Republic of Viet-Nam, $362,500 for theRepublic of Yemen, and $75~OO0 for the People’s Republic of Southern Yemen, onthe understanding that further adjustments to these targets might be made fromthe planning reserve in the light of developing circumstances.


53. The representative of the USSR welcomed the estimates of distribution ofTechnical Assistance resources for 1969 proposed by the Administrator but wascategorically opposed to the country target figures for the Republic of Viet-Nam,South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand and Israel, which had used their ownresources to commit aggression and not to promote economic development. Theseviews were shared by the representatives of Bulgaria and Poland. Therepresentative of Thailand clarified his Government’s position in regard toViet-Nam as being in response to the request of the Republic of Viet-Nam and acollective self-defence measure against aggression from North Viet-Nam. Hetherefore categorically rejected the Soviet statement. The representative ofTunisia expressed reservations concerning the target for Israel. Therepresentative of Algeria, supported by the representatives of Iraq, Jordan andthe United Arab Republic, recalling the prior position of his delegation,declared that he was opposed to the granting of funds to Israeli authorities andrequested that this assistance be transferred to the benefit of countries victimsof Israeli aggression. The representative of Jordan expressed concern at theeffect of the reduction in the proportion of funds allocated to the Middle Easton the Arab countries. In his reply, the Co-Administrator indicated that thelevel of assistance provided to Arab countries was not evident from the figure forassistance to the Middle East, and did not at that stage include targets forYemen and Southern Yemen.

54. One member accepted the recommendations of the Administrator with somereservations as he could not see how all the criteria agreed upon could have beentaken into account, in particular such elements as the extent to which assistancefrom other sources was available. He noted that the new procedures had beenapproved by the Council on a provisional basis and should be reviewed inJanuary 1969 when the Administrator presented his report to the Council on theprogramme developed on the basis of the country targets.

!-24-

55. A~nother member drew the Administrator’s attention to the need to apply theapproved criteria with common sense. In a number of countries, for instance, andparticularly in Africa, national per capita income was high as compared withdomestic product per caDita and this factor should be taken into account.

56. It was pointed out by another member that agency targets for regional projectsfor 1969 had been prepared by applying their percentage share in the 1967-1968programme to the amount available. He hoped that in future years these percentageshares would be subject to readjustment in the light of circumstances. TheCo-Administrator indicated that the Council might wish to discuss this matter underitem 7 of its agenda.

57. Doubts were expressed by another member concerning assistance granted toNon-Self-Governing Territories. He considered that a formula under which thenecessary funds would be provided by the administering Power would be preferable.He also moted that there was no indication that the services of the programme werebeing made available to national liberation movements in certain territories inaccordance with General Assembly resolution 2311 (XXII).

58. One member noted that part of the 6 per cent planning reserve had already beenutilized to increase country targets and inquired what steps would be taken tomaintain the resultant target increases in future years. The Co-Administratorindicated that the problem of meeting the continuing commitments of projectsfinanced from the planning reserve or on a contingency basis was general in natureand could be resolved only by means of a steady increase in the level ofcontributions.

59- It was suggested by other members that, in preparing the list of countrytargets in the future, the Administrator should include a column showing targetsfor the previous year. The Co-Administrator indicated that this would be done.


60. At the close of the discussion, the Governing Council took the followingaction:

(~) The Council noted the estimates of resources for 1969 ($71,661,000),together with their proposed distribution by main objects of expenditure asfollows:

US dollars(i) Agencies overhead costs 8,550,569

(ii) Technical Assistance share of theUNDP Administrative Budget 6,400,000

(iii) Balance available for thefield programme ~6,710,000

Total 71,660,569

-25-

(~) The Council approved:

(i) Country and regional target figures amounting, respectively, ito $45,385,000 and $9,640,000 (see annex IIl);

(ii) The level of the available balance of planning reserve($1,685,000) ~ and

(iii) The amounts of reimbursement for overhead costs of the participatingand executing agencies ($8,550,569).

-26-

CHAFTER IV

POLICY MATTERS

61. The Governing Council considered as a whole, and individually~ items 7~ 12,19 and 4 of Sts agenda, dealing with matters of policy. Under these items~ itconsidered:

(i) A report by the Administrator on criteria for determining eligibilityfor UNDP assistance; selection of projects; and financing of projects(DP/L.58);

(ii) A progress report by the Administrator on steps taken to promoteinvestment follow-up (DP/L.61);

(iii) A report by the Administrator on operational assistance under TechnicalAssistance component (DP/TA/L.15);

(iv) Criteria for and operation of pilot and demonstration projects;

(v) Other policy matters; and

(vi) A report by the Administrator on future needs for pre-investment activityin relation to the administrative capacity of the United Nationssystem to programme and implement such activities (DP/L.57 and Corr.land 2).

62. The consideration of these matters by the Governing Council, and theconclusions reached by it~ are dealt with in the following sections of the report.

63. The Council also held an exchange of views with the Administration on matters ....relating to the United Nations Development Programme activities.

(~) Criteria for determining eligibility for UNDP assistance and financingof projects

Report by the Administrator

64. At its fourth session~ the Governing Council discussed the interrelatedquestions of determining eligibility of countries to receive assistance from theProgramme~ the principles according to which the costs of assisted projects shouldbe shared between the recipient Governments and the Programme~ and the criteriaapplied to the selection of projects; the Administrator submitted a report on thesematters to the fifth session (DP/L.58).

65. As regards eligibility for assistance and the financing of projects~ theAdministrator’s report took as its starting point the facts~ firstly~ that allcountries were in a real sense "developing countries" and~ secondly~ that allcountries had as a common goal the achievement of a rapidly expanding world economy.

-27-

Within this universal framework, the most highly developed countries needed littleor no service from UNDP; the richer of the less developed countries often requiredassistance in certain fields such as the transfer of highly sophisticatedtechnology or even of less sophisticated skills, knowledge and equipment whichwould not otherwise be available to them; and~ approaching the other end of thescale~ the poorest of the less developed countries needed a great deal ofassistance. Under funds-in-trust arrangements which could be applied to both theTechnical Assistance and the Special Fund components, the richer developingcountries could receive assistance without drawing upon the regular resources ofthe Programme; moreover, there was scope for flexibility in the matter ofcounterpart obligations 3 which were generally negotiable and which~ in the case ofthe cash contributions by Governments to local operating costs (15 per cent inSpecial Fund projects and 12-1/2 per cent in Technical Assistance projects), wereopen to waiver in countries faced with particularly difficult financial situations.

66. The existing policies on eligibility~ therefore, provided essentially for theallocation of maximum resources to the less developed countries and at the sametime permitted support for requests from the more developed countries~ these beingsubjected~ however, to a "rule of reason" resulting not only in a limitation onthe number of projects approved but also in substantial contributions by theGovernments concerned to the total costs of the projects or~ in lieu of that~ tothe resources of the Programme itself. The Administrator recommended that thesepolicies should continue to be applied.


67. The Governing Council devoted an intensive discussion to the subject. Whilethe members on the whole accepted the principles stated in the Administrator’sreport as the general framework within which assistance should be made availabl%and while a number of them believed that this framework could and should continueto serve its purpose as it had in the past in determining the allocation of theresources of the Programme, others considered that the disparity between the volumeof resources available and the volume of the needs of the developing countrieswas so great as to require that more precise criteria~ or at least guidelines,should be devised. Among these members, however~ there were considerabledifferences of approach and of opinion as to how the criteria or guidelines shouldbe formulated.

68. Some members referred to the fact that the basic resolutions governing theUNDP required that UNDP assistance should be provided to a category of countriesidentifiable~ by common consent within the United Nations system, as the"developing countries". It was more generally agreed~ however~ that all countrieswhich were members of the United Nations or the related agencies were in principleeligible for assistance. This interpretation rested not only on the fact thatevery country continued to be a "developing country" in ome sense or another~ butalso on the whole philosophy of international economic co-operation as a processof universal and constant interchange of the techniques and benefits of thedevelopment of human and physical resources~ a process to which every country hadsomething to contribute and from which it had something to receive. UNDP, as theprincipal instrument of international technical co-operation~ was based on thisphilosophy and must reflect it in its operations, avoiding those distinctionsbetween "donor" and "recipient" Governments and between "developed" and "developing" i

I

-28-

countries which would vitiate its unique character~ alter its purpose and weakenconfidence in and material support for its activities.

69. In support of this view it was contended that there was nothing in theresolutions nor the history nor the practices through which UNDP had been developedto limit eligibility among any members of the United Nations or the relatedagencies on any grounds~ whether economic~ social~ political or degree ofdevelopment. There were good reasons for this general eligibility~ and it shouldnot be diminished either in theory or in practice. One member stated that anyconditions~ other than a voluntary act of the Governments concerned~ which wouldexclude certain countries from UNDP assistance would not only fail to correspondwith reality~ in the sense that all countries were in a certain measure developingcountries~ but also be incompatible with the fundamental principle in the UnitedNations Charter of equality among Member States.

70. Another member warned of a risk that to exclude a certain number of countriesfrom access to the Programme~ould be to begin closing the door now being openedto international economic co-operation on a truly world-wide scale. It was alsosuggested by some members that the only criterion which should be allowed toexclude countries from UNDP assistance was their involvement in aggression~ andthis criterion should be applied to put an end to assistance now being provided tocertain countries. At the same time~ certain other countries which had recentlybeen the victims of aggression and were still suffering its effects should benefitfrom additional and special efforts on the part of UNDP.

71. There was a wide measure of agreement among members of the Council that thehigher the level of development and per capita income of a country~ the more itshould contribute~ proportionally~ to the total cost of a project. It was pointedout that various means of achieving this result already existed: by directlyincreasing the counterpart contributions; by having recourse wholly or partly tofunds-in-trust or similar repayment arrangements; and by increasing the netcontribution to the total resources of UNDP. By the same token~ the burden ofthe cost of assistance falling on the poorer countries could be eased by the mostflexible possible use of the authority to waive the local cost contribution.

72. Among members who acknowledged the existence and usefulness of thesepossibilities~ however~ there were those who believed that they were not sufficient~either in definition or in scope~ to adjust the use of the Programme’s resourcesto a situation in which there might soon be many more valid and properly preparedrequests awaiting approval than could be financed by UNDP. Some members alsodoubted the effectiveness of the existing criteria and means of flexibility inpointing to the fact that in previous four years’ operations some II per centof the resources had gone to the assistance of countries with a per capitanational income of $500 or more~ a proportion which they felt to be too high andwhich involved some countries which had not made a commensurate contribution tothe resources. One of these members pointed out th&t at a certain stage ofdevelopment~ the economies of countries became self-generating and theirdependence on outside assistance tended to decrease. Moreover~ as their pace ofdevelopment accelerated~ the gap between relatively rich and relatively poorcountries constantly increased. It was obvious~ therefore~ that countries whoseeconomies had not yet reached the self-generating stage had a greater claim toassistance from all sources~ as a means of narrowing the gap.

-29-

73- From the views of several of these members there arose the contention that someformula could and should be devised by which flexibility could be introduced not Ionly into the counterpart and local cost contributions of Governments but also intothe element comprising UNDP resources proper. The formulae suggested differed inkind and degree, ranging from an appeal to the more highly developed countries todesist voluntarily from drawing upon the resources to the fixing of a level ofdevelopment above which countries should not use the Programme except to obtainservices paid for by themselves.

74. Among those taking this approach~ one member stated that the difficulty ofestablishing criteria relating to the level of development of any particulareconomic~ social or other sector to which the country concerned attached priorityled to only one feasible solution: namely, that the relatively richer countriesshould desist from seeking assistance from UNDP. This member’s own Government haddesisted~ after 1964~from seeking assistance from UNDP~ not because assistance wasno longer necessary but because the Government accepted the view that the resourcesshould be reserved for countries in greater need. At the same time, it had triedto increase its contributions to UNDP~ and it was not easy to justify this tothe taxpayers when countries richer than its own in terms of per capita income were istill recemving assistance from UNDP.

75. Another member supporting the conception of self-restraint on the part ofricher countries as a means of assuring that assistance should go primarily to thosecountries most in need of it pointed out that the people of his country contributedto the Programme in the belief that their money was going to help countrie~ facingreal problems of hunger~ disease and illiteracy. !deally~ the more highly-developedcountries could determine for themselves, as a matter of national conscience~ |whether they should forego UNDP assistance and~ if they so decided, state their I

intention not to apply ±or assistance in the foreseeable future. Yet even thisideal solution would call for some decision by the Council in terms of a yardstick -which might be broadly based on per capita income - by which individual countrieswould know whether they were called upon to make such a decision. If self-restraintwere not app!ied~ it might be necessary to require ~hat the countries concernedpay for all the costs of projects through funds-in-trust arrangements, or makeexceptionally large counterpart contributions~ or increase their contributions tothe central funds all these~ necessarily~ in convertible currencies.

76. Others who favoured this general approach expressed doubt about the likelyeffectiveness of voluntary self-restraint. One difficulty mentioned was the perhapspsychological fact that most countries were reluctant to admit that they hadreached a stage in their development where assistance from outside sources was nolonger necessary.

77. These doubts about the effectiveness of voluntary self-restraint led to thesuggestion that a "cut-off" line would have to be drawn by the Governing Councilitself. While acknowledging that per capita national income in itself was notnecessarily an accurate measure of the economic situation of a country or itspeople~ one member suggested that the line might be drawn at the per capitanational income level of $750 - the lower level of a category of ~ countriesrecently defined by the World Bank Group. This would also allow the Administratora degree of flexibility in dealing with countries with a per capita income in therange between $500 and $750 which~ while relatively highly developed, might havea special case for assistance. !

-30-

78. Another member suggested that~ as a starting point, a level of per capitaincome could be determined above which the recipient countz7 would not be entitledto utilize any of the regular funds of UNDP, while still being free to seek UNDPassistance on a repayment basis. At the other end of the range of degrees ofdevelopment~ there could be a lower level of per capita income below which everyeffort would be made by the Administrator to reduce the cost of the project to therecipient country to an absolute minimum. Between these two levels there would bea sliding scale of proportionate project contributions, basically graduatedaccording to per capita income but taking into account any other special factors.

79. The same distinction was drawn hy other members between renouncing all use ofthe Programme and making use of its services on a repayment basis, the lattercourse tending to preserve the universality of the Programme. One member suggestedthat it should not be too difficult~ by using additional yardsticks such as theforeign exchange situation and the range and volume of other technical and financialaid, to distinguish a number of relatively solvent countries which were in aposition to defray all or part of the costs of any type of technical assistance theym~ght require.

80. Arguments not only of principle - as summarized earlier in this report - butalso of practicability were brought to bear by many members against the idea ofendeavours to establish a formal cut-off-line. It was pointed out that no magicformula existed which would allow the resources to be allocated with some kind ofmathematical equity. Indeed, it would be extremely unrealistic to ask theAdministrator to establish mathematical indices to be used to define the level ofdevelopment of any country and to calculate the amount of assistance to be furnishedto it; above all~ per capita income was a most questionable criterion in thisrespect.

81. Those warning against the fallibility of national income statistics, used bythemselves, as an index of levels of development asserted that in many developingcountries the real income levels and living standards of the great majority of thepopulation bore little or no relationship to per capita national income. Onemember added that~ even if it were desirable and not contrary to the spirit ofco-operation and universality to try to classify the participating countries in thisfashion, there were many other factors which would have to be considered, such asliteracy 3 the number of doctors in proportion to the population3 the infra-structureof the country and its economic and external trade structures. Another stated thatit was impossible to measure levels of development or stages of economic graph withany accuracy, since a number of qualtitative as well as quantitative elements wereinvolved which were not susceptible to measurement by any statistical yardstick.The validity of using self-sustained economic growth as a standard for countrieswhich were assumed not to need further assistance from UNDP was challenged b~still another member with the assertion that the economic growth of many quite poorcountries could be described as self-sustained and that~ conversely, many relativelywealthy countries had not yet achieved that level.

82. In addition to the objections based on principle and f~asibility~ a note ofparticular caution was sounded about the ffect which a "cut-off" line might haveon the economic development of a certain category of countries that would beinvolved. In this view, there was a very real danger of depriving of assistance acountry reaching the critical intermediate level of development at which its needsfor trained personnel and for other resources required to maintain continuity of

-31-

growth were still high. Nor should it be overlooked that, since their capacity touse assistance successfully was relatively large, projects undertaken in suchcountries had an especially valuable demonstration effect. The projects alsoneeded less time to carry out and so liberated resources more quickly for useelsewhere.

83. Several members shared the view that the problem of eligibility for assistancewas not primarily one of determining which countries should be properly consideredas "developing countries". It was rather one of determining how far priorityshould be given to providing support to those countries in which the balancebetween their demand for external assistance and the total available supply wascomparatively more unfavourable than for others. Put in another way, the questionwas not so much which countries should benefit from UNDP assistance as to whatextent they should draw on its financial resources. Assistance requested by theleast developed countries, whose problems of illiteracy, hunger, malnutrition,health, housing and other conditions deeply moved not only Governments andinternational organizations but also world public opinion, should be met on a basiswhich would keep their share of the cost strictly within their possibilities. Themore developed countries should obtain assistance from the Programme with the leastpossible drain on its financial resources; their requests should also be judged inthe light of their impact on the development of the less-advanced.

84. In the same vein, one member contended that the real issue was not so much the"eligibility" of the countries as their ability to contribute to closing the gapbetween the needs and the resources of the Programme. It seemed generally agreedthat those countries which were able to should pay more of the costs of projects,including some of the costs of elements not locally procured. Further study was ineeded to determine a reliable guide to ability to pay: besides per capita incomeand size of population, other ratios should be considered such as that between debtservice requirements and exports and that between foreign exchange reserves andincome requirements.

85. Several members supported a suggestion that without any need for classifyingcountries by arbitrary criteria, the Administrator should explain to all Governmentsthe problem posed, in spite of the universality of the Programme, by the fact thatits resources were insufficient to meet all the demands of all countries upon itand that some countries were in greater need of its assistance than others. Hecould place before them, for their own decision according to their abilities, thepossibilities of self-restraint, of making use of reimbursement arrangements, andof contributing larger amounts to the resources of the Programme. It was alsoargued that since, under a voluntary programme, Governments were ultimatelyresponsible for decisions on the form and scope of projects to be undertaken intheir countries, it was reasonable to expect that they would not ignore the urgentneed for the exercise of flexibility, imagination and self-restraint in the use ofthe inadequate resources of the Programme.

86. One member suggested that countries at the "take-off" stage of economic growthneed not wait until they themselves no longer required external assistance beforeprogressively extending assistance directly and indirectly to others in greaterneed. Such countries could, besides carrying a larger share of the costs of theirown projects and having recourse to funds-in-trust arrangements, take an increasingly

!-32-

active part in establishing, for example, regional training institutions, or moreparticularly national institutes which were regional in scope.

87. There were a number of suggestions that the Administrator might undertake afurther study of certain aspects of the matter before the Governing Councilcontemplated any action. Some of those members who preferred to leave it to theAdministrator to continue to apply the criteria and judgement he had exercisedsuccessfully in the past suggested that, if a majority wished to see the criteriamade both more specific and more comprehensive, the Council might ask him toundertake a further study. Another member felt that there was need for a much moredetailed report based on an expert study of past operations designed to show whethe~and to what extent the criteria had been applied and to determine whether othercriteria would be more appropriate.

88. Some members suggested that the factors taken into account by the Administratolin proposing country targets for the Technical Assistance component should beapplied, at least in broad terms, to the allocation of all the resources of theProgramme, including those devoted to Special Fund projects. These factors, whichhad been prescribed by the Governing Council itself, were: (i) the degree development of the country; (ii) per capita income; (iii) the size of population;(iv) the extent of assistance from other sources; (v) the capacity for absorbingtechnical assistance; and (vi) the need to avoid sharp reductions in country targetfigures in any single programming period.

89. Throughout the discussion, there was universal insistence that the principleof cost-sharing, as between UNDP and the Governments, must be preserved, whateveradded element of flexibility might be introduced into it. It was emphasized thatthe "assistance projects" of UNDP were in fact the projects of the Governmentsthemselves, assisted by the Programme, and not the reverse. This principle offull government involvement in the projects, in terms of the commitment of themaximum feasible amount of local services, supplies and expenditures, not onlydistinguished the Programme from a form of charity but represented the materialand moral endeavour without which development could not take place. As emphasizedby one member, counterpart contributions in the form of national services, equipmentand other facilities were not something demanded of the countries by the Programme,but rather offered by the countries themselves, and reflected an important decisionby their Governments to consider the projects as truly national. Another memberemphasized the particular need for maintaining the cost-sharing principle in regardto projects for which the Government would have a continuing responsibility.


