text: 160.TheDirector ofthepolicy, Programming andDevelopment Planning Division, representing theDepartment, pre~ented asummary ofrecenttechnical co-operation programme levelsanddelivery rates. Remarking onthedecline intheannuallevel ofprogramme delivery whichbeganin1982andcontinued through 1984,hestated thatthedelivery ratein1984fortheapproved budgetfortechnical co-operation projects hadbeen,nonetheless,higherthanthatfor1983,whichheattributed to benefits deriving fromthereorganization oftheDepartment inmid-1983. Evenso, heacknowledged thattheDepartment hadbeenunabletomeetallitsexpenses in1984outofthereimbursements ofprogramme support costs(overhead) received on delivery, butheexpressed confidence thatthedelivery ratewouldimprove. 2.Discussion 161.Inthegeneral discussion, onedelegation observed thatalthough thenumberof extrabudgetary postshaddeclined considerably since1982,thenumberofregular budgetpostsintheDepartment hadremained relatively constant. Inregardtothe comprehensive reviewoftheDepartment currently underwayandexpected tobe. completed shortly, asnotedinparagraph 7.6,another delegation wantedtoknowif theconclusions ofthatreviewwouldhaveanimpactontheprogramme budgetunder consideration. Onedelegation considered thatsection 7shouldcontain an accounting ofthework-months scheduled foreachconsultant intheprogramme. The representative oftheOfficeforProgramme Planning andCo-ordination replied that theongoing reviewoftheDepartment wouldcoveronlyorganizational and operational aspects andwould,therefore, nothaveaneffectontheprogramme bUdgetoftheDepartment. Therepresentative oftheDepartment indicated with regardtotheissueofwork-months thatconsultant feesweresetonthebasisof theproduct delivered andnotadetermined contractual period. 162.Somedelegations notedthat,inrealterms,theactivities undertaken bythe Department haddeclined severely in1982.Theynotedthatifextrabudgetary resources hadnotlDaterialized, regUlar budgetary resources shouldbeutilized as required. Theyalsonotedthat,takingintoaccountallrelevant conditions, the rateofgrowthinsection 7oftheproposed programme budgetwasinflated. One delegation notedthatthepostsforwhichresources wereallocated fromtheregUlar bUdgetundersection 7hadremained constant overthepastthreebiennia andthat theproposals forthecurrent biennium involved anincrease ofeightposts. This wasconfirmed bytherepresentative oftheOfficeforProgramme Planning and Co-ordination. Oneotherdelegation remarked ontheinadequacy ofthe justification forthetransfer ofextrabudgetary poststotheregular budget: the Secretary-General haddecided totransfer thepostsonbudgetary grounds andhad onlysubsequently soughttojustify thedecision onprogrammatic grounds. Thesame delegation observed that,sincesupport costearnings wereprojected torise considerably inthebiennium 1986-1987, therewasnoneedforadditional funding. -32- ...:.1__.;"_, (a 163.On progra viewth ofthe subprog thatif should progra thedel progra 30per torepe appropr (b 164.On extrabu otherwi theDep respons' unders support (c) 165.Reg proposed should n instead resource requirem thegrou subject BudgetD possibil anysavi Statesi maintain theuse although develop forthat 166.It (Selecti oftheI overlap co-ordin Affairs) programm orwould, (a)PolicyandprogrammingI. 163.Onedelegation questioned thelargeamountofresources setasidefor programme element 1.1(Substantive support tolegislative bodies) andexpressed the viewthatresources forthatactivity werehighincomparison withothersections ofthebudget. Hesuggested thatsomeoftheresources couldbeshifted from subprogramme 1(Policy planning andco-ordination) tosubstantive activities and thatiftherewasafurther decline inextrabudgetary resources, cutsinresources shouldbemadeinthatsubprogramme. Regarding theallocation ofresources tothe programme, therepresentative oftheDepartment acknowledged thattheappraisal of thedelegation wassubstantially correct andthatalowerallocation ofthe
analysis: The text appears to be discussing the budget and programming of a department or organization, specifically the allocation of resources and the justification for certain decisions. The language used is technical and bureaucratic, suggesting that the topic is likely related to government or international development. The discussion of "programme delivery rates" and "extrabudgetary resources" further supports this hypothesis.