text: on the implementation of the programme budget and the use of the contingency fund. 33. Mr. ETUKET (Uganda) said he had no major objection to the procedure suggested by the Chairman. He simply wished to include in the decision the question of the redeployment of human resources between the three units of the secretariat. He also did not understand why the Chairman intended to replace the revised statement of the programme budget implications. 34. Mr. ELGHOUAYEL (Tunisia) recalled that paragraph 14 of General Assembly resolution 44/228 (section II) stated explicitly that the financing of the preparatory process and of the Conference itself should not adversely affect other ongoing activities. In his view the Committee should pay due attention to that paragraph, in the light of the recommendations of the Advisory Committee. 35. Mr. GUPTA (India) said he hoped that the decision envisaged by the President included re-examination of the proposed staffing of the three units comprising the ad hoc secretariat. For greater clarity it would be useful to transmit the proposed text to delegations in writing. 36. The CHAIRMAN said that the text of the final decision would be more substantial. At the current stage he simply wanted assurance that the step he had suggested met with general agreement. 37. Mr. GOMEZ (Controller) said that the statement of programme budget implications had been established in accordance with the budgetary procedure and operating methods of the contingency fund, which was an integral part of the regular budget. The appropriations required for funding the Conference and its preparatory process would be made in December 1990, taking into account the possibilities of redeployment and the obligation not to affect ongoing activities adversely. The Fifth Committee would then have before it a detailed report which would take into account its observations and the recommendations of the Advisory 
analysis: The text appears to be discussing the budget and financing of a conference or preparatory process, and the allocation of resources within the secretariat. The language used is formal and bureaucratic, suggesting a focus on administrative and organizational matters.