90. The Administrator, in commenting on points made in the discussion, offeredhis support for the suggestion that the guidelines applied to the establishment ofTechnical Assistance country targets could be used in the Special Fund componentas well, subject to their consistency with the existing basic criteria for SpecialFund assistance.

91. An important element in determining the needs of the developing countrieswhich could be met from the Programme, the Administrator pointed out, was thefield-oriented character of the organization and, in particular, the functions ofthe Resident Representatives in making themselves familiar with those needs and in

-33-

consulting on an intimate and continuous basis the government officials who were

concerned with making decisions on development assistance. Other vital factorswere the ability of a country to carry on a development activity after assistancewas no longer available and the amount of aid obtainable from other sources - withwhich UNDP was in no sense in competition. Above all, there was no substitutefor human judgement in determining eligibility and the proportions in which costsshould be shared, and it was significant that, in the many years of the Programme,the complaints received from Governments of developing countries had been negligible.

92. The Administrator added that he intended to ensure that the Governments ofthe more developed countries would be aware, through the Resident Representativesand by other means, of the wish expressed in the Governing Council that they shouldexercise self-restrain~ in requesting assistance furnished by UNDP, and, ifpossible, increase their contributions to it in appropriate forms. He concludedwith the view that the only final solution to the problem was to increase theresources of the Programme to the point where there would be no need to restrictassistance.

Decision of the Governin~ Council

93. Following consultations among members, a draft decision was submitted to theCouncil for approval.

94. The decision, as adopted by the Governing Council, was as follows:

"The Council, after a broad exchange of views on item 7 (~) of the agenda the criteria for determining eligibility for UNDP assistance, selection andfinancing of projects:

(~) Takes note with interest of document DP/L.58 and invites the Administratorto give due consideration to the views expressed during the discussionsby members of the Council;

(~) Recognizes that the Administrator should continue to apply withflexibility the criteria which have so far guided him in recommending theprovision of assistance and in the selection of projects under UNDP;

(~) Requests the Administrator to take account as far as possible of thefollowing considerations in view of the limited resources available tothe programme:

(i) The Programme should remain a broad undertaking of internationalco-operation for the provision~s laid down in resolution 1240(XIII), establishment of the Special Fund: Part Bi "GuidingPrinciples and Criteria" i. (b_~/ of "systematic and sustainedassistance in fields essential to the integrated technical, economicand social development of the less developed countries", whilegiving priority to assistance requested by countries whose needsare more urgent, taking into account the degree of their development.

1-54-

(ii) The factors used for the Technical Assistance component should betaken into account, as appropriate, for the Programme as a whole,bearing in mind the special characteristics of its two components.

(~ii) Countries which are relatively more developed should endeavour toincrease their share of the cost of the assistance provided to themby UNDP including, when appropriate, the use of funds-in-trustarrangements and~ whenever possible, share the benefits derivedfrom the projects with other recipient countries.

(iv) In the case of the most needy countries, however, counterpartcontributions should be kept as low as possible and, in appropriatecases~ the local cost requirements could be reduced or waived.

(~) Invites the Administrator to report on the application of theseguidelines at a future session of the Council."

Reservations concerning the Decision of the Governin~ Council

95. Some members, while accepting the decision, stated that they could do so onlywith some reservations, which were variously as follows: that the report to besubmitted by the Administrator at a future session on the application of theguidelines should include a critical analysis of the manner in which theguidelines had been applied and should provide for their future review; that anappeal should be made to the richer of the developing countries to exerciserestraint in requesting the use of UNDP financial resources~ that the needs ofthe poorest of the developing countries should receive the highest priority; thatassistance should not be provided to Governments engaged in aggression; and thatconsiderations of maximum impact and effectiveness should be specified among thecriteria. Other members stressed that the Administrator should continue to applywith flexibility the criteria followed previously as well as the other guidelineswhich constituted the consensus. In any case, the Admlnistrator~ in accordancewith the consensus, would report on the application of these guidelines.

(~) Ste~s to Dromote follow-u~ investment

Progress reDort by the Administrator

96. In the progress report on steps taken to promote follow-up investment(DP/L.61), the Administrator set out the broad aggregates for different economicsectors of investment reported in relation to UNDP pre-investment projects. Thesetotalled $1,906 million as of 31 August 1967.

97. The report described the steps taken recently by the Administrator to promotean increasing volume of follow-up investment, primarily through the establishmentof closer co-operation and liaison with international development financeinstitutions such as IBRD and the regional development banks and other majorsources of financing. Other practical measures being taken by the Administratorincluded the provision of financial advisory services to Governments, the provisionof information on investment opportunities and the establishment of a DevelopmentFinance Service within UNDP itself to assist the Associate Administrator in theimp16mentation of these arrangements.

-35-

98. The Administrator concluded his progress report with a recognition that these I

and other steps should be intensified to improve the investment potential andperformance of UNDP’s pre-investment activities. For this purpose, he proposedto consult more closely with the major international financial institutions and,on this basis as well as on the basis of any comments or suggestions received fromGovernments or participating and executing agencies, to submit a comprehensivereport and recommendations to the sixth session of the Governing Council. Thiswould enable the Council to comply more effectively with the request of the GeneralAssembly, in resolution 2280 (XXII), that it "examine the means whereby theProgramme could do more to stimulate and facilitate the financing of projectswhich have already been the recipients of the Programme pre-investment", and reportthereon to the General Assembly through the Economic and Social Council.

99. In introducing the report to the Council, the Associate Administrator saidthat the promotion of investment follow-up was not a new function or activity ofUNDP] it was as old as the Special Fund itself and was clearly defined in itsmandate as a principal objective and responsibility. The new emphasis now placedon this matter by the General Assembly, the Governing Council and the Administratorreflected on the one hand their concern over the stagnation in the flow of capitalto the developing countries and, on the other hand, their awareness of theincreasing requirements for such investment which should result from a continuedexpansion of UNDP’s pre-investment work.

i00. The promotion of investment follow-up was therefore the responsibility notonly of a special administrative unit but indeed of UNDP as a whole, and at allstages of the pre-investment process beginning with the appraisal and implementationof current projects, as well as the follow-up of completed projects. Responsibilityfor more effective follow-up action went beyond UNDP itself and called for theintensification of the efforts of Governments, of the participating and executingagencies, and of the major sources of financing, including IBRD and the regionaldevelopment banks.

I01. Finally, the Associate Administrator stressed that investment could not beexpected to follow automatically from UNDP pre-investment projects, irrespectiveof their initial orientation and subsequent implementation. To have specificinvestment results, projects would need to be increasingly focused, within theframework of surveys and plans, upon more specific investment goals. Theirorientation, implementation and follow-up should then be pursued in closeassociation with the eventual sources of financing.

Summary of Discussion

102. In the discussion which followed, members generally welcomed the progressreport and expressed general approval of the steps taken or initiated for anintensification of activities and an improvement of performance in this field. Inview of the interim nature of the report, members confined their remarks tocommenting on certain aspects of the problem, indicating that they would prefer toreserve consideration of specific proposals for action until the full report wasavailable.

was pointed out that the matter had been discussed by the Council at three jlO3. Itprevious sessions and the hope was expressed that the new measures taken by the

-36-

Administrator, together with such proposals as the Council itself might make atits next session would lead to more effective action for the fulfilment of thisbasic objective of UNDP.

104. In order to improve the investment performance and results of UNDpvspre-investment activities, some delegations felt that greater stress should be laidon the initial stages of the process and not only on follow-up activities as such.Follow-up and promotional activities would be fruitless if the investment potentialof projects was not clearly foreseen from the beginning. Economic and financialfactors should be given more ~eight in the initial appraisal and selection ofprojects, and certainly no less than the technical factors which, in the view ofthe interest and competence of the specialized agencies concerned, were now beinggiven full attention.

105. In view of the importance of the initial orientation of projects, a numberof practical steps might be considered. Firstly, when submitting their originalrequests, Governments should indicate their specific investment interests andobjectives. Secondly, in making an economic appraisal of the project, UNDP shouldassess its investment potential in close consultation with potential sources ofinvestment. These consultations should include private sources of financingwhere such financing was the aim of the Government. The hope was expressed thatthe new Development Finance Service would facilitate the realization of theseobjectives, as well as assist in publicizing investment opportunities and incirculating the final reports on completed projects.

106. Considering the scope and magnitude of UNDP’s pre-investment work to date,the view was widely expressed that it was unfortunate that financial institutionsand investors throughout the world knew so little of the results of projects andof specific investment opportunities revealed. In this regard, one member’sGovernment had consulted various national institutions interested in financingprojects in the developing countries, and had found that they were not receivingthe relevant UNDP publications or that such publications did not give an adequateaccount of specific investment opportunities. The best way to improve investmentfollow-up results, in the opinion of that member was, therefore, to intensify theflow of information and consultations with potential investors throughout the worldon specific investment opportunities. Consequently, he suggested that thenewsletter, Pre-Investment News, could be made a more useful medium of informationif it covered more fully the various possibilities of investment following thecompletion of projects financed by UNDP. Other members commented on the usefulnessof the Pre-Investment News, and welcomed its issuance in French as ~-ell as inEnglish. They also urged that it be given the widest possible distribution.

107. Other members, agreeing on the need to improve the dissemination ofinformation on investment opportunities, said that this should not be confined tothe final reports on completed projects, which were often received after aconsiderable passage of time. In this connexion, it was regarded as importantthat the derestriction and publication of reports be expedited. Information onthe findings of projects should be made available as soon as possible after thefield work had been completed. Moreover, this should not be limited to printedpublication8 and reports, but required active personal contacts and consultations

-37-

to ensure that positive investment results were achieved. Other members of theCouncil suggested the need to multiply and systematize consultations with sourcesof investment, including private sources such as ADELA and to intensify the use offinancial advisers.

108. One member disagreed with the need to place more emphasis upon UNDPpreinvestment activities; what was needed instead was to provide increasingfinancial assistance to development projects as such, beginning with pilot andexperimental projects and including the actual financing of industrial andagricultural projects for which the additional resources of the United NationsCapital Development Fund should now also be used. This member also could not agreewith the need to increase the powers of UNDP itself in respect of the appraisaland selection of projects; instead, global allocations for each country should beestablished for the Special Fund component, as they were for the TechnicalAssistance component. Governments would indicate their own priorities within theseallocations and the over-all figures, based on a four-year planning period, wouldbe approved by the Governing Council, which would in turn authorize theA~ninistrator to approve specific projects based on an evaluation by technical iexperts of projects within these limits. It was suggested that the Administratorshould submit a report on this at the next session of the Governing Council.


109. At the conclusion of the discussion, the Council took note of the progressreport by ~he Administrator and, in accordance with the recommendations inparagraph 45 thereof, decided to consider the question further at its sixth session, i

(~) Future needs and ~riorities

Reo~y the Administrator

ii0. During its second, third and fourth sessions, the Governing Council formulatedand elaborated a request to the Administrator for a realistic assessment of theneeds of the developing countries for pre-investment assistance over the remainingyears of the first United Nations Development Decade - this assessment to berelated to the administrative capacity of the United Nations system to programmeand implememt the assistance required.

ili. For the fifth session, the Administrator submitted to the Council a first partof his response to this request. I% consisted of a report (DP/L.57 and Corr. I and 2)containing the results of his assessment of the needs of the developing countriesfor assistance from UNDP in the period 1968-1970. In this report he proceeded toan examination of those needs in the light, first of all, of their likelytranslations into valid requests for assistance from the Programme and, secondly,of the functions, commitments and responsibilities which he conceived to be thoseof the Progr~mme. In the latter respect, he had regard on the one hand for itspast and present experience as an instrument of development and on the other handfor the role it should play in helping Governments to prepare for the task ofmeeting the global economic development priorities and attaining the globaleconomic objectives ~hich the international community is now in course of defining mfor the second Development Decade. !

-38-

112. The AdministratorYs assessment of the needs of the developing countries overthe three-year period for assistance from the Programme produced an aggregate ofanticipated demands far in excess of any realistic estimate of the resources, bothinternational and counterpart, which were likely to be available. The cost toUNDP alone would be nearly $1.5 billion; and even when the normal processes ofappraisal and selection were theoretically applied to it, the volume and cost of theaggregate of projects would still require resources considerably larger than thosewhich had been envisaged by the Secretary-General of the United Nations inrecommending a UNDP contributions target of $350 million a year by 1970.

ll3. By providing this clearer view of the dimensions of the potential demands onthe Programme, the Administrator’s study had also confirmed, in his view, thedesirability of and necessity for a clearer definition of the role which UNDPshould play in the immediate future. Between the vast dimensions of the demandsfor its assistance and the limited dimensions of its resources, there was a needfor the formulation of a strategy bywhich those resources could most effectivelybe used.

ll4. The Administrator’s report therefore went on to indicate those areas ofdevelopment assistance in which the Programme seemed destined to concentrate itsefforts, either because its experience had demonstrated the need for andeffectiveness of its assistance or because of its expected role in theimplementation of the evolving global strategy of economic development. Theseareas included the building of training and other institutions; contributing tothe inventory of natural resources; the carrying out of feasibility studies;integrated action for social change in a broad sense that included agriculturaland industrial development; the integration of national communications and othernetworks into regional and global systems; the bridging of the technological gap;and catalytic action in the attack on food, population and health problems.

llS. The most effective use of the resources of UNDP and the agencies to meetnational needs and the requirements of global development strategy would, in theAdministrator’s view, call for a new approach to the programming of assistance.He envisaged this as a joint and intimate process in which UNDP, the agencies andthe Governments would realistically focus their planning resources and efforts onthe preparation of projects of high priority and potential effectiveness.

ll6. As regards the capacity of the UNDP system to carry out a much larger programmeof assistance, the Administrator stated his intention - now that the essential firststep of assessing the magnitude of the need had been taken - to examine the questionin consultation with the agencies, report progress to the sixth session of theGoverning Council, and submit a full report for the seventh session. For the timebeing he limited himself to certain general remarks on the matter: in particular,to the tremendous impact which the growth of the Programme had made on the agencies,imposing a need for structural adjustments, and to the fact that, at present, thecapacity at least of the principal agencies was clearly overtaxed by theresponsibilities which they had accepted with respect to the present level of theProgramme.

-39-


I17. Members of the Governing Council welcomed the Administrator’s study as animportant, stimulating and challenging report which presented the majorresponsibilities, opportunities and problems of the UNDP system as a whole in theyears immediately ahead.

118. There was general agreement on a number of conclusions to be derived fromthe study. Firstly, the volume of anticipated demands on the resources of theProgramme, even it it could not be measured with great accuracy, was greater thancould be satisfied by those resources at their present rate of growth. Secondly,both the consequent need for selectivity and the catalytic role which the Programmeshould play in helping Governments to attain their national economic and socialobjectives within the framework of global development strategy required guidelinesfor priorities and concentration in the activities of the Programme. Thirdly,DNDP had a part to play in helping Governments to integrate their developmentefforts with global objectives. And, fourthly, the capacity of UNDP as a whole,including the agencies participating in it, to meet both quantitatively andqualitatively the demands expected of it must be the subject of an early andprofound examination which might verify a need for fundamental structural changes.

119. It was widely accepted that, as the Administrator had pointed out, UNDP had,in a sense, come to the end of a first phase based largely on satisfying individualrequests for assistance as they came in. The Governing Council was now moreclearly than before confronted with questions of strategy, priorities andconcentration. The several forms of assistance available should be applied in suchcombinations and sequence as to produce the optimum impact on the economic growth of~the developing countries. What mattered was not only the volume of availableresources - the supply side - but also and perhaps above all the quantitative andqualitative requirements of the developing countries for such assistance. Thereorientation of programming which appeared necessary called for a bold re-thinkingof established patterns and the shedding of outdated methods.

120. Some members were satisfied that the study showed beyond doubt that resourceswere inadequate compared with the potential need for pre-investment assistance.They considered that the primary way to increase the effectiveness of UNDP wasto increase the flow of resources, and they urged that all countries, particularlythe wealthier contributors, should make a more positive effort towards that end.

121. Other members, however, while accepting that valid requests for assistancewere likely to outstrip the resources available to the Programme, felt that thereal dimensions of the problem could still not yet be clearly seen. Although theAdministrator’s assessment of future needs had endeavoured to focus on those whichGovernments expected to refer to UNDP rather than to other sources of assistance,some members pointed out that it was likely that some of the valid needs couldand would be met by other means. Apart from bilateral assistance, the coming intobeing of new financial institutions, especially the regional development banks,opened some prospect of additional avenues of support for pre-investment activities.It was suggested that careful study should be given to determining which projectscould most effectively be undertaken by international agencies and which by bilateralprogrammes.

-40-

122. In this connexion, attention was drawn to the fact that no single institutionexisted anywhere in the world where information could be found on the availabilityof assistance of all kinds. It was suggested that UNDP itself should become theworld centre for charting the exact nature and the total amount of assistancebeing rendered, country by country and sector by sector, from all sources. In thesame vein, it was suggested that more attention should be given to the creationand establishment of machinery to encourage and facilitate better co-ordination ofmultilateral and bilateral assistance.

123. Another member expressed surprise that the assessment of needs had followedan outdated approach by which the demand estimates were largely based oncalculations made by the specialized agencies. The Administrator should establishclose collaboration with the United Nations Centre for Development Planning,Projections and Policies with a view to elaborating estimates more directly basedon the requirements of the developing countries as seen by their proper authorities.

124. As regards the role of the Programme in the development process - includingthe influence it should itself exert on the course of that process - some membersfelt that in the work of various United Nations organs there could be seen emergingthe concept of an international development strategy. This would aim at theperiodic determination of requirements for assistance on the basis of the nationaldevelopment plans of the developing countries; and the setting and periodic reviewof targets in economic and social development in individual countries and groupsof countries, on which might be based the determination of the nature and theamount of external assistance, financial and other, in coming years. Byemphasizing the need to plan the Programme to enable its limited resources tobe most effectively used, and by suggesting that national efforts should beintegrated into a world-wide approach, the Administrator’s study raised far-reachingquestions of policy. It was not the function of UNDP itself to formulatedevelopment strategy, but some members suggested that when the global developmentstrategy now being formulated within the United Nations system was finally approvedby the General Assembly, probably at the beginning of the second United NationsDevelopment Decade, it would give the Programme clear guidance regarding theworld perspective within which it could concentrate its activities in support ofefforts at the national level.

125. While these members thus tended to interpret the basic legislation as meaningthat the Programme must be the sum of individual requests from Governments, othersconsidered that, although UNDP could not initiate any action except at the expressrequest of Governments, it would be unrealistic to deny it any influence in theorientation of its activities. This influence already existed throughrecommendations of the General Assembly and other United Nations bodies requiringparticular attention to be paid to certain aspects of development, and through thefact that in practice, in the face of the over-all inadequacy of resources and means,choices had to be made by the Administrator and some orientation was inevitablygiven to the Programme.

126. One member contended that for these reasons the Governing Council had a dutyto give guidance on priorities to the Administrator. Programming based on thisguidance could help Governments to fit projects into their national plans, helpthe agencies to estimate and use effectively their overhead costs, and help UNDPitself to make the best use of its resources by allocating them to priority sectors.

f

-41-

Another member, while regarding it as common ground that the priorities for UNDPassistance should continue to be set by the developing countries themselves, andthat the whole programme must be geared to their needs, stated that this basicapproach should not in any way preclude the Governing Council from carrying outwhat was clearly its duty, to give general policy guidance on the differentsectors and indicate areas of activitywhich looked more promising or moreessential than others; nor should it preclude the Administrator, through his

Resident Representatives, from giving advice on the formulation of technicalassistance programmes in the field. Indeed, if demands were likely soon tooutstrip resources, it would be a prime role of the Administrator, guided by theCouncil, to allot priorities in relation to the excess of requests over capacityto accede to them.

127. It was pointed out that the Administrator was in fact emphasizing an axiom,in the sense that priorities had to be selected and resources concentrated on

certain major fields of activity of primary importance which promised the greatestchance of success. The time had come for greater attempts to be made to reconcilenational and international objectives and to integrate national efforts intoregional and world-wide approaches. Efforts should be made to reach agreement ona hard core basic programme acceptable to the requesting Governments which wouldserve as a well-defined and constant element in their programming.

128. Although some differences of emphasis were expressed, and a few members felti that even greater selectivity was needed, there was general agreement with the

areas of priority and concentration of Programme activities indicated by theAdministrator in his study. Some members considered that greater emphasis shouldhavebeen placed on industrialization, although it was pointed out that this was Iinherent in such activities as feasibility studies and even, for example, in thoseaspects of social transformation which related to the problems of urbanization andrural stagnation. The point was also made that it was only with the establishmentof UNIDO that some countries would have a better prospect of adequately exploringand developing their industrial potential, and it was therefore to be borne in mindthat the demand for assistance in the industrial field in the next few years waslikely to be higher than the Administrator’s present estimates indicated.

