Criteria for assessing contributions by member states

■ \ ?<*

ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR AFRICA

Inaugural Meeting of the Executive Board of the African Regional Centre for Engineering Design and Manufacturing

Cotonou, Benin, 6 April 1979

Distr:

Limited

ECA/IKR/EXB/5 25 January 1979 Original: ENGLISH

CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING CONTRIBUTieNS BY MEMBER STATES

M79-357

ega/ikr/exb/5

criteria for assessing cobtributiqns bt me*©u* states

1. ^at'ever otiier 'sources, of financing may materialize, it must be Stressed "that1 the

African Governments must accept fundamental responsibility'for financing the activities

cf the ; Centre.., It ..is expected* therefore, that the member States of the Centre wili come

to an agreement .concerning tijel.sharing of 'expenses by working out a formula' 'to 'govern .*

the '.regular "contributions, eacto :G6vernmerit would'make. This practice of scaring esepenses is familiar to/^tii^tco.untries which .are'demberis,bf the Unitied Rations* vOAU» ADS and '■'' niany oih'er org;an£zation^ which are financially supported by participating Goverrmi^nts.

Reponsibilities of the host country

2. In considering the-provision of funds, especially capital funds, for the Centre it should also be expected that the location of the Centre will have significant impact on the budget, in the sense that the host country must be prepared to assume much greater responsibility. The host country must regard the Centre, not as a gift, but as a mark of trust and responsibility towards the other member States. Thus enough material and financial support must be forthcoming from the Government of the host country to enable the Centre to, at least, get started on schedule.

3. It is of immediate importance that a decision should be taken on the provision of funds for the regular budget of the Centre for the first two years, estimates for

which are given in this report.

Alternative formulae for assessing contributions

*•■• OAU formula: The secretariat is proposing that the! Executive Board should adopt, possibly on a provisional basis, the scale of assessment approved by the QAU Assembly of Heads of State and Government in 1977 (See attachment) for contributions by member States of the Centre towards its regular budget. However, each country1s percentage contribution vrithin the OAU scheme, will have to be recalculated in order to bring out the corresponding percentage contribution applicable to the Centre's membership

composition and cize. This difficulty with this formula is that it may exaggerate the assessment for some members of the Centre. A basis for determining contributions different from the QAU scheme would therefore be desirable in the long-term, given also the different structures and functions of the tvo organizations.

5. Guaranteed minimum contributions: In the light of the points discussed above, the ECA secretariat wish to propose that the budget of the Centre be drawn upon the basis of guaranteed minimum contributions by member States which would ensure that the per formance of the Centre would live up to the expectation of it. It is thus advisable that each member State should make a practical financial commitment and willingly pledge its guaranteed minimum contribution in advance. As membership expands the burden of the budget on the founding members will accordingly be reduced pari pasu.

6. , Contributions on basis of. equal shares: Unlike such organizations as the UN or the QAU^the.Efcg^eerihg Design peritte is intended td operate primarily.;.&£ jause^yice .

institution' whose benefits inusit'be1 distributed ^to members^ not according \<o country ■'-•■*

size, but according to'requirements which, in Africa/ do hot differ greatly from • ■«

country to country/ Thus, depending or; the size of membership in the Centre^. contribu tions to the latter1 s regular budget cculd be provided on basis of distributing shares

of equal value to each member State l/« This would constitute the guaranteed minimum

contribution referred to above, in terras of a fixed regular sum*

7* Furthermore, the Centre could, in addition, be authorized to ask the members to take more voluntary shares* even though this would not entitle a country to extra voting rights in the Council. If the. amount contributed cannot be spent in the first year, it could go into the following year expenditure* At least the formulated proposed here could be applied in such a way as to ensure that the Centre will continuously have the money to perform all tts functions as expected of it*

1/ For a model scheme, let us assume there are ten (10) member States. Taking into

account the Centre's estimated regular budgetfor the-first two years of US*(l,219,828 +

2,2459536) - US&3,525,364> and assuming that whatever is given by UNDPf UNIDO, etc, is put into capital fund? each member State could then be allocated an equal share of about US*35O,OQO worth during that period*

Annex

Proposed scale of; contributions to the QAU

budget for financX!" ye5r~"l9{'fffi& and subsequent years

Co u n t r y

Total GDP in (thousands of US dollars)

Population in mid-1975 (thousands)

Per capita

(US dollars)

GDP

Broposed Contribution

(per cent)

Algeria Angola ■ Benin Botswana

.Burundi..- - Cameroon

Cape Verde1

Central African aspire Chad

Comoros Congo Egypt.

Ethiopia ■ "■ ''' [~:

Equatorial Guinea • Gabon

;Gambia Ghana Guinea

Guinea Bissau : Ivory Coast Kenya

Lesotho Liberia

Libyan Arab Jemahiriya Madagascar

Malawi Mali

Mauritania Mauritius Morocco Mozambique Niger Nigeria Rwanda

Sao Tome and Principe Senegal

Seychelles Sierra Leone Somalia Sudan Swaziland

6,267,162 1,552,229 210,162

281,833

-314,846 l,:-;:, 928 - 28,920

233,014

327,050

39,971 342,660 9,098,1+64

2,155,016

69,621

7^9,055 66,503 2,674,667 3^7,571

107,446

2,217,745

2,084,126

88,42?

516,343 6,178,538

917,245 510,904 327,143

235,415

278,170 ,,3

1,541,124 416,629

9,663,89?

159,167

23,508

590,143 21,693

588,210 320,454

1,826,456

206,626

15,590 5,750 3,690 3,760

6,97Q

1,980 4,030 310

1,349

37,230 27,950 310

519

516

9,870

530 r

6,740 13,400 i,o4o

1,567

2,440 7,520 5,040 5,700 1,320

885

11,250

9,060 4,600 62,930 4,200

4,985

79 60

2,750 3,170 17,760 490

4oe

270

68 40884

■ 96

193 11881

129

254 244 77 1,443225 129 27188

203

329

156

330

85

2,532 122 101

178

57 314243 170

15491 298

38

362118 214

101

103422

6.

2.

0.

1.

1.

15

36 54 96

CU54-. 86'

O.69

0.

0.

1.

7.2.

6.

0.

3-0.

0.

3.2, 0.

1.

10.

1,

61 50 35 5700

,6129 ,24,68 95

■ 13,28 .54,81

,00 0.83.23 0, 0.

1.

4, 1 0 7 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1

.54

.94

.55.30 .92 .72

.63

.50 .29

.96

.55 .37

.69

.85 .96

Annex

eca/ikr/epi/5

Page 2

Country

Togo Tunisia Uganda

tipper Volta ~ United Republic of

Tanzania Zaire ■.

Zambia .

Total

Total GDP in

(thousands

of US dollars)

213,6^7

2,28k, 86k 1,033,117 357,759

1,550,631

2,268,602 1,982,562

68,852,576

Population in mid-1975

(thousands)

2,220 5,582 11,550

' 6,030

15,160 2^,900 U,9oo

362,51^

i?er capita (US dollars)

GDP

U09

96

89

59

102

U05

91

12,552

Proposed Contribution

(per cent O.58 3.531.18 0.5k 1.6V 2,15 3.27 100.00

Source; "Report of the Administrative Secretary-General on the review of the QAU scale of assessment" (QAU document Cty/780 (XXVIII) Rev.l).

Note; Minimum and maximum contributions of 0.5 per cent and 10 per cent, respectively, have been laid down. The Comoros and Rwanda were assigned the minimum, and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,: the maximum contributions, with the balance being distributed among the remaining States.