129. Some members felt that the problems of development must be attacked on a widefront, and in all countries, whatever their absorptive capacity, or stage ofdevelopment, if development as a whole was to progress. In planning andimplementing pre-investment projects, the importance of social development,agrarian reform, the strengthening of infra-structures and the development ofhuman resources must not be overlooked. If the potential latent at the communitylevel was not tapped, then many projects, even those relating to purely physicalresources, would not be fully effective.

130. Other members put special emphasis on specific areas of development. Somecalled for particular concentration on investment-producing activities and, withinthat field, on the establishment of pilot and demonstration projects in industryand agriculture. It was pointed out that pilot plants were not only a source ofproduction but could also help to fill the disquieting gap between pre-investmentactivities and investment proper. Another member similarly considered that moreattention should be given to small profit-making projects such as small businessesand manufacturing, fishing, canning, packing and cash-crop industries which could 1

-42-

quickly generate economic activity, as well as local investment, in otherwisestagnating areas.

131. Another view was that the Programme should move away from an excessiveconcentration on resources surveys which were unlikely to lead to early developmentand that its main priorities should be to help establish agricultural and industrialpilot plants with practical demonstration value; to foster vocational andprofessional training as a vital preliminary to any other action for the developmentof natural resources or industrialization; and to help in the development of thesocial infra-structure, including hospitals and pilot laboratories, the returnsfrom which would have a favourable influence on efforts in the agricultural andindustrial fields. On the other hand, one member contended that among the mosturgent needs of many developing countries was an inventory of their naturalresources, without which it was difficult for them to plan and programme economicdevelopment.

132. Governments of developing countries were said to be attaching particularimportance to agricultural and industrial development, to improving their means oftransport, and to developing their natural resources. These basic needs shouldhave priority of assistance, but that assistance should include the training ofskilled manpower and management, which could sometimes be more effective inpromoting economic progress than capital investment. It was also stated that theutilization of human and natural resources, the urgent problems of food andagriculture, the adoption of improved management techniques and the planning ofeconomic development should all be given an important place in the future work ofthe Programme.

133. The usefulness of carefully planned regional projects was emphasized by anumber of members as a means of encouraging diversification and preventingunnecessary and wasteful duplication of effort. Certain vital projects should bemade to complete and complement each other in a given region, all the more sowhen the region aspired to economic and possibly political unity.

134. Some members warned that the timing of the assistance provided could be asimportant as the assistance itself. Attention had to be paid, according to oneview expressed, to the potentially heavy financial and manpower implications~ forthe recipient countries themselves, of many assistance projects. Apart fromcounterpart requirements, many of them would need follow-up budgetary orinvestment financing. Each new project, moreover, placed an additional burdenupon the government machine, which requiredqualified as well as unqualified manpowerto handle it. The projects themselves often envisaged a future supply of manpowereducated to a certain degree. In short, the total magnitude of demand for newprojects had to be phased over the years to match a speed of development compatiblewith the total resources available in the country concerned.

135. One member, using experience in his own developing country as the basis ofhis remarks, stressed the need for greater efficiency in the use of existingresources through the elimination of competition and mutual exclusiveness betweenexperts of different agencies, the wider use of regional advisers for short~termassistance and the better management of fellowships. Many countries in i~emember’s own region needed advice from UNDP on the discipline and sacrifice thatwere required to implement national development plans and to eschew "prestigeprojects" which did not contribute much to development.

-45-

136. A large importance was attached by most members of the Governing Council tothe further study being made by the Administrator of the administrative capacityof the UNDP system to deal with a programme larger in volume, more rationallyplanned and more efficient in performance. Members recognized that it would bevital to secure a careful balance between the expanding needs for assistance andthe capacity of the system, in which they included the UNDP administration as wellas the agencies~ to carry out its tasks.

137. Several members drew attention to the conclusion which the Administrator hadalready reached that at the present time the capacity, at least of the principalagencies, was over-taxed by the responsibility which they had accepted withrespect to the present level of the Programme. This prompted one member to observethat, even at the present level of contributions, and if the present rate ofincrease in the number of operational projects continued, by the end of 1970, over600 projects would be in operation at the same time. This alone represented noless than a one-third increase in the present work-load, and meant that theproblem of capacity, which was already a major one, would become more acute.

138. Some memberssuggested that the heart of the problem might be the structuralinadequacy of the UNDP system. Most of the agencies had been created for otherpurposes than development assistance of an operational nature, and the impact ontheir organizations of the steady growth in the volume of their work for theProgramme had created structural problems which went beyond the competence of theGoverning Council and were in fact being dealt with elsewhere, in some cases bythe agencies themselves and, generally, under the auspices of the Economic andSocial Council. These reviews might result in far-reaching changes which wouldrender any action by the Governing Council out of date, and it was essential thatthe Administrator, in his further study of the capacity of the UNDP system, shouldtake fully into account those developments.

139. Another member stated that with the transformation of the agencies into moreactive operational organizations~ with large sources of extra budgetary funds attheir disposal in addition to greatly expanded regular budgets, some major donorGovernments had grown increasingly concerned about whether good value for money wasbeing obtained. The United Nations Ad Hoc Committee of Fourteen, established underAssembly resolution 2049 (XX), had concluded that the major agencies were badlydeficient in forward planning, and that the time had come for each of them to agreeon objectives and to set priorities aroundwhich plans could be drawn up forachieving those objectives. As yet only one or two of the major agencies had takensteps to implement forward planning and programme budgeting. UNDP, in seizingupon the problem of integrated programming, could give a much needed impetus tothis approach.

140. Several members felt that the time had come to reconsider the question of thetotal allocations paid by UNDP to the executing agencies for their overhead costs,and to insist, among other things, that the agencies should give a detailedaccounting of their utilization of these allocations. Several members suggestedthat it might be desirable for the recently established United Nations inspectionunit to consider the problem in ~ii its aspects in collaboration with the AdvisoryCommittee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions.

141. On the other hand, the view was expressed that the "tooling-up" of the UNDPsystem to meet the inevitably increasing demand for its services could not be !

444-

approached simply by considering the level of agencies ~ overhead costs but requireda complete overhaul of the whole process of dealing with project requests~ from thetime they were formulated until the projects were completed and followed up. Onemember considered that it might well be a mistake to seek the solution by startingfrom the problems with which the agencies were faced. It was incongruous that whileUNDP clearly was intended to be a strongly centralized organization, a decentralizingtendency seemed to be manifesting itself more clearly from year to year. Theproblem of rising overhead costs was only a symptom of a deeper-lying problem~ whichwas also reflected in the multiplication of field staff~ of recruiting units~procurement offices and so forth.

142. Attention was drawn by one member to the fact that the executing agency for aSpecial Fund project was no longer necessarily one of the specialized agencies orIAEA, one of the projects approved at the fifth session having been entrusted to aregional development bank. An extension of this kind of arrangement might befurther explored as a means of increasing the Programme’s capacity for theimplementation of projects. It was also suggested that in the interests of economy~simplicity and speed, and in cases where a project was executed entirely by asub-contractor, UNDP should be authorized to entrust it directly to thesub-contractor without the intermediary of an executing agency. Another member~however~ opposed any tendency for UNDP itself to become an executor of projects~ andexpressed concern at the extent to which UNDP had already become involved inadministrative activities properly belonging to the agencies. At the central andfield levels~ the functions of UNDP in regard to the implementation of projectsshould be those of encouyagement, supervision and evaluation.

143. Emphasis was placed on the desirability of the Administrator’s further reportto the sixth session containing enough of substance concerning the capacity of theUNDP system to enable the Governing Council to begin decisive action at that time toprepare for the important part the Programme must play in a realistic and practicalsecond United Nations Development Decade.

144. The Administrator stated~ at the end of the discussion, that what wasaccomplished in the period 1968-1970 would have a great effect on developmentstrategy for the 1970’s and that it was vital that the progress made during thosethree years should be sufficient to ensure that the impetus of the next decade wouldnot be disappointing. He fully understood the urgency and importance of the secondphase of his study.


145. The Governing Council decided to take note of document DP/L.57 and Corr.l and 2and to invite the Administrator to give due consideration to the views expressedduring the discussion by members of the Council.

(~) Criteria for the selection of projects


146. The report of the Administrator (DP/L.58) on criteria for eligibility forUNDP assistance and the financing of projects~ referred to in section a above~dealt also with criteria for the selection of projects. In this respect, the

-45-

Administrator set forth the various criteria which had separately and somewhatdifferently emerged from the originally distinct basic legislation and proceduresof the two main components of the Programme. He commented that, as a result ofthe merger of the two components, the possibility was open to him, in selectingprojects for recommendation, of utilizing the separate criteria for the achievementof a co-ordinated programme of assistance to individual countries.

147. This part of the Administrator’s report, together with certain aspects ofthe enumeration of future needs and priorities described in section b above, gavethe Governing Council an opportunity of considering existing and future practicesand criteria for the selection of projects.


148. Most members who spoke found the Administrator’s definition of the criteriafor the selection of projects to be acceptable, and expressed the view that theapplication of these criteria had produced generally satisfactory results.

149. It was suggested that, with the increase in the number of requests and theneed for greater selectivity among projects, the Administrator should encourageResident Representatives to help Governments in listing their priorities in orderto ensure that the selected projects would have the greatest impact on thecountries’ development. This was important for the Programme and for its supportby other recipient and donor countries.

150. A number of members declared that in the selection of projects close attention ishould be paid to the relationship of the nature and scale of a project to theeconomic setting in which it was to be launched, to the requirement that afterUNDP assistance ceased the project would be self-supporting, and to the desirabilityof building social action into predominantly economically oriented projects. Onthis last point, one member stressed the need; in approving every project, to takeinto account the social structure and customs of the people and ensure that thesewould not be adversely affected by it. The design of projects, it was also stated,called for the judicious combination of several components aimed at a centralobjective.

151. The point was also made that although valid training and research projectswere self-justifying~ resource surveys and studies could be justified only if theywere followed by major investment. It was suggested that UNDP might have undertakentoo many resource surveys which would often yield returns only in the distantfuture and after many prior conditions had been met, and that it should perhapsconcern itself more with such projects as pilot plants which were more likely toattract investment than mere economic viability studies.

152. One member stated that project integration should have a place among thecriteria for the selection of projects. It took several forms: integration ofthe project in the country’s development plan, integration from the point of viewof co-operation among participating and executing agencies, and integration ofone project with another with which it was inter-dependent. In this connexion,several members welcomed the encouraging tendency alreadyapparent in the Programmeto apply the integrated approach to major development problems designed to ensure d

that progress made in one vital sector had an impact on, and benefited from !

-46-

progress in, the related sectors. The work of UNDP in the realization of complexprojects, the new procedures involved and, above all, the habit of workingtogether could contribute to a global development strategy which should rapidlypass from the stage of discussion to that of action.

153. The problem of rural development was not the only area requiring anintegrated approach; another, even if it could only be solved in stages becauseof the lack of experience and financial resources, was that of the adaptationof the results of science and technology to the needs of the developing countries.Pilot plant projects could provide useful experience in this respect.

154. One member emphasized the need for selecting and designing projects inrelatively simple and practical forms which would reach the people directlyconcerned and be within their capacity to follow up. Examples were the use ofsmall-sample survey techniques to plan the development of limited, specific areasin a given country; and emphasis not on rapid industrialization but on simpleand labour-intensive methods of production which could immediately improve thelot of the rural communities constituting the great majority of the populations.

155. Some members considered that a more thorough study should be made, dealingnot only with the basic criteria for the selection of projects and those whichhad evolved since the basic criteria had been established, but also the precisemeans by which project requests came into being. Such a study should show theparticipation of and the relationships among UNDP, its Resident Representatives,the agencies and the Governments in the process of project selection andformulation. An expert study should be made of the extent to which the existingcriteria had been applied to projects already approved. Another member suggestedthat an examination should similarly be made of project requests which theAdministrator had not felt able to recommend for approval, as another means ofdetermining whether or not the criteria being applied needed modification.


156. The decision of the Council set forth in section a above refers also tocriteria for the selection of projects.

([) Pilot and demonstration projects


157. In the course of a brief discussion of pilot and demonstration projects,the conditions for success in such projects were considered by a few members.One said that pilot projects should have a demonstration effect in a given sectoror region; they were necessarily limited and not designed to attract investmentsdirectly. It should, in addition, be carefully clarified in advance that theywould not upset the balance of a region. Another member stressed the need forpilot projects to have a multiplier effect and pointed to the potential regionalor sub-regional benefits accruing from such projects, especially for theprocessing of ores; notably aluminium laterites. Another member~ stating thatthe problem was not the choice but the lack of projects; noted the value of

-47-

preparatory aid in preparing pilot projects. Governments should know that they

could be helped to prepare requests and this could speed up execution of approvedprojects. The need for careful preparation was also stressed by another member whoexpressed particular support for agricultural pilot projects.

158. A few members considered that UNIDO would have an important role to play inthis field~ one of them said that it would need some time to do this. Anothersuggested that United Nations bodies, apart from t~e Council, should examine thequestion and one member said that the Administrator should report on the practicalproblems encountered by UNDP and the specialized agencies in applying the criteria.A few members agreed that the decisions on the subject taken by the Council at itsfourth session (E/4398, para. 129) could be revised, if necessary, in the light future experience in preparing and executing pilot projects.

Decision of the Governin~ Cc~ancil

159. The Council decided to continue consideration of pilot and demonstrationprojects at its seventh session on the basis of a progress report to be submittedby the Administrator.

(~) Operational assistance under the Technical Assistance component


160. Basing his conclusions on the results of a special study and evaluation ofthe effectiveness of and need for assistance in the form of operational,executive and administrative (OPEX) personnel, the Administrator recommended thatthe Governing Council should propose to the Economic and Social Council that itinvite the General Assembly, at its next regular session, to authorize theProgramme to provide such personnel, as requested by Governments, as an integralpart of the assistance normally provided by it.

q161. As explained in the Administrator’s report on the subject (DP/TA/L.15), thisdefinitive arrangement would supplant the temporary authorization, first grantedby the General Assembly in 1963, by its resolution 1946 (XVIII), and successivelyextended until the end of 1969, for the use of Technical Assistance resources forthe purpose. At the time of the survey, thirty-nine Governments had requestedpart of the rebources within their country targets to be devoted to filling a totalof 165 0PEX posts for the biennium. The evaluation found this type of assistancegenerally useful and effective; and likely to be needed by most of the Governmentsconcerned for periods up to ten years.


162. Members of the Governing Council generally welcomed the special study both forits particular purpose and results and as an example of the usefulness ofevaluation. They endorsed the AdministratorYs conclusion and recommendation on thefuture provision of OPEX assistance, while in several cases expressing concern at

-48-

the fact that less than one half of the experts at present serving had beenprovided with full-time counterparts by the Governments involved. Since thetraining of nationals as replacements was an integral purpose of OPEX assistance,they urged the Administrator and the Goverr~ents to make special efforts to remedythis shortcoming. One member stated that he deplored the use of OPEX personnel,since he considered that that form of assistance would not help to train thenecessary national personnel. However, he did not oppose the Administrator’srecommendation.

163. One member suggested also that the countries concerned should be encouraged asfar as possible to assimilate 0PEX appointments with funds-in-trust arrangements.


164. The Council decided to propose to the Economic and Social Ccuncil that itinvite the General Assembly, at its next regular session, to authorize the UnitedNations Development Programme to provide operational personnel, on the request ofGovernments, as an integral part of the assistance normally provided by it.

(~) Closin~ statement by ~he AdministratoS~/

165. The Administrator stated that the advice and assistance of the GoverningCouncil members were urgently needed to ensure that UNDP had the necessaryresources to carry out its unique part in the over-all development assistanceeffort. Increased action was urgently required in a number of areas. First, itwas essential to raise food production in the developing countries and concomitantlyto control population growth in many of them to achieve a better balance between itand food production. Second, was the vital task of industrialization; low-incomenations had to develop economies with a proper mix between agriculture and industry.Third, assistance for education and training - indispensable for increasing humanproductivity - was a pre-condition for economic and social progress and must besharply accelerated. Fourth, improvements in the medical and health services ofthe developing countries were essential. Life spans in the developing countrieswere shorter and one third of potential productive capacity was lost annuallythrough premature deaths, while ~an productivity ~as diminished by diseases,many of them linked to poor diets. Fifth, to check mass migrations to the cities,there was a need for rural development, involving industry, education, health andcommunity welfare services, and a decentralizing of the whole development effort ofmany developing countries. Finally, attention must be directed to youth and thecreation of opportunities for unemployed and under-employed young people,potentially the most constructive force in a developing country. Left in idlenessand without constructive incentive, they were likely to become destructive forces.

166. Despite the problems besetting the developing countries, there were hopefulsigns that victory could be won in the ~ar on global want, particularly with thehelp of science and technology. Food production could be increased by 50 per centby 1975. Educational and training programmes could be vastly speeded up. UnitedNations bodies had eradicated several crippling diseases, for example malaria, butneeds were still great and UNDP should increase its efforts in this field. To

~/ For the full text of the statement, see document DP/L.65.

-49-

promote industrialization, 233 pre-investment projects with a total cost of$500 million had already been approved and current technical assistance projectsamounted to $16.5 million; UNIDO and the industrial advisers in the ResidentRepresentatives’ offices should help Governments to prepare new projects. TheUnited Nations family was increasingly concerned with rural development, but UNDPcould meet only a fraction of the needs for its services. It was determined,within the limits of resources, to increase activities in this area with emphasison the integrated aid required to solve rural problems. The United Nations andUNICEF were studying the problems of youth; UNDP was eager to assist projects withnew dimensions for youth, but again was confronted with the need for resources.

167. Thus, greatly increased activity in each of the critical areas mentioned wasrequired from all concerned, including UNDP. If the gradually gathering momentumof development were to be lost it would be tragic, for what was done or left undoneduring the last few years of the current decade would decisively affect the wholeof the 1970’s. Without adequate financial resources, the development drive wouldfalter and fail. A doubling of the present net flow from developed to lessdeveloped countries was required. In 1966, according to best estimates, the grossflow was $12 billion but the net flow was only $3.2 billion, in contrast to theestimated gross national product in that year for major donors of $1,500 billionand expenditure for military purposes of $150 billion. The fact that such a smallfraction of wealthier countries, GNP was devoted to development aid might bebasically due to the lack of understanding that development was essential toworldwide prosperity and peace. Development aid was not charity but an investmentwhich benefitted the economic and political interests of the donors by creating newcustomers and helping to build peace; while alleviating frustrations among theworld’s poor it also helped create a friendlier climate for diplomacy bystrengthening the practice of international co-operation.

168. Though UNDP was the world’s largest multilateral channel for pre-investmentaid, it required but a small part of the total resources available for developmentaid. UNDP resources for 1968 would be only some $180 million and the annualcontribution target for 1970 was only $350 million. The latter was a perfectlyrealistic and modest goal. Governments were currently considering recommendationsto their Parliaments on the contributions to be made to UNDP in 1969. He hopedCouncil members would be active in this process and emphasized to their

Governments that this Council session, more than all others, had been mostproductive in tackling problems and providing guidance; that UNDP and theparticipating and executing agencies were equipping themselves better to carry outtheir responsibilities; that UNDP, with growing success, was meeting expressedpriority needs of Governments and was a growing focal point for international aid;and that the Programme,s efforts to stimulate follow-up investments had alreadyhad a significant impact. Finally, the study of pre-inveslment needs discussed inthe Council showed that the needs for UNDP assistance were far greater thanpresent and potentially foreseeable resources.

169. The UNDP system had the capacity to make effective use of more resources in1969. Every dollar pledged for 1969 would accomplish as much as $5.00contributed later. But the provision of increased resources for 1969 and of the$350 million needed for 1970 depended on Goverr~ents being persuaded thatSecretary-General U Thant, Pope Paul VI, and other leaders were correct inbelieving that the surest way to make peace-keeping effective was by building d

foundations for peace through development. q

-50-

CHAPTER V

EXECUTION OF UNDP PROJECTS

170. Under item ii (~) of its agenda, the Governing Council considered a progressreport and proposals for action with regard to the problems of recruitment andsupply of expert manpower for the implementation of UNDP projects (DP/L. 55).

171. The Council also considered, under item 6 (~), a joint UNESCO/UNDP proposalfor an experimental project for the pre-service training of international expertsin educational planning (DP/TA/L.14).

172. Under items ii (b) and (c)~ the Council had before it progress reports awards of subcontract~ (DP/SFTL.15) and major equipment purchases (DP/SF/L.16)by participating and executing agencies for projects in the Special Fundcomponent.

(~) The guestion of recruitment

173. The Assistant Administrator and Director of the Bureau of AdministrativeManagement and Budget stressed~ in his introduction of the progress reportconcerning the recruitment of experts~ that recruitment activities of the UnitedNations family of organizations had become an extreme~ difficult and complexoperation. The responsibility in this field clearly rested with the participatingand executing agencies~ and there could be no question of the Administrator takingover these responsibilities. He wa% however, prepared to render every assistancepossible.


174. The discussion once again confirmed the concern of the Council with regardto the difficulties experienced in the recruitment of experts. Most members ofthe Council agreed that deficiencies in the mechanics of recruitment were a moreimportant cause of delay in the delivery of programmes than the establishedshortage in the supply of expert manpower.

175. Members concurred with the Administrator’s view that the main responsibilityfor recruitment activities devolved upon the agencies. At the same tim% however~a number of members stressed that unless recruitment activities were streamlinedand a larger degree of co-ordination introduced~ meaningful improvement in thesituation could not be expected. Consequently, particular attention was paid bymembers to those steps and suggestions which might bring about greater efficiencyin the mechanics of recruitment and its administrative machinery. The need formore uniformity was stressed by most members~ some of whom proposed furtherexamination of the feasibility of a common recruitment service for all agencies~a common classification system, and a central mechanized roster. Several membersobserved that the value of rosters would be greatly enhanced if they wereregularly up-dated. There was also strong support for the introduction of greate~

-51-

uniformity in recruitment procedures, and in the preparation of documentation usedfor this purpose, such as, for example, a standard personal history form.

176. The view was unanimously held that precise and realistic descriptions of theobjectives of projects and, on that basis, of job descriptions, were essential foran efficient and speedy recruitment process. The need for the circulation of fullyinformative job descriptions at the earliest stage of project implementation wasalso stressed.

177. On the question of whether it would be useful to circulate short jobdescriptions in advance of a final one or prior to the signing of the Plan ofOperation, there were differences of opinion. Two members stated that without afull and clear description of the duties and qualifications required, it wasimpossible to line up suitable candidates. Others, however, thought that thecirculation of short job descriptions as advance information might be helpful torecruitment sources in their initial search for suitable candidates. Some drewattention to the fact that job description requirements were often exaggerated tothe extent that it made a search for experts unproductive. Some suggested thatexaggerated job description requirements sometimes resulted in the appointment ofover-qualified persons. Another member suggested that the only solution to theproblem of obtaining experts in those fields in which they were in extremely shortsupply, would be to lower the job description requirements in order to bring themmore in line with the a%ailable expertise.

178. A number of members agreed that Resident Representatives, their staff andtechnical advisers should be prepared to render their assistance increasingly torecipient Governments to aid them in preparing project objectives and jobdescriptions. They welcomed the Administrator’s proposal to issue instructions to ,UNDP field offices to give them more detailed and comprehensive guidance in thissphere. It was also suggested that a compendium of the job descriptions annexed tothose instructions should be sent both to recipient Governments and to NationalCommittees.

179. Several members which had resources of expertise that were not yet fully usedconsidered that the agencies should extend their search for experts in theircountries. Two members suggested that the establishment of a joint recruitmentoffice in North America would help to utilize the resources of that region andrequested that this matter be examined. Some members stressed the need for moreextensive use of experts from developing countries sillce~ in a number of fields,such countries already had experts who could assist other developing countries.~he Administrator was requested by two members to provide the Council withcomprehensive statistics concerning the nationality and specializations of expertsin order that the Council might have a complete picture of the utilization of theexisting sources of expertise.

180. The proposed measures to liberalize the authority of the Administrator tofinance the salaries of experts in order to alleviate acute shortages of expertsin certain fields of specialization were supported by a number of members, providedthat such measures would be applied only in exceptional cases. Two memberssuggested that such measures should be applied particularly to train experts fromdeveloping countries.

181. Most members agreed that greater use should be made of associate experts in i

order to enhance the services rendered by senior experts and~ in this way, to Ialleviate, to some extent, the shortage of expertise in certain fields. However~

-52-

it was also felt that undue emphasis should not be placed on the importance ofassociate experts. Members holding the latter view feared that if the associateexpert scheme should become too important a part of a country programme~ it mightlimit the chances of training a country’s own young experts.

182. Concerning the utilization of volunteers, some donor countries which alreadymake available volunteers to the various agencies stated that they were preparedto intensify their efforts in order to increase the participation of the younggeneration in United Nations technical co-operation activities. Others, however,were of the opinion that the United Nations should not be involved with volunteer%since the latter were not international civil servants. One member objected tothe suggestion that Resident Representatives be encouraged to offer their goodoffices to recipient Governments with a view to facilitating the utilization ofvolunteers, and questioned the Administrator’s authority to take any actionthrough the Resident Representatives in this regard.

183. The supply of experts by the United Nations family of organizations wasconsidered~ by some members, to be an operation that should gradually decline.Experts from developing countries should~ as soon as possibl% replace UnitedNations experts working in their countries. The UNDP projects should be directedtowards this end.

184. The Assistant Administrator expressed the Administration’s appreciation forthe suggestions proposed during the discussion. He believed that there were anumber of areas where oommon action and uniform procedures could lead to a moreefficient recruitment process. However~ some proposed solutions~ which might atfirst appear to be the logical answer to recruitment difficulties, such as acommon recruitment servie% might be found on closer scrutiny not to be conduciveto greater efficiency in recruitment. The Administrator would examine thoroughlyall suggestions in close consultation with the participating and executingagencies and would make every effort to bring about more co-ordination inrecruitment activities. He differentiated between the associate experts andvolunteers and the different ways in which those two categories of young peoplecould be utilized in UNDP progra~es. The Administrator agreed to submit afurther report after sufficient progress had been achieved, and to present to theCouncil at its sixth session the statistical data that had been requested concerningthe distribution of experts according to nationality and specialization.


185. Following the discussion~ the Council decided to:

(~) Take note of document DP/L. 55 and request the Administrator to pursuehis efforts to secure improvement in the methods of recruitment in the light ofthe comments made during the discussion in the Council and submit a progress reportat a subsequent session;

(~) Recognize the need to study further the question of the desirability establishing a co~on recruitment service and standardization of certainrecruitment procedures and request the Administrator to continue his consultations

-53-

in this regard with the participating and executing agencies and report to theCouncil at a future session.

(~) Experimental project for the pre-service training of international expertsin educational planning

186. The Co-Administrator introduced a recommendation (DP/TA/L.14) by which theAdministrator proposed to the Council the allocation of Technical Assistance fundsfor the purpose of organizing, on an experimental basis, a training course forinternational experts in educational planning who would undertake to serve withthe Programme on completion of their training. The Programme’s flexibility andexperience enabled it to support experimental projects such as the one before theCouncil.

187. The International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP), a uniqueestablishment in its field founded by UNESCO in 1962, linked the two interdependentdisciplines of economics and educational planning to produce a rare kind of expertwith dual skills. Recently created, IIEP sought UNDP assistanc% and it dependedon UNESCO aid and the generosity of Governments. If the Council approved therecommendation of the Administrator and the experiment succeeded, UNDP would notbe asked for further support. The Programme was being asked to give only aninitial impetus to an enterprise of considerable interest and importance. ~urtherexplanations were made to the Council by the Director of IIEP.


4188. Several members stressed the importance of educational planning in thedevelopment process and some spoke favourably of the work of IIEP in this context.Concern that UNDP might be financing the training of experts from developedcountries was expressed by several members~ a number of whom urged priority forcandidates from developing countries. One member said that to restrict suchtraining facilities to candidates from developing countries would contribute tothe "brain drain". Two members warned against setting up a career service ofsuch experts.

189. That UNDP normally only responded to requests from Governments was indicatedby a few members and in this connexion several members stressed the exceptionaland experimental nature of the project and the danger of creating a precedent.One member expressed misgivings at the implications that the project could haveon general UNDP policy. Some members asked for more details on how the projectwould be financed, how long UNDP would be involved and whether other sources hadbeen tapped. Some members thought that UNESCO should be asked to bear all suchexpenses, and two members suggested financing the project from the UNESCOTechnical Assistance allocation for regional and inter-regional programmes.Another member said that UNDP should be flexible in its approach and judge aproject such as this one on its merits. One member asked for more details on thefuture plans of the Institute and the likelihood of more Technical Assistancerequests in the field. Two members said that an evaluation of the project shouldbe made by the Director of the Bureau of External Relations, Evaluation and Reportsand a report made to a future session of the Council.

!-54-

190. The Director of IIEP explained that the Institute was, in a sense, a graduateschool for UNESCO-supported regional training centres and that there were steadilyincreasing requests for experts in that field. The Institute had always givenpriority to nationals of developing countries and accepted candidates fromdeveloped countries only if they would work in developing countries after theirtraining. Describing the financing of the Institute, he indicated that it couldnot undertake the proposed project without a special allocation from UNDP.

191. The Co-Administrator stated that UNDP must concern itself with the sectoralrequirements of over-all development planning objectives and that IIEP met thepresent urgent need for training in educational planning related to over-alleconomic and social planning. The project was an experiment for IIEP and anexceptional case for UNDP, since it had been requested by a specialized agencyrather than by Governments. It was therefore not a normal programme request andan additional allocation would have to be made to UNESCO. He suggested that anadditional grant could be made to UNESCO for overhead costs or under the headingof "Regional and Inter-regional Projects".


192. The Council decided to approve the recommendations of the Administrator indocument DP/TA/L.14, paragraph 14, which provide, inter alia, for the allocation,according to modallties provided for and as an exceptional measure, of $55,000 toUNESCO to finance the experimental project for the pre-service training ofinternational experts in educational planning, it being understood that UNESCO andIIEP will make every effort to recruit candidates preferably from developingcountries.

(~) Award of subcontracts, and major equipment purchases

193. On another aspect of execution of UNDP proJects~ the Council considered theprogress reports by the Administrator on the award of subcontracts and majorequipment purchases for projects under the Special Fund component (DP/SF/L.15 andDP/SF/L.16). Members of the Council expressed their appreciation for these reportsand hoped that this information would be presented regularly at forthcomingsessions.


194. Members noted with satisfaction the rising trend in the use of subcontractsand observed that they might represent one way of reducing delays in projectimplementation resulting from difficulties in direct recruitment of experts. Somemembers, however, while noting the increasing use of subcontractors, felt that thecosts of projects executed under subcontract would be higher in comparison with thecost of implementation by participating and executing agencies. They observedthat UNDP might, in effect, be paying double overhead costs, e.g. to theparticipating and executing agencies as well as to the subcontractor. In thiscontext, several members wondered whether it would not be possible to reducepayments of overhead costs to agencies for projects wholly or largely carried outunder subcontract. One member hoped that this point would be borne in mind in theforthcoming review of overhead costs to be undertaken by the Administrator.

-55-

195. Several members~ while recognizing that considerations of efficiency andeconomy were paramount, observed that contracts were still not being awarded on asufficiently broad geographical basis. In commenting on this, one member observedthat there was an apparent tendency in certain agencies to confine their contractsto firms and organizations already well known to them. He felt that a specialeffort was needed to broaden the list of subcontractors. Certain members felt thatthis might be facilitated by the adoption of standard registration procedures forcontractors among all participating and executing agencies. While recognizing thatthe majority of awards would naturally go to organizations in industrializedcountries~ members felt that participating and executing agencies should makegreater efforts to contact a wider range of firms and organizations when seekingbids. Some members urged that preference should be given to subcontractors havingoffices~ or association with firms in developing countries - preferably in therecipient country itself. In this way there would be greater possibility ofinvolving nationals of developing countries in the work carried out bysubcontractors. One member felt that the impact of UNDP assistance was lessenedwhen projects were implemented under subcontract as such arrangements were notmultilateral in character, cost more, and might not make a sufficient effort totrain nationals of the recipient country.

196. One member inquired about the abailability of the brochure (based on documentDP/SF/L.IO/Add.2 and Corr.l) "A guide for firms and organizations desiring toparticipate in the activities of the United Nations Development Programme".Another member expressed the hope that activities of the newly created DevelopmentSupport Information Service would also help to draw the attention of prospectivecontractors to projects having a subcontract component. One member reminded theadministration of his concern, expressed at earlier sessions of the Council, that Isubcontracts on preliminary operations~ in the interests of free competition,should not be signed before members of the Council were aware of the projectsconcerned.

197. The Administrator advised the Council that the guide for prospectiveorganizations interested in the award of subcontracts was being printed and wouldbe available shortly. He also noted that document DP/SF/L. IO/Add.2 and Corr. l wasavailable in the interim.

198. In response to observations made by members of the Council, the Administratorreplied that the earlier reluctance of participating and executing agencies tosubcontract training or institution-building projects was decreasing, and that,furthermore, even in the case of surveys and feasibility studies, agencies wereable to arrange that subcontractors made a special effort to train nationals ofcountries where their work was carried out. As regards the higher cost of projectscarried out under subcontract the Administrator agreed that it was probably higherthan for projects carried out through experts recruited directly by agencies butthat this was offset by the ready availability of teams of experts assembled bysubcontractors and the increased efficiency thereby achieved. He undertook toinclude the question of additional costs incurred on subcontracted projects in hisforthcoming study of overhead costs.

199. As regards the Administrator’s progress report on major equipment purchases,members expressed their appreciation for the information provided and hoped that Jthe report to the sixth session would also identify the participating and executingagency concerned with the purchase of each item. Some members hoped that more I

-56-

equipment would be procured from the developing countries. Several members feltthat such a report would be much more useful if it covered all equipment purchasedby participating and executing agencies rather than major purchases of $10,0@0 andabove. The Administrator replied that a comprehensive report would be preparedfor the June session in the light of the comments made in the discussion.


2oo. she Council took note of documents DP/SF/~.I~ and DP/SF/L. 16.

-57-

CHAPTER VI

ADMINISTRATIVE AND FIN~NCIAL MATTERS

201. Under items 8, 9 and i0 of its agenda, the Governing Council considered aseries of administrative and financial matters, including statements on the statusof contributions to UNDP, reports on the status of the Revolving Fund and theSpecial Industrial Services Trust Fund; audit reports and other relevant reportsand resolutions relating to expenditures by UNDP and participating and executingagencies, as well as the budget estimates for the administrative and supportservices of UNDP for 1968, the status and emoluments of the senior ranks in UNDP,and the question of financing technical advisers to be appointed in some officesof Resident Representatives.

202. The consideration of these matters by the Governing Council, and theconclusions reached by it, are dealt with in the following sections of the report.

203. Under item 8 of its agenda, the Governing Council considered:

(~) The statements, as at 30 November 1967, of contributions pledged andpaid to the Special Fund component of UNDP for the year 1967 (DP/SF/C/L.39), andof contributions outstanding for the years 1959, 1960, 1962, 1963, 1964~ 1965 and

1966 (DP/SF/C/L.40)~ the statements, as at 30 November 1967, of contributionspledged and paid to the Technical Assistance component of UNDP for the year 1967(DP/TA/C/L.39), and of contributions outstanding for the years 1957, 1958, 1959,1963, 1964, 1965 and 1966 (DP/TA/C/L.40); and a note by the Administratorsubmitting a current statement of contributions pledged to the United NationsDevelopment Programme for 1968 (DP/L.62)~

(b) A report on the status of the Revolving Fund to 30 September 1967(DP/ .Y3 and Corr.1)

q([) The financial report and accounts for the year ended 31 December 1966

and the report of the Board of Auditors relating to the United Nations DevelopmentProgramme; 6/ together with the relevant comments of the Advisory Committee onAdministrative and Budgetary Questions 7_/ and resolution 2264 (XXII) thereon

adopted by the General Assembly] the audit reports for the year ended31 December 1966 relating to expenditure by participating and executing agenciesof funds allocated from the Technical Assistance Account of the United NationsDevelopment Programme 8/ and the audit reports for the year ended 31 December 1966relating to expenditure by participating and executing agencies of funds allocatedfrom the Special Fund Account of the United Nations Development Programme, ~/

6/ Official Records of the General Assembly, Twenty-Second Session,SuDplement No. 6A and Corrigendum (A/6706/Add.l and Corr’l).

~j Ibid.~ Twenty-second Session, Annexes, agenda item 72, document A/6673.

~/ Ibi___~d.; addendum i to agenda item 78, document A/6901. I

9~ Ibi___~d., addendum 2 to agenda item 78, document A/6902.

-58-

together with the relevant comments of the Advisory Committee on Administrativeand ~idgetaryQuestions i0/ and resolution 2315 (XXII) thereon adopted by theGeneral Assembly~ and

(~) A report on the status of the Special Industrial Services Trust Fund of 31 October 1967 (DP/L.60).

(~) Contributions

204. The Director, Division of Financial Management and Administrative Policy,opened the discussion on behalf of the Administrator. Under item 8 (~) contributions, he reported that devaluations announced by Governments in the courseof the year 1967 had had the effect of reducing the dollar equivalents of balancesheld by UNDP in a total amount of about $3.3 million, of which $2.5 millionrelated to the Special Fund component. The effect of those devaluations on 1968pledges was not expected by the Administrator to be substantial.

205. Calling attention to pledges for prior years which remained unpaid, asreflected in documents DP/SF/C/L.40 and DP/TA/C/L.40, the representative of theAdministrator observed that, in most cases, the smounts were small, though theyhad been outstanding for some years. The Administrator was aware that, to theextent that pledges remained unpaid, the estimates of resources were inflated,since, under the financial regulations, pledges were taken up as resources. TheAdministrator would continue his efforts to obtain payment of the amountsoutstanding, and would report the results achieved to the next session of theCouncil.

206. With regard to pledges for 1968, it was gratifying to report that forty-twoGovernments had increased their pledges over the amounts pledged for 1967, andthat four Governments which had not pledged for 1967 had announced contributionsfor 1968. Among those which had announced increases in pledges for 1968 were theGovernments of thirty-five countries which UNDP was assisting, and eighteen membersof the Governing Council.


207. In the discussions of the question of contributions, the representative ofJapan announced the decision of his Government to pledge an amount equivalent to$650,000 in convertible yen to the Technical Assistance component and $5,020,000in non-convertible yen to the Special Fund component for the year 1968. Thiscontribution would amount to an increase of the equivalent of about $440,000 overthe amount pledged by Japan to UNDP for 1967. The representative of Belgium hadannounced at an earlier meeting the decision of the Government of Belgium toincrease its contribution to UNDP to $2 million for 1968, an amount the equivalentof $175,000 over the level pledged for 1967. The Administrator and the members ofthe Council expressed their gratification at these announcements.

208. One member referred to the question of the accumulation in UNDP accounts ofthe non-convertible contributions of the recipient countries. He feared that suchaccumulations might lead UNDP and the agencies into efforts to use those

Ibid., item 78, documents A/6937 and A/6938.

-59-

contributions for purposes other than those intended~ such as, for example, paymentfor international air travel. As payments of that nature would otherwise be madein hard currency~ such practices might have implications for the balance ofpayments of the country concerned. He asked for a report on any accumulation ofnon-convertible contributions for the sixth session of the Governing Council. TheAdministrator’s representative replied that the Administrator had undertaken tomake such a report to the next session.

209. At the end of the discussion, the Administrator spoke on the general questionof UNDP resources. (A summary of his remarks is given in chapter IV~ section (~)above.)


210. The Council, at the conclusion of the discussion, took note of the statementson the status of contributions (DP/L.62, DP/SF/C/L.39 and 40, DP/TA/C/L.39 and 40).

(~) Status of the Revolvin~ Fund

Re~ort by the Administrator

211. Introducing item 8 (~) on the status of the Revolving Fund~ the Director the Division of Financial Management and Administrative Policy recalled thepurposes of the Fund, as established by the Governing Council at its second session.The Fund was financed by earmarkings from Technical Assistance and Special Fundresources~ its purpose was to provide temporary financial cover for the activities !specified by the Council~ and it was not a permanent repository for any charge.Allocations made initially from the Revolving Fund were, in the case of preparatoryassistance and preliminary operations, transferred to the Special Fund projectbudget after the project was approved by the Governing Council. Preparatoryassistance allocations which did not eventuate in approved Special Fund projectswere charged, as "write-offs", to the earmarking established by the Council forthat purpose. Revolving Fund allocations for Technical Assistance contingencyprojects were transferred as a first charge to the resources of the Technical qAssistance component for the following year. In all cases, the allocations fromthe Revolving Fund were restored at the time the charges were transferred.

212. Referring to the Administrator’s report on the status of the Revolving Fund(DP/L.53 and Corr.l), the representative of the Administrator pointed out that thedocument reflected the situation as it existed on 30 September 1967. At31 December 1967, outstanding Revolving Fund allocations totalled approximately$6.7 million, and virtually the full amount of the Fund was expected to beallocated early in the new year.

213. Attention was invited to the two points in the Administrator’s report whichcalled for decisions by the Governing Council. The first related to the earmarkingin respect of preparatory assistance~ the Administrator had requested that theearmarking to the Revolving Fund for this purpose be increased from $i.0 to

$1.5 million, which would increase the total level of the Fund from $7.5 millionto $8.0 million. The representative of the Administrator explained that UNDP Jexperience had demonstrated the importance of careful and thorough preparatory I

I

-60-

work on Special Fund projects. Investment in the form of UNDP preparatoryassistance had clearly yielded returns in the form of increased efficiency ofproject performance, and an expansion in the use of preparatory assistancetherefore seemed justified. Moreover, the growth in the level of the programmehad already outrun the level of the existing earmarking for preparatory assistanceas could be seen from the 30 September status report. Finally, as mentioned inthe Administrator’s report on recruitment (DP/L.55), an increase in the level the preparatory assistance authority would permit the extension of its use inisolated cases to retain experts who had completed assignments on given projects,for preparatory work on other projects, prior to their approval by theGoverning Council.

214. The second decision requested of the Governing Council related to a proposedincrease in the earmarking to cover the costs of preparatory assistance which did

not result in approved projects. The Administrator had recommended that theearmarking be increased from $120,000 to $180,000. An increase in this earmarkingwas consequential on the increase in the preparatory assistance authority itself.


215. Many members of the Governing Council participated in the debate on theAdministrator’s recommendations. While most of the members who spoke recognizedthe desirability of increasing the level of preparatory assistance, and somemembers supported the Administrator’s recommendations in their entirety, othermembers wondered whether the need could not be met through use of funds availablein the Revolving Fund under the heading of preliminary operations, since theAdministrator’s report showed that less than one-third of the amount available forthat purpose had been allocated at 30 September. This question was broadened bysome other members, who asked whether the total need for the three types ofactivities covered by the Revolving Fund could not be met within the existing$7.5 million earmarking~ if the three separate sub-divisions of the Fund wereabolished. In supporting this inquiry, one member observed that from January 1969the level of need for Technical Assistance contingency projects for which$4.5 million were available might be expected to decrease after the new proceduresfor continuous technical assistance programming came into full effect. He alsonoted that with the increase in the number of technical advisers to be stationedin Resident Representatives’ offices, under arrangements already approved by theGoverning Council~ the need for additional preparatory assistance might be expectedto diminish. Another member agreed that the new technical assistance programmingprocedures might ultimately lead to a reduction in the requirement for contingencyprojects under the Technical Assistance component, but felt that this questioncould not be settled with assurance until some experience had been gained of the

new programming procedures. It was to be noted; however, that in his view, theneed for an increase in the Revolving Fund might prove to be only a temporaryrequirement. One member, while supporting the proposals of the Administrator,noted that the report showed that allocations for preparatory assistance hadslightly exceeded the relevant earmarking as at 30 September 1967, and expressedthe view that the Administrator should limit allocations to the level of theearmarkings.

-61-

216. Regarding the proposed extension of the use of the preparatory authority toretain experts who had completed project assignments to do preparatory work on newprojects before Council approval thereof, two members observed that the questionwas a delicate one, and that efforts should be made to ensure that experts werenot retained in the absence of real needs. One member inquired whether it wasintended that such experts would eventually be employed on the projects they werehelping prepare.

217. The Administrator’s proposal for an increase in the write-off authority forpreparatory assistance which did not eventuate in approved projects had beencharacterized as a small increase by the Administrator, but one member observedthat proportionately it represented an increment of 50 per cent over the existingearmarking, and wondered whether the level of increase was fully justified.

218. Addressing himself to other aspects of the Administrator’s report, one memberwished to record his Government’s reservations concerning technical assistancecontingency projects which had been approved in the first nine months of 1967 forthe Governments of the Philippines, Thailand and the Republic of Viet-Nam. Anothermember pointed out that, as members of the United Nations and of the specialized Iagencies, Thailand~ the Philippines and the Republic of Viet-Nam were fullyeligible for UNDP assistance. One member asked for an explanation of the apparentimbalance in the geographical distribution of projects financed under the technicalassistance contingency authority. Another member noted that the list of technicalassistance contingency allocations made in the first nine months of 1967 containedno project in which the allocation had been made to UNDP. In each case theallocation had been made to one of the participating and executing agencies.Observing that circumstances might arise in which it would be desirable for the I

Administrator to make an allocation to UNDP~ he asked whether it would be possibleto do so.


219. In reply to the questions and comments of the members, the representative ofthe Administrator agreed that in practice the distinctions between the separatepurposes for which the Revolving Fund had been established were losing theirclarity. The Administrator had explained to the Council at its third and fourthsessions the necessity to administer the Fund flexibly, and that the allocationsfor one or another of the purposes of the Fund might marginally exceed the relevantearmarkings. In this regard, the proposal that the compartmentalization of theRevolving Fund be discontinued deserved~ in the opinion of the Administrator, themost careful consideration. The question could be studied and a recommendationmade, at the next opportunity. The representative of the Administrator also agreedthat when the new technical assistance programming procedures came fully intoeffect, the level of need for technical assistance contingency projects mightlogically be expected to decline, and the need for an increase in the RevolvingFund might also decline proportionately. As one member had already stated~ someexperience of the new technical assistance procedures would be required before anyfirm conclusions could be drawn in this respect. The report showed an unallocatedbalance of the Revolving Fund of $2.4 million, but it should be stressed again thatthe report reflected the situation at 30 September 1967~ and thus did not takeaccount of the accelerated use of the Fund, due to the programming cycle of UNDP,which had taken place in the final three months of the year. 0nly $0.8 million i

I

-62-

was unallocated at 31 December 1967, and there was every indication that thisbalance would be fully allocated in the near future. The additional $500,000earmarking for preparatory assistance was certainly and urgently needed, thoughfor the reasons mentioned by several members~ that need might not prove to be acontinuing one.

220. The Assistance Administrator and Director of the Bureau of Operations andProgramming replied specifically to questions relating to the possibility of usingpart of the earmarking for preliminary operations to meet the increased need forpreparatory assistance. He confirmed that the full amount earmarked forpreliminary operations was needed for that purpose. Indeed, there were strongindications that~ in the course of preparing the Administratorts Special Fundprogramme recommendations for the sixth session~ requirements for preliminaryoperations would emerge which exceeded the available financial authority. TheAdministrator realized that, in June 1968~ the Governing Council would be taking adecision regarding the future of the preliminary operations authority, and, in hisjudgement these arrangements had already fully demonstrated their value. It wasnot to be foreclosed that the Administrator’s proposals at the sixth session wouldinclude provision for an increase in the preliminary operations authority.

221. With regard to the use of preparatory assistance to finance the holding overof experts who had completed project assignments, for the preparation of newprojects, the representative of the Administrator stressed that this advice wouldonly be given limited use, and that the preparatory work would relate only toprojects given high priority by Governments which the Administrator had alreadydecided to include in his recommended programme. Such experts would of course beassigned to the project manning tables, when they were approved.

222. As to the recommended increase in the write-off authority for preparator7assistance which did not eventuate in approved projects, the representative of theAdministrator confirmed that an increase of 50 per cent had been requested. Theincrease was of the same proportionate magnitude as the increase proposed forpreparatory assistance. In the past, the rate of use of the write-off authorityhad on the average amounted to about 8 per cent of the allocations for preparatoryassistance, and the Administrator did not expect any significant future change inthis ratio. It should be recognized that such write-offs did not necessarilyrepresent wasted expenditures. The cost of preparatory work which led to anegative decision on the request could be considered as funds well spent.

223. Replying to questions concerning the uses of the technical assistancecontingency authority~ the representative of the Administrator explained that thelist of contingency projects in the report covered only the first nine months ofthe year, and was therefore not to be taken as the annual contingency list. Thisfact may have explained in part the apparent imbalance in the geographicaldistribution of projects~ which was also due in part to the fact that countrytarget figures were not established for a number of countries and territories inthe 1967-1968 bieunium~ in those cases~ the entire technical assistance programmewas financed through contingency allocations.

224. The representative of the Administrator confirmed that the Administrator hadnot as yet made any technical assistance contingency allocations to UNDP. Beforemerger, the technical assistance programme had been governed at the executivelevel by the Technical Assistance Board, under the chairmanship of an executive

-63-

chairman whose terms of reference made no provision for operational responsibilities.Accordingly, all technical assistance projects financed by the contingencyauthority were~ without exception, carried out by one of the participatingorganizations. The Managing Director of the Special Fund on the other hand hadbeen given, prior to merger, certain operational responsibilities relating topreparatory and preliminary work. The establishment of UNDP may have changed thesituation somewha% and it was correct that in isolated and quite exceptionalcases, involving self-contained activities and therefore not entirely appropriatefor financing under the preparatory assistance or preliminary operations componentsof the Revolving Fund, it would be useful if the possibility of making contingencyallocations to UNDP were open to the Administrator. If the Governing Council sawno objection~ the Administrator was prepared to make such an allocation on thenext appropriate occasion.

225. On hearing the replies given on behalf of the Administrator to the questionsand observations raised in the debate, one member felt that the Administrator hadnot made a case for the proposed increase in the Revolving Fund. He recalled thatthe Administrator had~ at the second session, proposed that the Fund be establishedat the level of $i0 million. After an extensive debate, the Council had agreed on$7-5 million as an appropriate level. He considered the Administrator’s presentproposal to represent a retrograde step. Consideration of the question should, inhis view~ be postponed to the sixth session when the Council would, in any case,be returning to the question of preliminary operations. In reply, therepresentative of the Administrator confirmed that in the Administrator’s judgementthere was an immediate need for the increased authority for preparatory assistancewhich could not otherwise be undertaken, and that the increase could be approvedwithout prejudice to the results of future reviews by the Council of the level and ipurposes of the Revolving Fund.


226. At the conclusion of its consideration of item 8 (~) of its agenda, on thestatus of the Revolving Fund, the Governing Council, subject to further review,decided to:

(~) Increase the earmarking to the Revolving Fund for preparatory assistancemissions under the Special Fund component from $i.0 to $1.5 million, thus increasingthe total authority for the Revolving Fund from $7.5 to $8.0 million (DP/L.53,paragraph i0).

(~) Earmark the sum of $180,000 to cover the cost in 1968 of financingpreparatory assistance or preliminary operations in connexion with projects whichare not approved by the Governing Council (see DP/L.53 ~ paragraph ii, andDP/SF/R.5, paragraph 37 (~)).

(~) Audit reports

227. Introducing item 8 (~) on audit reports, the representative of theAdministrator explained that the reports before the Council included reports onthe accounts of the UNDP secretariat~ as well as on the accounts of theparticipating and executing agencies covering their execution of Technical i

Assistance and Special Fund projects. For the first time, under decisions of the q

-64-

Governing Council and of the General Assembly, the UNDP accounts were signed by theAdministrator and the accounts and reports were being submitted by theAdministrator.

Decision of the Governina Council

228. The Governing Council took note of the audited financial report and accountsof UNDP for the year ended 51 December 1966 ii/ and the audited consolidatedfinancial reports for that year on the funds allocated and earmarked to the UnitedNations~ the specialized agencies and IAEAunder the Technical Assistanceprogrammes and the Special Fund. i_~ It also noted the relevant comments of theAdvisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions 13/ and resolutions2264 (XXII) and 2515 (XXII) of the United Nations General Assembly.

(~) Special Industrial Services Trust Fund

229. In the introduction of item 8 (~) on the Special Industrial Services TrustFund, it was explained, on behalf of the Administrator, that the report (DP/L.60)was a progress report submitted for the information of the Governing Council inthe status of the SIS Trust Fund~ which had been established by the Secretary-General and was ab his request jointly administered by the Executive Director ofUNIDO and the Administrator. For the sixth session, the Administrator expected topropose that a general sub-item on trust funds be included in the agenda9 he wouldthen have sn opportunity to inform the Council of the increasing number of trustfunds with which UNDP was directly or indirectly associated.

230. Supplementing the introductory statement made on behalf of the Administrator~the representative of UNIDO updated the information on the SIS Trust Fund containedin the report. He informed the Council that the Trust Fund operations hadcontinued to expand at a rapid rate. Out of the $7 million contributed by donorcountries, a total of $3 million had already been obligated for approved projects.In addition~ a number of projects which had been processed by UNIDO and wereawaiting approval by the Administrator of UNDP represented almost $i million inadditional commitments. Furthermore, he estimated that some i~O requests forassistance from developing countries now in the pipeline would require anadditional amount of $2.7 million. The Executive Director of UNIDO would submitto the Industrial Development Board~ at its second session~ a detailed report onthe operations and the status of the programme of the Special Industrial Services.

ill / /bid., Twenty-second Session~ Supplement No. 6A and Corrigendum(A/6706/Add.l and Corr.l).

i~ ~ Ibid,. Twenty-second Session~ Annexes, addenda i and 2 to item 78,documents A/6901 and A/6902.

13/ Ibid., agenda item 72, document A/6673 and ibid., agenda item 78,documents A/6937 and A/6938.

"65-


231. All members of the Council who spoke on this item thanked the Administrator andthe representative of UNIDO for their reports~ and expressed gratification at theaccelerated use of the Trust Fund as reported by the UNIDO representative.

232. The representative of the United States stated that the figure of $4 millionshown in the report as having been pledged to the Trust Fund by the United Stateswas incorrect. His Government had pledged and paid $2 million. The United StatesGovernment, in making its UNDP pledge of $70 million for 1967, had reserved theright to allocate $2 million of that pledge to the SIS Trust Fund, but had decidednot to exercise that right and had so informed the Secretary-General of the UnitedNations and the Executive Director of UNIDO. The announcement had been deferreduntil relatively late in the year 1967, and was made in recognition of theAdministrator’s need to know before the year-end the firm level of the United Statespledge to UNDP. The representative of the United States was gratified at the reportof the representative of UNID0 concerning the acceleration of allocations under theTrust Fund programme and looked forward to the fuller report promised for theIndustrial Development Board, which he hopted would show substantial expenditures forthe benefit of the developing countries.

233. A few members asked for more information concerning the status and operationsof the Trust Fund. One member asked for the most recent information on pledges tothe Fund. Another expressed his Government’s serious disappointment at the slowbeginning of Trust Fund operations, and asked the Administrator whether the criteriabeing applied to the selection of projects for Trust Fund financing were sufficientlyflexible, and ifj in the Administrator’s judgement, it would be possible to foresee ia further increase in the rate of operations under the Fund. The representative ofBelgium announced that his Government had decided to pledge the equivalent of$200,000 to the SIS Trust Fund.

Observaticns of the Administration

234. Replying to the comments and observations of members~ the representative of theAdministrator thanked the representative of the United States for his correction.He indicated that the table on pledges to the Trust Fund shown in the report was outof date in other respects as well; the representative of Belgium had confirmed hisGovernment’s intention to contribute to the Fund, and the Finnish Government hadrecently announced its intention to contribute $50,000 to the Trust Fund. TheAdministrator had also been disappointed at the rate of implementation of activitiesin the initial stages of the Trust Fund programme, and shared the gratificationexpressed by other members at the more recent trends. Within the criteria set forthin the letters exchanged by the Secretary-General with the Governments which hadcontributed to the Fund, the UNDP approach to the administration had been entirelyflexible. In the Administrator’s judgement, there had been no undue proceduraldelays. The heart of the problem had been difficulties in recruitment of the highlyspecialized expertise required by SIS projects by an organization which was only nowestablishing itself at its new headquarters. UNDP valued its association with UNIDOand looked forward to increasingly fruitful collaboration with that organization.

235. At the conclusion of the discussion, the President announced that a corrigendumto the report would be issued by the Secretariat~ correcting and updating the !information on pledges to the Trust Fund.

-66-


236. On the understandin~ that a corrigendum would be issued, the Governing Counciltook note of document DP/L.60.

(~) Budget estimates for the administrative and Dro~ramme suDport services for 1968

ReDort by the Administrator

237. For its consideration of item 9~ the Governing Council had before it theAdministrator’s budget estimates for the administrative and programme supportservices of UNDP for 1968 (DP/L.54) and the related report of the Advisory Committeeon ~dministrative and Budgetary Questions. 14/

238. The 1968 estimates, amounting to a total of $16,972,700 (net), represented increase of $2,087,800 or about 14 per cent, over the approved budget for 1967.About one half of this increase resulted from the additional cost of maintaining in1968 staff resources and supporting services and facilities generally at their 1967levels. The second phase of FA0 "integration at the field level accounted for some$260,000 and the world-wide meeting of Resident Representatives scheduled to meet inHot Springs, Virginia, in 1968 entailed an amount of $i00,000. Expansion of staffresources and supporting services requested for 1968 accounted for about $690~000, a4.6 per cent increase over the 1967 budget.

239. In introducing the item in the Council, the Assistance Administrator and ....Director of the Bureau of Administrative Management and Budget stated that it was notwithout some concern that the Administrator had found it necessary to propose anincrease in the budget of the order indicated. He had hoped~ in initially planningthe 1968 budget, to keep the estimates close to the approved budget for 1967%

however, he was confronted with two unavoidable factors: (~) tee effects inflationary trends affecting UNDP costs directly or indirectly~ and (~) theimplications in respect of staff and other resources of various important newactivities and emphases of work designed to improve the effectiveness and impact ofUNDP. The first factor affected personnel entitlements and costs as well as generalexpenses for supplies, services and equipment. As regards the second, the newactivities, adaptations and innovations of approach described in paragraphs 7 to 24of the foreword to the budget were the outcome of discussions or decisions of theCouncil and were essential to the effectiveness and economy of the programme, butthose could not be accomplished without a modest increase in staff. Somewhat morethan one half of the cost of the additional staff requested in the estimates had todo with these needs. The balance, representing an increase of about 2 per cent ofthe 1967 budget, covered additional staff requirements to cope with the quantitativeincrease in workload which~ in the Special Fund component alone, was estimated atabout 20 per cent over 1967.

240. The Assistant Administrator also referred to the special report on field offices(DP/L.54 , annex I) and reiterated that the Administrator’s determination to holdcosts down was further evidenced by the fact that no additional international staffhad been requested for the field establishment in 1968 in spite of the continuingincrease in the responsibilities and workload of the offices of the ResidentRepresentatives.

14/ Ibid., agenda item 46, document A/6979.

-67-

241. Referring to the nature of the expenses covered in the budget, the AssistantAdministrator drew attention to the fact that over 40 per cent of the budgetrelated to progrsmme support services which were not administrative in the normalsense and which, with some effort, could be apportioned among individual projects.For example, were the expenses for appraisal and analysis of project requests, orfor following up a completed project to explore its investment potential, or for theevaluation of projects and programmes, or indeed for much of the programme of workof the Resident Representatives really "administrative" in character? The mere factthat, as a matter of policy, such expenses had been grouped together in the UNDPbudget did not render them "administrative" and should not blur the properunderstanding and assessment of the estimates. It was, of course, necessary tolook into the whole question of the expenses of the UNDP system, including theoverhead allocations to the executing and participating agencies~ any such studywould certainly require the defining of such concepts and terms as "administrative"expenses and "programme" costs. The study might also help to evolve a "yardstick"

to measure the desirable proportion of overhead expenses of UNDP and theparticipating and executing agencies. In conclusion the Assistant Administratorsaid that, while the Administrator was anxious to keep budgetary costs down to theminimum, he could not take the responsibility of requesting ~unds in an amount lessthan what he regarded as essential for the proper fulfilment of the tasks withwhich he was entrusted.


242. Members of the Council generally welcomed the clear presentation of the budgetproposals and estimates and were appreciative of the information provided in thespecial report on field office organization and staffing. However~ they shared theAdvisory Committee’s concern 15/ at the continuing increase in the staff of UNDPand in administrative and programme support costs. It was suggested that theincrease of 60 per cent in headquarters staff between 1965 and 1968 referred to bythe Advisory Committee 16/ was contrary to the expectations of the "merger" and wasperhaps due to inadequate readjustments in the internal organization and structureof the secretariat. Many members recognized the new and important emphasis onvarious essential programme support services and the consequent fact that asubstantial part of the budget was not strictly administrative in character. It wassuggested that the functional and working relationships between UNDP on the onehand and its participating and executing agencies on the other needed review andredefinition in order to ensure that there was no duplication or overlap. Onemember felt that the increase in budget expenditure might be due to excessive UNDPcontrol during the implementation of projects and to the inadequate distribution offunctions among the programme’s administration and the agencies.

243. There was general recognition of the point that the UNDP budget itselfconstituted only one of the two major pockets of "overhead" expenses of theprogramme. Of equal importance and significance in any assessment of "overheads"was the other pocket represented by the overhead allocations to the participatingand executing agencies. Special attention was drawn to the dearth of informationabout the utilization of such overhead allocations by the agencies and many members

15/ Ibid., para. 13.

Ibid., para. 9.

-68-

emphasized the need for the provision of full information and accounting on thissubject both to the Administrator and to the Council. With regard to this area, tothe question of effecting the merger of the administrations and to the study offunctional relationships referred to abov% the possibility of obtaining theassistance of the new Inter-Agency Joint Inspection Unit was mentioned.

244. Practically all members participating in the discussion found common ground inthe observations of the Advisory Committee in its report:

"As regards the former (i.e., headquarters), the Advisory Committee...feels that, before any further expansion in staff resources is contemplated~the Administrator should evaluate the performance of the present establishmentand organizational arrangements, with particular reference to the avoidance ofduplication in new areas of activity. The Committee would hope, therefore,that the Administrator would regard 1969 as a year of consolidation." 17/

Most members were prepared to approve the 1968 estimates as submitted subject tothe foregoing comments of the Advisory Committee. In this conuexion~ one memberexpressed the hope that there would be no incompatibility in the AdvisoryCommittee’s suggestion of 1969 as a year of consolidation and the Administrator’sreference in paragraph 9 of DP/L.54 to the additional workload which may be entailedin the full implementation of the new procedures of the Technical Assistancecomponent. Another representative suggested that the 1968 budget might be kept forthe time being at the 1967 level pending a detailed review of present arrangementsby June 1968. Yet another member, who also endorsed the Advisory Committee’sobservations quoted above, felt unable to support the cost of the fifty-eight newpositions at headquarters or the reclassification of eighteen existing posts, andhoped that the Administrator’s study would prove this order of additions to beunnecessary.

245. The central role of Resident Representatives in the work of UNDP was onceagain emphasized and general satisfaction was expressed at the Administrator’sdecision not to request any new international posts in the field for 1968. Theclear and comprehensive information on the functions of the Resident Representativesand on the factors affecting organizational and staff arrangements which wasprovided in the special report in annex I to DP/L.54 was noted with interest. Theincreasing measure of responsibility in the programming area which was devolving onResident Representatives was also noted with interest and it was suggested thatthis trend should be continued.

246. Several members referred to the Advisory Committee’s suggestion 18/ that theAdministrator might consider, in the light of developments since the adoption ofGeneral Assembly resolution 2029 (XX), whether a merger of the two funds (pertainingto the Special Fund and Technical Assistance components) would lead to increasedefficiency and would simplify administrative procedures. This point had earlierbeen mentioned in the general discussion of policy matters under items 7~ 12 and 19of the Council’s agenda. The general position on this question was that it requiredvery careful study and that a discussion should be deferred until the Council’ssixth session in June 1968.

i 17/ Ibi___~d., para. 16.

’ i~$/ l-bi___~d., para. 15.

-69-


247. Replying to points arising from the discussion, the Assistant Administratorsaid that many of the suggestions which had been offered would need to be studied inthe context and within the scope of the proposed over-all study of the capability ofthe UNDP system to develop and implement a larger programme (see item 12 of theagenda). That exercise should cover, for example, questions of functionalrelationships between UNDP and the participating and executing agencies~ the subjectof total overheads including overhead allocations to agencies, and the implicationswhich those matters would have for internal arrangements of the UNDP secretariat.Furthermore, the Administrator had already initiated action along the lines of theAdvisory Committee’s suggestion and had arranged, with the assistance of outsideconsultants, for a study of certain technical aspects of UNDP operations andadministration. At least some interim information from this study should beavailable by June 1968.

248. The Assistant Administrator added that, while it was natural to seek arelationship between the annual administrative budget and annual resources, staffingneeds were truly linked to workload. In this connexion, the Council had followed a Iconsidered policy of approving projects in excess of current resources in line withthe "balloon" concept. In the Special Fund component alone, projects in hand wereexpected to increase by some 83 per cent over the period from 1965 to 1968, and itwas against this growth in workload that the 60 per cent increase of staff mentionedby the Advisory Committee should be understood. Referring to the suggestion that1969 should be regarded as a year of consolidation, the Assistant Administrator saidthat a consolidation of administrative and programme support services might imply aconsolidation of the programme and the latter might not be desirable if it meantstagnation. In any event, the important thing was that every effort should be madeto keep budgetary expenses to the lowest possible figure consistent with essentialneeds, and this effort would be fully forthcoming from the Administrator.

249. The Administrator, in a concluding statement, said that cutting costs for thesake of cutting would be a relatively simple matter~ but that it would inevitablymean a curtailment of the essential services provided to developing countries andvery likely impair the effectiveness of the programme. He was deeply conscious ofthe need to devote the greatest possible portion of the resources to direct projectassistance~ at the same time every dollar he proposed to spend on sound projectpreparation, implementation, evaluation and follow-up for investment would bereturned many times over in effectiveness and economy of the programmes as a whole.The Administrator suggested that the results of the study, which had already beeninitiated into certain technical aspects of UNDP operations and administration~should prove useful in this regard. In response to suggestions regarding thepossibility of presenting annual budget estimates, at least in broad outline, tothe June session in the preceding year, the Administrator felt that it might provedifficult to prepare valid and realistic estimates in time for the June session.He added that this matter would be looked into in conjunction with the broaderstudy of the organization and time-table of Council sessions and the problem oftimely issuance of documentation in all working languages and that a report wouldbe submitted to the Council at its sixth session.

-70-


250. In the light of the discussion and of suggestions made by members, thefollowing decision was approved by the Council:

"The Governin~ Council

"(~) AoDroves the estimates of 1968 requirements for administrative andprogramme support services of UNDP in a total amount of $16,972,700 (net) submitted in document DP/L.54 and comprising the following sections:

Section I - Personal service costs ........ $13,573,900

Section 2 - Travel and transportation ...... 888,900

Section 3 - Permanent equipment ........ 284,700

Section 4 - Other general expenses ........ 2,020,200

Section 5 - Subvention to the United Nations 205~000

TOTAL $16,972,700

"(~) Decides that the Administrator may transfer credits between sectionsonly with the authorization of the Governing Council, such authorization to beobtained, if necessary, by canvassing members through correspondence;

"(~) In order to finance these requirements, authorizes allocations inamounts of $10,862,528 and $6,110,172 respectively from the resources of theSpecial Fund and Technical Assistance components of the Programme;

"(~) Nevertheless expresses the hope that, in the light of the viewsexpressed both in the Council and by the Advisory Committee on Administrativeand Budgetary Questions regarding the need for administrative economies, theAdministrator will endeavour to reduce the 1968 budget expenditure and giveparticular attention to reduction of new posts; and requests the Administratorto report to the sixth session of the Council on the action taken to this end;

"(~) Further exoresses the hope that in framing the 1969 budget theAdministrator will take full account of the remarks of the Advisory Committeein paragraph 16 of its report (A/6979)."

(~) Timely issuance of documentation

251. During the consideration of the budget estimates for 1968, a number ofmembers reverted to a point, which had been raised in earlier discussions ongeneral policy questions, concerning the importance of timely distribution ofCouncil documents in all the working languages of the Council. Those members pointedout that it was a matter of respecting both the Council’s rules of procedure andthe principle of fairness. Attention was drawn to the fact that the greater partof the documentation of the fifth session of the Council in languages other thanEnglish was not issued in time and had, in fact, become available only in the daysor few weeks preceding the opening of the session. It was held, in this connexion,that the point at issue was not one of translation from English to the otherworking languages but rather one of simultaneous issuance of the documents in the

°71-

several language versions. The Administrator was requested to do everythingpossible to have the documentation for the sixth and succeeding sessions issued intime in all working languages.

252. The Administrator, in reply, stated that the problem would be studied inconjunction with the question of the organization and time-table of Councilsessions. Arrangements for the January session had been affected particularlyadversely because of the great pressure on the services concerned during the lastquarter of the calendar year because of the heavy schedule of United Nationsmeetings at that time. However, the matter would be fully studied and reported onto the Council at its sixth session; meanwhile every effort would be made toimprove the situation as regards documentation for the sixth session.

(S) Status and emoluments of the senior ranks in UNDP

253. Following the adoption of General Assembly resolution 2369 (XXII) 19 December 1967 concerning the reorganization of the top echelon in the UnitedNations Secretariat, the Secretary-General, in a letter dated ii January 1968 to ithe President of the Governing Council, proposed the implementation of thearrangements concerning the Administrator and Co-Administrator of UNDP asanticipated in the Secretary-General’s note to the General Assembly. ~ Thespecific arrangements outlined by the Secretary-General provided that:

(~) The Administrator’s post, which should be equated to the head of a majorspecialized agency, should carry an annual net salary of $28,100 together with arepresentation allowance of $i0,000 per year and normal staff allowances;

(b) As long as the transitional arrangement providing for a Co-Administratorexists, that post should have a status equivalent to that of a senior deputyexecutive head of a major specialized agency and should be assimilated for salaryand related purposes, to the newly established level of Under-Secretary-General.The details of the increased emoluments of this new level are shown in theamendments to the Staff Regulations approved in General Assembly resolution2 69 q

254. In considering this matter, the Governing Council had before it also a note bythe President of the Council. The Council was also informed that the financialimplications of the proposed arrangements would be of the order of some $15,000 for1968, but that no supplementary appropriation was necessary.


255. The Governing Council endorsed the proposed arrangements for implementationeffective i January 1968.

256. The Council authorized the Administrator to enter into consultation with theSecretary-General at an early date concerning the readjustment of the rank andlevel of the Assistant Administrators in the UNDP establishment.

19/ Ibid., agenda item 74, document A/C.5/I128, para. 16.

-72-

Further consideration and decision of the Governing Council

257. The Administrator subsequently informed the Council of the results of hismeeting with the Secretary-General on 22 January 1968. In the course of thismeeting, the Administrator proposed to the Secretary-General that~ with effectfrom I January 1968, the Assistant Administrators be given a rank and salaryequivalent to the level of their opposite numbers in the specialized agencies.

258. The Secretary-General said he would agree, as a temporary measure, andsubject to the approval of the Governing Council of UNDP, that the AssistantAdministrators be given a rank and salary equivalent to that of the AssistantDirectors-General of a major specialized agency. The Secretary-General felt thatthis arrangement should be subject to review by the Committee of Experts on theOrganization of the Secretariat, who would offer their advice to the Secretary-General in due course. The Administrator indicated that, inasmuch as the entireUNDP top management set-up would have to be reviewed at the end of the year~he would readily accept the Secretary-General’s proposals. He also informed theCouncil that the financial implications in 1968 of the proposed managementconcerning the Assistant Administrators would be of the order of $i0,000, butthat no supplementary appropriation was necessary.

259. At its 102nd meeting, the Council approved this arrangement and authorizedthe Administrator to proceed accordingly.

(~) Question of financing of technical advisers to be appointed in some officesof Resident Representatives


260. The Governing Council considered this question on the basis of a report bythe Administrator (DP/L.56) in which he had sought the Council’s authorization:(~) to negotiate agreements~ similar to those already concluded with FAO and UNIDO,

with certain other participating and executing agencies for the integration oftheir field representatives with UNDP offices; and (b) to include in the UNDPadministrative budget for 1969 and later years provisions to cover the financialimplications of the relevant agreements.

261. In initiating the discussion on this item~ the Assistant Administrator andDirector of the Bureau of Administrative Management and Budget emphasized thatthe new approach reflected in the agreements with FAO and UNIDO constituted thebest means of achieving real and effective co-ordination at the field level onthe side of the international organizations. He underlined three basic elementsof the agreements: (~) the contractual status of the technical advisers UNDP staff members subject to UNDP regulations and rules and financed from the UNDPbudget; (~) the overriding voice given to the Resident Representative in mattersof programming subject to an appeals procedure~ and (!) the special status givento the Resident Representative in relations with the recipient Government in thatcontact with central organs of government was principally reserved to him. Whilethe new system would mean an increase in the UNDP budget, it would be moreeconomical viewed from an over-all basis for the international family and MemberGovernments.

-73-


262. Members were unanimous in their approval of the spirit of the agreementssigned with FAO and UNIDO and those under preliminary negotiation with the ILOand they noted with satisfaction the efforts made toward strengthening the roleof the Resident Representatives. However, several members expressed their concernabout the extra burden on the UNDP administrative budget which would result fromthe extention of those arrangements to other agencies exactly on the lines of theFAO agreement. Recognizing the fact that most FAO country representatives ~erepreviously financed from UNDP programme funds, members noted that theimplementation of the agreement with FAO resulted largely in a transfer of theexpenses to the administrative budget without a net increase of the expenses.This might not be the case with other agencies. One member expressed the hope thatdespite the diverse negotiations being carried out with the specialized agencies,UNDP would fix an identical status for all advisers to Resident Representatives.

263. The question was asked whether it would not be appropriate to request theagencies to share the cost of the arrangements, perhaps on an equal basis, withoutof course detracting from the leadership and authority of the ResidentRepresentative. Some members felt~ however, that the authority of the ResidentRepresentatives could be diminished if the financing of technical advisers wereshared with the agencies and gave their preference to UNDP financing. The view ofthe administration, expressed by the Assistant Administrator, was that it ~ould bepreferable for UNDP to assume full responsibility for the financing of technicaladvisers.

264. Bearing in mind the cost of these arrangements~ several members expressed qthe opinion that the number of technical advisers should not be unduly increasedand that technical advisers should not be appointed from agencies which, atpresent, have no field representatives. A few members also said that certaintechnical advisers should cover several countries. The Assistant Administratoragreed that in certain instances technical advisers might cover a number ofcountries~ this was, in fact, the case with a few of the advisers alreadyappointed. He added that the gradual implementation of the agreements would, overthe next few years and subject to the Council’s future approval of the necessarybudgetary provisions~ involve some forty advisers for FA% ten to fifteen forUNIDO and probably ten to fifteen for the ILO; the total cost of an arrangementof this magnitude would eventually be approximately $1,75%000 a year.

265. A few members mentioned that, as a consequence of the appointment of technicaladvisers, savings should be made in the budgets of the agencies~ another expressedthe opinion that the overhead allocations to the agencies concerned might bereduced; yet another member thought that the technical advisers might help withvarious aspects of project appraisal and reformulation and concluded that somesavings might consequently be possible at UNDP headquarters and in the agencies.

266. In response to questions and suggestions, the Assistant Administratorconfirmed that the Administrator would present to the Council, at its futuresessions, periodic reports on the progress and implementation of the agreements.

-74-


267. In the light of the discussion~ the Governing Council decided to authorizethe Administrator:

(~) to pursue or initiate negotiations with certain other participatingand executing agencies with a view to arriving at similar agreements for theintegration of their field establishments with UNDF offices~ including theappointment of technical field advisers financed from UNDP funds; and

(~) to include in the budget estimates for administrative and programmesupport services of UNDP for i~9 and later years provisions for the financialallocations required to cover the cost of Industrial Development Field Advisers(UNIDO) in implementation of the UNDP/UNIDO agreement, and provisions for thecost of other such technical advisers~ the appointment of whom might follow theconclusion of possible similar agreements with other participating and executingagencies. These provisions would be subject to the regular budgetary proceduresfor review and approval of UNDP expenditures.

-75-

CHAPTER VII

UNITED NATIONS CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT FUND

268. The Administrator, in introducing item 19, recalled that, by its resolution2321 (XXII) of 15 December 1967, the General Assembly had entrusted the GoverningCouncil with carrying out in 1968 the appropriate functions of the ExecutiveBoard of the United Nations Capital Development Fund. He also informed theCouncil that, on 28 December 1967, the Secretary-General, pursuant to theresolution of the General Assembly, had invited him to administer the Fund byperforming on a provisional basis the functions of its Managing Director as setforth in article IX of resolution 2186 (XXI).

269. In dealing with this matter realistically, it was necessary to take accountof the resources available to the Fund, currently the equivalent of $1,308-,070which had been pledged by twenty-five Governments. There had not been time sincethe General Assembly’s decision to formulate precise plans for meeting the newresponsibilities, but the Administrator would present a document on the subject tothe sixth session of the Governing Council in June 1968. In the preparation ofthat paper, he believed there might be merit in consulting with the executive headsof financing institutions, particularly the regional banks, and the Secretary-General; and the views of the developing countries, of course, would be particularlyappreciated. I

270. It was necessary to keep in mind two important objectives. The first was toobtain maximum value in development from the resources available, and thatobviously meant that overhead costs should be kept at an absolute minimum. Theprincipal sources of external development financing included the World Bank Group,regional development banks, the European Development Fund, the Kuwait Fund andother funds. Every effort should be made to co-operate with existing financinginstitutions rather than compete with them. A good use of available Capital iDevelopment Fund resources might be to participate in joint ventures with suchfinancing institutions. There were, of course, certain countries which were notmembers of any regional banks. The Administrator would count on the ResidentRepresentatives to discuss with the countries any projects for which they soughtfinancing from the Capital Development Fund, although this might involve the Fundin lending operations which would raise the problem of high administrative costs,a critical issue in view of the limited resources available and the need to makethe best use of them.


271. A series of suggestions on the action to be taken by the Administrator wasmade by one member and received the full endorsement of several others. Thesesuggestions were that the Administrator should keep the Council informed of thestatus of contributions; invite Governments intending to contribute to do so;consult Governments that had not committed themselves to pledges on the possibility dof supporting the Fund; invite voluntary contributions from non-governmental !

-76-

sources; initiate action to attract more support for the Fund at the next Pledging

Conference; and submit to the next session of the Council draft financialregulations for the Fund. While agreeing that the Administrator should consult theregional development banks about joint ventures with the Fund, it was suggestedthat he also contact other financial institutions. In addition, he should askcountries contributing to the Fund about possible use of their pledges especiallyfor capital equipment; consult with bilateral aid programmes on the possibility ofjoint ventures; similarly, consult the Executive Director of the World FoodProgramme; try to identify a few projects assisted by the Special Fund componentwhich offered modest follow-up investment possibilities; and examine the possibleuse of Capital Development Fund resources to finance pilot plants and demonstrationprojects.

272. It was stressed by those delegations which took part in the debate that, inexploring the various possibilities for the use of the resources available to theUnited Nations Capital Development Fund, the Administrator should always bear inmind the basic objectives of General Assembly resolution 2186 (XXI).

273. The need to respect the purposes and principles of the Fund as set out inresolutions 2042 (XX) and 2186 (XXI) was emphasized by some members. Some thoughtthat the Fund would provide a logical complement to the present operations of UNDPand would enable it to extend its activities into the field of investment proper,one member considering that the Fund could help to catalyze investment and anotherthat the Fund could support UNDP pre-investment projects which had not managed toattract follow-up investment. In the view of some members, industrial pilotprojects might be considered for the initial operations of the Fund, alone or inconjunction with the Special Fund component of the Programme, two of them stressingthe desirability of consulting UNIDO in such activities.

274. Several members thought that lack of resources was a key problem for the Fund;one suggested that the Administrator should indicate the minimum level of resourcesnecessary for the Fund to engage in investment activities. Some members expressedthe hope that developed countries would support the Fund; one stated that theCouncil also needed the views of the fully industrialized countries, which had notspoken in the Council discussion, on the tasks assigned to UNDP.

275. At the conclusion of the discussion the Administrator, reiterating the needfor maximum results and minimum overheads, stated that joint ventures with regionalbanks had the advantage that the latter would assume the responsibility forinvestigating and appraising projects. The Council’s discussion and the results ofhis contacts with regional banks and other interested parties would provide aspectsfor further consideration in the preparation of his next report to the Council.


276. The Council took note of the observations made by the Administrator and members,and agreed to review the matter on the basis of a report to be submitted by theAdministrator at the sixth session. As regards those suggestions which related tofund raising and organization of the pledging conferences of the Capital DevelopmentFund, the Council noted that the Administrator would be glad to consult with theSecretary-General, to whom the responsibilities in these matters were entrustedunder General Assembly resolution 2186 (XXI) establishing the Fund.

-77-

CHAPTER VIII

UNITED NATIONS REGULAR PROGRAMME OF TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION

277. Under item 14 of its agenda, the Governing Council considered a report by theSecretary-General on the planning level for 1969 of the United Nations regularprogramme of technical co-operation (DP/RP/4). It was submitted in response to decision taken by the Council at its fourth session, when it postponed establishinga planning level until it could consider a report on an appropriate level forplanning purposes for 1969 and future years and its relationship to other elementsof the United Nations Development Programme (E/4398, paras. 192 and 193 e (ii)).The report, which analysed the consequences of the financial stabilization of theregular programme since 1962, was introduced to the Council by the Commissionerfor Technical Co-operation.


278. During the general discussion of the Secretary-General’s report, the largemajority of members of the Governing Council stressed the importance of the regularprogramme, emphasizing its flexibility and speed in meeting the changing needs andpriorities for assistance of developing countries and noting that it provided themeans for translating the general recommendations and policies established in theregional and functional commissions of the United Nations into institutional andpractical realities. It was noted by several members that the regular programmeusefully provided the financing for the greater volume of regional technicalassistance activities because of the percentage limitation imposed under the UNDP(Technical Assistance component) resources for regional and inter-regional

projects. Its important role in preparing and implementing projects which in timedeveloped into activities under the Technical Assistance and Special Fund componentsof UNDP was also noted.

q279. The majority of members who participated in the debate favoured raising thelevel of the regular programme by a minimum increase of $i~320,000 or 21.6 per cent

in accordance with the study prepared by the Secretary-General, to be added to thepresent level of the regular programme for 196% which had remained stabilized at$6.4 million since 1962. They felt that the arguments which had been advancedjustified an increase and that it should be recommended to the competent organs ofthe United Nations. It was recognized that the suggested increase would enablethe Secretary-General merely to respond to government requests by providing thesame number of units of assistance as in 1962 when the present level wasestablished. Special mention was made of the fact that the suggested minimumincrease related to programmes in the fields of economic development, socialdevelopment, public administration and industrial development, without providingany of the new resources required for expansion of services including thoseessential for high priority projects of the regional economic commissions or forprogrammes in the fields of human rights and narcotic drugs control.

280. Most members welcomed the Secretary-General’s intention to submit to the j

Governing Council’s seventh session a comprehensive study of the purposes and

-78-

objectives of the regular programme and its relationship to the programmes of UNDPtogether with recommendations for future action and planning levels. It was feltthat on the basis of this report the Council could come to a decision as to thefuture role of the regular programme and the extent of the financial resourceswhich ought to be made available to it. Several members indicated that the questionof the planning level for 1969 might be raised in the course of the GeneralAssembly’s consideration of the reports of the Governing Council and of the budgetfor 1969.

281. Some members of the Governing Council, while recognizing the importance ofthe regular programme in supporting programmes of economic and social development,stressed that it must be viewed in the context of all the programmes of technicalco-operation for which the United Nations was responsible. They believed that itwas premature to make any adjustments in the level of appropriation for theprogramme until the Council had had an opportunity to consider the Secretary-General’s fuller report on the role of the programme and its relationship to UNDPprogrammes. Since the Enlarged Committee for Programme and Co-ordination would beconsidering, at its next session, the role of the United Nations regular technicalco-operation programme and the question of amalgamating all regular assistanceprogrammes with UNDP without reducing resources~ it was felt that there was furtherjustification for delaying a decision on raising the level of the regular programmeuntil the Enlarged Committee for Programme and Co-ordination had had an opportunityto study and report on the question. Meanwhile a planning level of $6.4 millionshould be recommended for 1969.

282. A few members restated their basic position that all United Nations operationalactivities should be financed from voluntary sources; in this way the regularbudget resources would reflect only the administrative activities of theOrganization. Other members questioned the propriety of the role of the GoverningCouncil in reviewing the United Nations regular programme of technical co-operationand recommending levels of appropriation for which the Council had no finalresponsibility. Attention was called to General Assembly resolution 2029 (XX) whichmerged the Expanded Programme of Technical Assistance and the Special Fund into theUnited Nations Development Programme, and which provided for the Council toperform the functions previously exercised by the Technical Assistance Committeeand to "provide general policy guidance and direction.., for the United Nationsregular programmes of technical assistance".

283. At the conclusion of its consideration of item 14 of its agenda, the Presidentof the Governing Council summarized the debate as follows: some members were notdisposed to treat a transitional "cost of living" increase apart from theconsideration of the longer term question of the purpose and objectives of theUnited Nations regular programme of technical co-operation; a large majority of thespeakers favoured the increase indicated in the Secretary-General’s report~ as itwas not possible to obtain any consensus on a revised planning level for 1969, itwas agreed that the Council would recommend a planning level for that year, of thecurrent $6.4 million on a provisional basis and the question of a budgetary levelmight be reopened within the appropriate organs of the United Nations, that is,the General Assembly, at a later stage in 1968; all members welcomed the broaderstudy proposed by the Secretary-General on the role of the regular programme andits relationship to UNDP to be presented to the seventh session of the GoverningCouncil.

-79-


(284. The Council then took the following action:

The Council recommended a provisional level of $6.4 million for planningpurposes for the regular programme of technical co-operation of the United Nationsfor 1969 and requested the Secretary-General to submit to the seventh session of theCouncil a co~©rehensive study of the purposes and objectives of the regularprogramme and its relationship to the programmes of UNDP together with anyrecommendations he might deem appropriate.

-80-

CHAPTER IX

ACTION TAKEN BY ORGANS OF THE UNITED NATIONS ANDRELATED AGENCIES IN 1967 ON MATTERS RELATING TO

THE UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

285. Under item 13 of its agenda, the Council had before it a note by theAdministrator (DP/L.63 and Add.l) drawing its attention to resolutions adopted the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, and by other organs andagencies of the United Nations in 1967, that made reference in their operativeparagraphs to the United Nations Development Programme. In this note, theAdministrator informed the Council that due account would be taken of the viewsexpressed in these resolutions in carrying out the activities of UNDP.


286. The Council took note of document DP/L.63 and Add.l.

-81-

CHAPTER X

OTHER MATTERS

287. The Co-Administrator informed the Council that~ under the funds-in-trustarrangement for the Fund of the United Nations for the Development of West Irian,a high-level survey mission of consultants had drawn a comprehensive developmentplan recommending policies to guide and projects to utilize FUNDWI’s resources of$30 million. Favourably commended to the Indonesian Government by the Administrator,the policy and project proposals had recently been accepted by that Government witha request that they be implemented as soon as possible.

288. Implementation of the programme had been initiated with the assistance of theparticipating and executing agencies. Three aircraft had recently been deliveredto improve West Irian air service and preliminary arrangements made for a series ofrepair and rehabilitation projects in transport, electric power and otherinfra-structure elements. A sub-office of the UNDP Djakarta office had been openedin Sukarnapura~ West Irian. Two imaginative proposals called for FUNDWI investmentin development financing institutions. One institution would be concerned withforest industries on a tripartite basis with the Indonesian Government, a FUNDWIinvestment of $2 million and investment by foreign firms interested in timberingand sawmilling. The second institution would be a Joint Development Commission withthe Indonesian Government, having a ~UNDWI investment of $4.5 million in foreignexchange. The latter would serve as a focal point to stimulate developmentalactivities, have authority to make grants, loans and also equity investment inWest Irian enterprises. At the request of the Government, FUNDW! was currentlyorganizing consultant services to co-operate with Indonesian officials to preparethe establishment of these development-financing bodies.

289. The Co-Administrator stated that, although this Fund did not involve a chargeon UNDP resources and was not an agenda item, the Administrator would continue tokeep the Council advised on this aspect of the UNDP secretariat’s activity.

290. At its 9Oth meeting, the Governing Council heard a statement by theDirector-General of UPU.

-82-

CHAPTER XI

DATE AND PROVISIONAL AGENDA OF THE SIXTH REGULAR SESSION

291. The Council decided to accept an invitation from the Austrian Government tohold its sixth regular session in Vienna. The Council also agreed that its sixthsession would be held from ii to 28 June 1968.

292. At its 106th meeting, the Council, in accordance with rule 8 of the rules ofprocedure and under item 15 of its agenda~ considered the draft provisional agendafor the sixth session.

293. The draft provisional agenda which was before the Council for considerationread as follows:

i. Opening of the session

2. Adoption of the agenda

3. UNDP (Special Fund) programme recommendations of the Administrator

(~) Consideration in private meetings of individual projects of theUNDP (SF) programme

(~) Approval of UNDP (SF) programme recommendations

(~) Proposals for preliminary operations

4. UNDP (Technical Assistance) Programme

(~) Progress report on implementation of new Technical AssistanceProgramme procedures

(~) Approval of regional project recormmendations of the Administrator

5. General debate (statements by the Administrator and members of theCouncil on issues before the Council)

(~) Report on the activities of UNDP in 1967

Supplementary reports:

(i) Statistical data relating to projects in operation underthe Technical Assistance component during 1967

(ii) Financial status of projects under the Special Fund componentas of 31 December !967

(iii) Status of completed projects and follow-up developments underthe Special Fund component as of 31 December 1967

-83-

(iv) Association of assistance from other sources during 1967

I(v) Subcontracts awarded by participating and executing agencies

for projects in the Special Fund component during 1967

(vi) Major equipment purchases by participating and executingagencies for projects in the Special Fund component during 1967

(vii) Special Industrial Services

(viii) Trust Fund administration

(~) Interim report on future needs for pre-investment activity inrelation to the administrative capacity of the United Nationssystem to programme and implement such activities

(~) Progress report on the evaluation of the United Nations DevelopmentProgramme

(~) Promotion of investment follow-up

6. Administrative and financial matters

(~) Harmonization of policies andprocedures under the Special Fundand Technical Assistance components of UNDP

(i) Local operating costs

(ii) UNDP financial regulations

(~) Comprehensive statement on financial position of UNDP as at31 December 1967

(~) Report on the Revolving Fund

(~) Statements of contributions as of 30 April 1968i

7. Organizational matters

(~) (i) Question of timing and periodicity of Governing Councilsessions, and (ii) Possible arrangements for the timelydistribution of UNDP documents in all working languages

(~) Steps taken to strengthen the UNDP office in Geneva

8. United Nations regular programme of technical co-operation

9- United Nations Capital Development Fund: Governing Council report tothe Economic and Social Council under General Assembly resolution

2321 (xxii)

i0. Information papers on the regular programme of technical assistance in |1967 of the specialized agencies and IAEA !

-84-

ii. Provisional agenda for the seventh session of the Governing Council(rule 8 of the rules of procedure)

12. Date of the seventh regular session

13. Other matters

14. Draft report of the Governing Council to the forty-fifth session of theEconomic and Social Council

294. At its 106th meeting, following a brief exchange of views between members ofthe Council and the Administrator, the Council agreed that the Administrator wouldissue a revised provisional agenda which would include the following changes tothe draft contained in paragraph 293 above:

(~) Addition of an item on "General policy in regard to the 1969 Budgetestimates for the administrative and programme support services of UNDP";

(~) Addition of the words "and the preceding years" at the end sub-items 5 (~) (v) and (vi)~

(~) Addition of the words "or envisaged" after the word "taken" sub-item 7 (k)"

-85-

ANNEXES

ANNEX I

List of delegations

MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNING COUNCIL

Algeria

Mr. Hocine Djoudi,* Mr. Mohamed Berrezoug**

Austria

Mrs. Erna Sailer,* Mr. Walther Rudolf Backes**

Belgium

Mr. Edouard Decastiaux,* Mr. Jules Woulbroun,** Mr. Willy Bittremieux**

Brazil

H.E. Mr. Geraldo de Carvalho Silos,* Mr. Luiz Felipe Palmeira Lampreia,**Mr. Italo Mastrogiovanni**

Bulgaria

Mr. Christo Vladov,* Mr. Dimiter Julev**

Cameroon

Mr. E.D. Quan~* Mr. J.J. Mackongo,** Mr. E.B. Chamfor***

Canada (

Mr. V. Moore,* Mr. Roy MacLaren~** Mr. Raymond Dennis Lucas~***Mr. F. Livingstone,*** Mr. H. Long***

Chile

H.E. Mr. Jos@ Pi~era~* Mr~ Uldaricio Figueroa**

Congo (Democratic Republic of)

Mr. Bernard Louya*

Denmark

Mr. J#rgen Scavenius,* Mr. Bj~rn 01sen~** Mr. Ernst Henrik Schmiegelow***

* Representative.** Alternate Representative. |

*** Adviser. I

-86-

Federal Republic of Germany

Mr. Wilhelm-G~nther yon Heyden,* Mr. Heinrich Sartorius,**Mr. Eberhard Hoepfner***

Finland

Mr. Jaakko lloniemi~* Mr. Matti Kahiluoto,** Mr. Kurt Uggeldahl,***Mr. Richard Muller,*** Mr. Tapani Brotherus***

France

Mr. Claude Chayetj* Mr. Daniel George,**Mr. Jean-Claude Guisset,**Mr. Bernard Percriaux,** Miss Anne-Marie Hypsmann***

India

H.E. Mr. Gopalaswami Parthasarathi,* Mr. A.T. Bambawale,**Mr. I.S. Chadha,** Mr. N.N. Jha,** Mr. L.N. Piparsania***

Iraq

H.E. Dr. Adnan Pachachi,* Mr. Adrian Raouf,** Mr. Riyadh T. All**

Italy

Mr. Mario Franzi,* Mr. Franco Ferretti,** Mr. Giovanni Scolamiero**

Jamaica

H.E. Mr. Keith Johnson,* Mr. P.W. Aitken (Rapporteur),**Mr. Karl Donald Craig**

Japan

H.E. Mr. Isao Abe,* Mr. Takeshi Naito,** Mr. Kunio Muraoka,***Mr. Michihiko Ikeda***

Jordan

H.E. Mr. Muhammad Ei-Farra,* Mr. Farouk Ahmad Kasrawi**

Liberia

Mr. Henry W. Yaidoo,* Mr. Martinus L. Johnson**

Malaysia

Mr. P.S. Lai (Third Vice-President)*

Netherlands

Mr. Jan H. Lubbers (President),* Mr. A. Van der Goot,**Mr. J.F. Boddens Hosang,** Mr. J.E. Budelman***

* Representative.** Alternate Representative.

*** Adviser.

-87-

Norway

Mr. Kjell Christiansen,* Mr. T.P. Svemmevig**

Pakistan

H.E. Mr. Agha Shahi,* Mr. S.M. Sulaiman,**Mr. M. Yunus,**Mr. Mohammad Sarfraz,** Mr. Rafee uddin Ahmed**

Paraguay

Mr. Victor Manuel Jara Recalde*

Peru

Mr. Jorge Pablo Fernandini,* Mr. Manuel Boza**

Poland

Mr. Wlodzimierz Natorf (First Vice-President),* Mr. Leszek Kasprzyk,**Mr. Wladyslaw Neneman**

Romania

H.E. Mr. Gheorghe Diaconescu,* Mr. Gheorghe Popa,** Mr. Bogdan Baltazar**

Senegal

Mr. Charles Delgado (Second Vice-President)*

Switzerlandq

Mr. Sigismond Marcuard,* Mr. Charles Steinhaeuslin,** Mr. Max Dahinden***

Thailand

H.E. Mr. Anand Panyarachun,* Mr. Klos Visessurakarn,** Mr. Tongnoi Tongyai***

Tunisia

Mr. Ahmed Chtourou,* Mr. Hichem Ayoub~**Mr. Mohamed Said Ben Dhiaf**

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

H.E. Mr. I.V. Arkhipov,* Mr. A.V. Zakharov,** Mr. A.P. Kovalev**Mr. Y.P. Kharkevich~*** Mr. N.I. Alenochkin,*** Mr. M.A. Gorbachev~***Mr. I.A. Gritsunov***

United Arab Republic

Mr. Abdel Halim Badawi,* Mr. Mohamed M. El Baradei**

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Mr. S. Fryer,* Mr. R.N. Posnett,*~-~ Miss Lucy Deas,*** Miss Janet Mather***


Adviser.

-88-

United States of America

H.E. Mr. Arthur Goldschmidt,* Mr. Clarence I. Blau~**Mr. Robert Wilson Kitchen~** Mr. Leon Woskoff~*** Miss Barbara Kugel~***Miss H.A. Wilsou,***Mrs. Susan T. Egnor***

Venezuela

H.E. Mr. Manuel Perez-Guerrero,* Mr. Reinaldo Figueredo-Planchart,**Mr. Freddy Christians***


*** Adviser.

-89-

OBSERVERS FROMMEMBER STATES

Australia

Mr. J.R. Kelso, Mr. J.A. Benson

China

Mr. P.Y. Tsao, Mr. David T. Fu

Cuba

Mr. Jesfis Jimenez, Mr. Carlos Morales

Czechoslovak Socialist Republic

Mr. Jan Mu~ik, Mr. Lud@k Handl

Ghana

Mr. J.B. Wilmot, Mrs. A.Y. Aggrey-0rleans

Hungarian People’s Republic

Mr. Mikl6s Endreffy

Indonesia

Mr. Kahone Martohadinegoro

Israel

Mr. Reuven Hillel

Mongolian People’s Republic

Mr. Lutyn Chuluunbaatar

Philippines

Mr. Francisco Miel Rodriquez

Somalia

Mr. Mohamed Warsama

Sudan

Mr. All Sahloul, Mr. Mamoun Ibrahim Hassan

Sweden

Mr. Sixten Heppling, Mr. BSrje Billner, Mr. Lars Wettergren

Turkey

Mr. Aydemir Ko9

YugoslaviaA

Mr. Ante Skataretiko, Mr. ZoranLazarevi~ I

SPECIALIZED AGENCIES

International Labour 0rganisation

Mr. F. Blanchard, Mr. A.A. Shaheed, Mrs. M.E. Tanco de Lopez

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Mr. Pierre Terver~ Mr. Morris Greene

United Nations Educational~ Scientific and Cultural Organization

Mr. Paul Bertrand~ Miss Ruth Barrett

International Civil Aviation Organization

Mr. Hello Costa

~iWorld Health Organization

Dr. A. Bellerive, Dr. A. Mochi~ Dr. F. Portner

International Bank for Reconstruction and Development

Mr. Federico Consolo, Mr. Vincent Riley

International Monetary Fund

Mr. Gordon Williams

Universal Postal Uniom

Mr. Michael Rahi, Mr. Marcel Farine

INTEPAK&TIONALATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY

Mr. E.V. Piskarev~ Mr. Robert Najar

WORLDF00D PROGRAMME

Mr. Marc Nerfin

-91-

UNITED NATIONS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION

Mr. A.J. Aizenstat, Mr. E.G. Hernried~ Miss I. Krishnan, Miss F. Parce

UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Diego Cordovez

UNITED NATIONS INSTITUTE FOR TRAINING AND RESEARCH

Mr. Oscar Schachter, Mr. Offia Nwali

OFFICE OF THE UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR REFUGEES

Mr. Francisco Urrutia, Miss Ann Petluck

INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK

Mrs. Beatriz Harretche, Mr. Dirceu L. Loutinho

SECRETARIAT

United Nations Development Programme

Mr. Paul G. Hoffman, Administrator;Mr. David Owen~ Co-Administrator;Mr. Roberto Heurtematte, Associate Administrator;

Mr. Myer Cohen~ Assistant Administrator and Director,Bureau of Operations and Programming;

Mr. Rajendra Coomaraswamy, Assistant Administrator and Director,Bureau of External Relations, Evaluation and Reports; I

Mr. Karol Kraczkiewicz, Assistant Administrator and Director,Bureau of Administrative Management and Budget;

Mr. Paul-Marc Henry~ Assistant Administrator and Associate Director~Bureau of Operations and Programming;

Mr. R.B. Stedman, Director, Division of Financial Management andAdministrative Policy, Bureau of Operations and Programming;

Mr. Yuri Filippov, Director, Technical Assistance Operations,Bureau of Operations and Programming;

Mr. Georges Dumontet, Secretary of the Governing Council

Department of Economic and Social Affairs

Mr. Victor Hoo, Commissioner for Technical Co-operation;Miss Julia Henderson, Associate Commissioner for Technical Co-operation

and Director, Office of Technical Co-operation.

1-92-

ANNEX II

~Se OF U~OP (SP~IAL ~] ~ APPROVED BY ~m~,c, ovm~n~G c~om~c~i~,-~--~:~m ~ ~Io~

(1) (ii) (ITT) (IV) (V)Estimate of local

Estimate ofoperating costs

Estimated to be paid byParticipating Governing Governmer~ total cost Government(s) andDp/~F/R.5 Country Project title and executing Council counterpart of project included in GoverningAdd. agency earmarking contribution Council earmarking(column II)

~s Sus Sus Sus

I Afghanistan Establishment of a Water Management United Nations I,&16,200 1,020,000 2,&36,200 154,900

Department

2 Afghanistan Kunduz-Khanabad Irrigation Feasibility FAO 67Z,100 289,000 960,100 57,400

Study

3 Algeria Centre for Industrial and Technological UNIDO 820,700 629,000 i,~9,700 85,100

Studies

Algeria Forestry Development and Management FAO 1,109,800 800,000 1,909,.8OO 89,&OO

5 Algeria Manpower Organization and Planning ILO 576,100 995,000 1,571,100 63,700

6 Argentina Intensification of Animal Production, FAO 1,O63,700 5,006,000 6,069,700 90,500

Anguil

7 Australia Transport Survey in Papua and New Guinea IBRD 489,600 107,000 596,600 35,800

8 Bolivia Animal Health Programme, OveJuyo-La Paz FAD 945,400 1,769,O00 2,71~,4OO 83,900

9 Bolivia Experimental Production Plant for Asbestos UNIDO 527,500 237,000 76~,500 19,200

Processing, Cochabamba

lO Bolivia Groundwater Development in the Altiplano United Nations 1,~79,8OO 1,159,0OO 2,638,800 117,200

ll Botswana Pre-lnvestment Survey of Utilities for IBRD 383,~O~ 624,000 l, OO7,&00 -

Mining Development

12 Brazil Mogiana Agricultural Diversification FAO 958,900 1,350,000 2,308,900 107,3OO

13 Bulgaria Central Institute of Public Health, Sofia WHO 1,272,~00 8,5&6,0OO 9,818,~OO 56,~00

I~ Burma Development of the Sittang River Valley United Nations 2,179,200 1,O96,O00 3,275,200 157,0OO

15 Burundi Mineral Survey United Nations 962,300 212,0OO 1,174,3OO 58,~00

a_/ Includes an amount of $125,OO0 for preliminary operations under the Revolving Fund approved by the Governing Council at its fourth session in June 1967.

ANNEX II (continued)

(1) (n) (nl) (iv) (v)Estimate of localoperating costs

Estimate of Estimated to be paid byParticipating GoverningGoverrm~nt

DP/SF/R.5 Country Project title and executing Council total cost Goverr~aent(s) andAdd. agency earmarking counterpart of project included in Governingcontribution Council earmarking

(coltmln II)

Sus Sus ~us ~us

16 Cambodia Flood Warning System UNESCO 130,000 26,000 156,000 8,&O0

17 Cameroon Centre for the Development of iLO 1,143,400 870,000 2,013,4CO 125,800Co-operatives

18 Cameroon Rurally Oriented Primary Teacher Training UNESCO 1,701,3~ 3,572,000 5,273,300 183,700Institute, Yaounde

19 Central African Road Feasibility and Road Maintenance IBRD 359,500 42,000 401,500 20,000Republic Study

20 Ceylon National Economic Progra~ and Planning United Nations 1,942,i0 c~ 806,000 2,7A8,100 232,500

21 ~ Chile Training and Research Institute for FAO 982,000 1,671,000 2,653,000 91,80~Agrarian Reform, Santiago (Phase II)

’~ 22 Chile Training of Educational Administrators, UNESCO 1,294,600 1,380,000 2,674,600 ]22,900Supervisors and Specialists, Santiago

23 China Sewerage Planning in the Greater Taipei WHO 517,400 517,000 1,034,400 ~3,100Area

21+ Colombia Institute for Technological Research, DIC~DO 760,700 1,003,000 1,763,700 67,300Bogota (Phase II)

25 Congo Rural Development Programme ILO 1,399,500 960,000 2,359,500 105,800(Brazzaville)

26 Congo Secondary School Teacher Training UNESCO 1,302,300 3,479,000 4,781,300 137,200(Brazzaville) Institute, Brazzaville (Phase II)

27 Congo (Democratic Mineral Resources Survey in the Bas-Congo United Nations 864,200 603,000 1,467,200 70,700Republic of)

28 Cyprus Hotel and Catering Institute, Nicosia ILO 862,100 1,175,000 2,037,100 83,600

29 Dahomey Strengthening of the Geological and United Nations 495,400 233,000 728,400 38,400Mining Service

, ,,

b~ Includes an amount of $175,000 for preliminary operations under the Revolving Fund approved by the Governing Council at its fourth session in June 1967.

c~ Includes an amount of $275,000 for preliminary operations under the Revolving Fund approved by the Governing Council at its fourth session in June 1967.

II (continued)

(I) (n) (nI) (Iv) (v)Estimate of localoperating costs

Participating Governing Estimate of Estimated to be paid byDP/SF/R’5 Country Froject’,~itle and executing Council Government total cost Government(s) and

Add. agency earmarking counterpart of project included in Governingcontribution Council earmarking

(columm If)Sus Sus Sus Sus

30 Dominican Faculty of Engineering, Madre y UNESCO 912,600 i,~96,000 2,~08,600 80,100Republic Maestra University, Santiago

31 Ethiopia General Road Study IBRD 330, 900 55,000 385,900 17,600

32 Ethiopia School for Animal Health Assistance, FAO 991,500 808,000 1,799,500 iO8,~00Debrs Zeit (Phase II)

33 Ethiopia Work-Oriented Adult Literacy Project UNESCO 1,5~6,500 2,O57,000 3,643,500 161,~OO

3& Gabon Forest Development FAO 1,3&8,200 798,000 2, l&6,200 106,200

35 Ghana Increased Farm Production through FAO 1,188,400 I,ASO,OO0 2,638,~00 92,600Fertilizer Use

36 Honduras Forestry School at Salama FAO 938,200 1,009,000 1,947,200 8&,500(Province of Olancho)

I

37 India Design Centre for Electrical Measuring UNIDO 833,000 739, 0OO i, 572,000 71, BOOInstruments

38 India Nuclear Research in Agriculture IAEA i,~19,700 1,908,000 3,327,700 72,600

39 India Sheep and Wool Development in Eight States FAO 1,63~,300 3,245,000 ~,879,3OO 136,300

~0 Indonesia Telecommunication Training Centre, Bandung ITU 1,156,000 1,20~,000 2,360,000 65,800

41 Iran Geological Survey Institute (Phase II) United Nations 689,300 1,270,000 1,959,300 73,800

A2 Iran Public Service Reform and Train~ United Nations i, 651,700 8, 261,000 9, 912,700 192,900

~3 Iraq Animal Health Institute (Phase II) FAD 1,0A6,300 150,000 1,A96,300 lO&,OO0

AA Iraq Building Research Centre, Baghdad United Nations 570,&00 718,000 1,288,400 59,600

~5 Iraq Pilot Project in Soil Reclamation and FAO 203,800 350,000 553,800 22,100Irrigated Farming Development in theGreater Nussayib Area

&6 Ivory Coast National Centre for the Promotion of ILO 744+,800 526,000 1,270,8OO 85,000Co-operative Enterprises


(I) (Is) (nl) (iv) iv)Estimate of local

Estimate of operating costsParticipating Governing Government Estimated to be paid by

DP/SF/R.5 Country Project title and executing Council total cost Government(s) andAdd. agency earmarking counterpart

of project included in Governingcontribution Council earmarking

( coltmm II)

Sus Sus Sus Sus

47 Ivory Coast Transportation Survey IBRD 663,500 120,000 783,500 &9, 900

~8 Jamaica Food Crops Development and MarketingFeasibility Survey FAO llO, 400 137,000 2/+7,400 ll,300

~9 Kuwait Water Resources Centre, Kuwait City United Nations ~8,~00 i,~50,O00 2,018,~00 66,~00

50 Lebanon Civil Aviation Safety Centre, Beirut ICAO 991, 600 l, 260, O00 2, 251,600 72, OOO(Phase IS)

51 Lebanon Hydro-Agricultural Development FAO l, Oll,lOO 2,378,000 3,389,100 81,300

52 The Malagasy Fishery Development Project FAO 966,500 36&,000 1,330,500 58,100Republic

.~ 53 The Malagasy Preparation of a Power Development United Nations 58~,700 202,000 786,700 53,900Republic Programme and Related Training Activities

5~ The Malagas7 Supplementary Assistance to Surveys of the United Nations 245,500 129,000 37~,500 14,600Republic d_/ Mineral and Groundwater Resources of

Southern Madagascar

55 l lalaysia Forest Industries Developnent FAO 1,221,800 95&,000 2,175,800 121,800

56 ~li Practical Rural Training Centros lid 1,3~8,100 A, 51~,000 5,862,100 151,200

57 Mongollan People’s Expansion of Meteorological and MMO 1,O39,100 2,622,000 3,661,100 &O,~00Republic Hydrological Services

58 Mongolian People ’ s National Industrial Vocational Training ILO 968,300 6, 561,000 7, 529,300 88, 800

Republic Scheme

59 Morocco Centre for the Collection and Analysis of FAO 17~,OOO 292,000 466,000 15,100Data on Agricultural and Rural DevelopmentProjects

60 Morocco Forestry Education and Training FAO 1,051,700 887,000 1,938,700 lO~,OO0

61 ~<orocco National Leather and Textile Institute, 1LO 395,900 900,000 1,295,900 ~9,800Fez (Phase II)

d~ An allocation of $1,000,800 for this project was originally approved by the Special Fund’s Governing Council at its tenth session in June 1963.See document SF/R.7/Add.23.


(i) (if) (zlz) (iv) (v)Estimate of localoperating costsEstimate of Estimated to be paid byParticipating Governing GovernmentDP/SF/R.5 Countr~ Project title and executing Council total cost Government(s) andcounterpart of project included in GoverningAdd. agency earmarking contribution Council earmarking

(column II)

~us ~us ~us ~us

76 Sudan Higher Teacher Training Institute, UNESO0 877,700 266,000 I, iA3,700 81,200Omdurman (Phase II)

77 Sudan Post and Telegraph Training Centre, ITU 913,~OO 850,000 1,763,~00 90,400Kha.rtoum (Phase II)

78 (Doqumen~ withdrawn)

79 Syria Agricultural Development o£ the FAO 1,313,900 l,llO, OO0 2,423,900 113,100Ghab Region (Phase II)

80 Thailand Management Consultancy Training, Bangkok ILO 379,800 232,000 591,800 40,600

81 Togo Development of Forest Resources FAO 877,200 58~,000 i,~57,200 57,400

82 Trinidad and Seismic Survey in the Marine Area Unitea Nations 617,100 97,000 71A,1OO 20,600Tobago between Trinidad and Tobago

83 Tunisia Development of Co-operative Enterprises ILO 146,600 231,0QO 377,600 1A,400

84 Turkey In-Plant Training Centre for EngLueers, UNIDO 1,420,300 3,000,000 4,420,300 108,000Kirikkale

85 Turkey Small Industries Development Progrmmne UNIDO 962,800~/ 1,240,000 2,202,800 86,~00

86 United Arab Animal Health Institute (Phase II) FAO 961,&00 654,000 1,615,400 90,700Republic

87 United Arab Demonstration Pesticide Production Plant UNIDO 1,053,600 1,253,O00 2,306,600 12,200Republic based on Chlorine and Bromine Resources

88 U~ited Arab Institute of Small Industries, Giza~ lid 5A4,600 1,700,0OO 2,2/~4,600 54,000Republic (Phase II)

89 United Kingdom Development of Forests and Forest Industries FAO 238,400 200,000 438,~00 23,&00(Fiji)

90 United Kingdom Fishery Development Project FAO 396_!,900 504,000 900,900 Al,A00(Mauritius)

Includes an amount of ~3,000 for preliminary operations under the Revolving Fund approved by the Governing Council at its fourth session in June 1967.

V

II (continual)

(I) (II) (III) (IV) (%’)

Estimate of local

Estimate of operating costsParticipating Governing

Government Estimated to be paid byDP/SF/R.5 Country Project title and executing Council total cost Government(s) andAdd. counterpartagency earmarking of project included in Governingcontribution Council earharking(columm II)

Sus $us $us Sus

62 Nicaragua Investigation for the Development of FAD i, O00, i00 i, 551,000 2, 551, I00 83,400Forest Resources in the Northeast

63 (No recos~nenda¢ion was issued under thiss~m~ol)-

64 Pakistan Telecommunication Staff College at Haripur ITU 894,600 2,461,000 3,355,600 59,000(West Pakistan)

65 Peru Livestock Production and Health in the FAO 1,124,~00 2,175,000 3,299,~00 90,900Sierra and Selva

66 Philippines Strsngtheaing Agricultural Training at UNESCO 1,185,7~ 957,000 2,1A2,700 105,200Central Luzon State University

67 Republic of Korea Coastal Fishing Training Centre, Pusan F~ 1,117,6OO i,$59,0OO 2,576,600 49,100

’ 68 Republic of Korea Fishery Advisory Services FAO 121,100 35,000 156,100 i0,~00

69 Romania Plant Breeding and Seed Production, FAO 1,377,200 5,80%000 7,177,200 86,700Fu/idulea

70 Senegal Rural VocaZional Training Progra~ne (Phase II) IL0 1,309,900 1,269,000 2,578,900 137,000

71 Singapore Fishery Training Centre FAD 1,261,900 I,~81,000 2,7~2,900 68,A00

72 Singapo~/ Establishment of a Metal Industries Develop- ILO 696,&00 1,211,000 1,907,400 &9,200ment Centre through Supplementary Assistanceto the Foundry Demonstration and Service Unit

73 Singapore Technical Teacher Education and Vocational UNESCO 1,088,200 1,948,000 3,036,200 97,700Training

74 Somalia Mineral and Groundwater Survey (Phase II) United Nations 776,600 977,000 1,753,600 60,000

75 Somalia~/ Training School for Animal Health FAO 158,200 37A,000 532,200 15,500Assistants~ Mogadiscio (SupplementaryAssistance)

e/ Includes an amount of $109,800 for preliminary operations under the Revolving Fund approved by the Governing Council at its fourth session in June 1967.

f_/ An allocation of $4~,700 for this project was originally approved by the Governing Counc~ at its fourth session in June 1967. See docent DP/SF/R.&/Add.44.

An allQcatlon of ~i,021,000 for this project was originally approved by the Governing Council at its second session in June 1966. See document(DP/SF~.2/A~d.&3).


(1) (ii) (nl) (~) (v)Estimate of localoperating costs

Participating Governing Estimate of Estimated to be paid byDP/SF/R.5 Country Project title and executing Council

Government total cost Government(s) andAdd. agency earmarking

counterpart of project included in Governingcontribution Council earmarking

(column If)SUS SUS SUS SUS

91 United Kingdom Land and Water Resources Survey (Phase II) FAO ~06,~00 171,O00 577,&00 &6,500

(Mauritius)

92 Upper Volta Agricultural Training Centre, Matourkou FAO 1,129,500 1,243,0OO 2,372,500 99,000

(Phase IX)

93 Uruguay Veterinary Investigation Service, FAO 1,1~9,000 2,215,000 3,36A,000 95,300

Rubino Institute, Pando

9~ Zambia Detailed Mdmeral Exploration West of United Nations 739,000 7&6,000 i,~85,000 62,600

Broken Hill

95 Zambia Luangwa Valley Conservation and Development FAO 1,056,~00 2,679,000 3,735,~00 99,500

96 Zambia Natior~l Industrial Vocational Training ILO 1,256,300 2,168,000 3,42~,300 131,300

Scheme!

Development of Agricultural Research in FAO i, 850, 6~ 788,000 2, 638,600 137, 20097 Regional(Guinea, Mali, the Senegal River BasinMauritania andSenegal)

98 (Document withdrawn)

Pre-Investment Study for the Inter-American ID~ 955,~00 ~75,000 l,~30,&O0 63,90099 Re~unal(Arge~tlna, Telecommunications NetworkBolivia, Brazil,Chile, Ecuador,Paraguay, Peruand Uruguay)

i00 Regional Pan-American Programme for Health Planning WHO 1,978,900 3,153,000 5,131,900 226,800

Chile, C@!o__m~. a, CostaR~@aj ~mdor# E1 Salvador,.~ndur~ Nioar~Panama and Peru)

i~ Includes an amount of $200,000 for preliminary operations under the Revolving Fund approved by the Governing Council at its fourth session in June 1967.

~/ An Emecuting Agency.


(I) (n) (mi (iv) (v) .......Estimate of local

Participating Governing Estimate of operating costsDP/SF/R.5 Country Project title and executing Council Government Estimated to be paid by

Add. total cost Government(s) andagency earmarking counterpart

contribution of project included in GoverningCouncil earmarking

(column II)

Sus Sus $~s Sus

I01 (No recon~endation was issued underthis symbol)

102 Ke~ Supplementary Assistance to Mineral United Nations 65,~00 22,000 87,~00 7,200Resources Survey in Western Kenya

103 Lebano~ Supplementary Assistance to Groundwater United Nations 221,000 240,000 ~61,000 20,600Survey

lOA Greece Forest Industries Feasibility Studies FAD 301,900 410,000 711,900 23,300

TOTALS 91,122,200 137,195,000 228,317,200 7,779,800

8

An allocation of $539,900 for this project was originally approved by the Special Fund’s Governing Council at its eleventh session in January 1964.See document SF/R.8/Add.~.

An allocation of $816,600 for this project was originally approved by the Special Fund ls Governing Council at its eight session inMay 1962.See document SF/R.5/Add.16.

ANNEX III

COUNTRY AND REGIONAL TARGETS APPROVED BY THE GOVERNING COUNCIL ATITS FIFTH SESSION UNDER THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMPONENT OF UNDP

A. Country targets

Country US Dollars Country US Dollars

Afghanistan 925~000 Ghana 525,000Albania 60,000 Gilbert and Ellice Islands 45,000Algeria 775,000 Grand Cayman 25,000Antigua 45,000 Greece 260,000Argentina 450,000 Grenada 35~000Bahamas 50,000 Guatemala 275,000Barbados 95,000 Guinea 450~000Bolivia 600,000 Guyana 200,000Botswana 250,000 Haiti 200~000Brazil 800,000 Honduras 240,000British Honduras 100,000 Hungary 100,O00Bulgaria 175,000 India 2,500,000Burma 850,000 Indonesia 1,300,000Burundi 385,000 Iran 850,000Cambodia 500,000 Iraq 520,000Cameroon 490,000 Israel 120,000Central African Republic 285,000 Ivory Coast 325,000Ceylon 585,000 Jamaica 225,000Chad 385,000 Jordan 400,000Chile 500,000 Kenya 550,000China, Republic of 300,000 Korea, Republic of 275,000Colombia 525,000 Kuwait 50,000Comoro Islands 45,000 Laos 485,000Congo (Brazzaville) 225,000 Lebanon 275,000Congo, Democratic Republic of 775,000 Lesotho 225,000Costa Rica 175,000 Liberia 275,000Cuba 300,000 Libya 400,000Cyprus 125,000 Madagascar 450,000Dahomey 310,000 Malawi 425,000Dominica 35,000 Malaysia 600,000Dominican Republic 400,000 Maldive Islands 50,000East African Common Mali 450,000

Services Organization 200,000 Malta 125,000Ecuador 510,000 Mauritania 200,000E1 Salvador 220,000 Mauritius 200,000Ethiopia 750,000 Mexico 575,000Fiji 100,000 Mongolian People’s Republic 205,000French Antilles 25,000 Montserrat 35,000Gabon 215,000 Morocco 625,00@Gambia 150,000 Nepal 550,000

-lOl-

Country US Dollars Country US Dollars

Netherlands Antilles 25,000 St. Lucia 35,000New Hebrides 30,000 St. Vincent 35,000Nicaragua 210,000 Sudan 585,000Niger 375,000 Surinam 50,000Nigeria 1,100,O00 Swaziland 175,000Pakistan 1,350,0OO Syria 525,000Panama 190,0OO Tanzania 780,000Papua and New Guinea 50,000 Thailand 720,000Paraguay 375,000 Togo 385,000Peru 500,000 Tonga 35,000Philippines 600,000 Tortola 25,000Poland 180,OOO Trinidad and Tobago 190,000Romania 175,000 Tunisia 485,000Rwanda 375,000 Turkey 650,000Suadi Arabia 270,000 Uganda 450,000Senegal 360,000 United Arab Republic 825,000Seychelles 40,000 Upper Volta 410,000Sierra Leone 285,000 Uruguay 225,000Singapore 200,000 Venezuela 350,000Solomon Islands 75,000 Viet-Nam, Republic of 362,500Somalia 730,000 Western Samoa 125,000Southern Yemen, People’s Yemen 362,500

Republic of 75,000 Yugoslavia 325,000St. Kitts 35,000 Zambia 360,000

TOTAL 45,385,000

B. Distribution of total provision for regional targets

US Dollars US Dollars

UN 1,515,000 UPU 95,000

ILO 944,000 ITU 405,000

FAO 2,214,000 WMO 349,000

UNESCO 1,506,000 IMCO 67,000

ICAO 564,000 IAEA 268,000

WHO 1,307,000 UNIDO 408,000

TOTAL 9,640,000

-102-

united nations development programmeweb.undp.org/execbrd/archives/bluebooks/1960s/e-4451.pdfhr....

Documents