I ~ I C N A L O ~ Z A T I O N S AND PKGMS

TABLE OF (xwrmrs

PAGE . Introduction .......................................... Sununary Table ......................................... UN Development Program ................................ UN Children's Fund .................................... International Furd f o r Agricultural Develcpment ....... International Atomic Energy Agency .................... Organization of American Sta tes

Development Assistance Programs .................. UN hvironment Program ................................ World Meteorolcgical Organization/

Voluntary Cocperation Program .................... International Convention and Sc ien t i f ic

Organization Contributions ....................... UN Capital Development Fund ........................... UN Elucational ard Training Program f o r

Southern Africa .................................. UNmO Investment Promotion Service .................... UN Trust Fund for South Africa ........................ Convention on International Trade i n ............................... Erdangered Species UN Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture ..............

This appropriation will support certain voluntarily funded development, humanitarian, and scientific assistance programs of the United Nations (UN) and the Organization of American States (as). It is but m e element in the continuing comnitment of the United States to emnanic and social development in the less developed countries, a goal explicitly identified as important by the Administration. In particular, this request reiterates our country's belief in the United Nations and fXS institutions. In the past, UN assistance programs have played an important catalytic role by providing relatively small, though significant, inputs to the development process in recipient countries. ~xpectations, however, must be limited as to what realistically can be achieved by the programs and activities.

PROGRAM SUMMARY (In millions of dollars)

The cantinued overriding need for austerity in the Federal budget has necessitated certain reductions in the account. Some programs in this account directly serve specific U.S. interests (nuclear non- proliferation, weather tracking, improvements in health, etc.) . Others contribute to more generalized U.S. interests (the need for a more open international economic system, the opportunity to wrk cooperatively with other nations, etc.). An effort has been made to distribute reductions in the account in a way that minimizes their impact on organizations that directly serve specific U.S. interests while protecting the leadership role the U.S. has played in others. In particular, we are watching closely those programs where there is evidence of progress toward reform and increased efficiency.

F Y 1986 Actual

266.4

Our objective this year remains one that emphasizes accountability and effectiveness. We have seen significant progress toward these goals during the last twelve months. Reforms are underway in the United Nations Development Program. The International Atomic Energy Agency played a remarkably useful role during the post-chernobyl nuclear disaster. UNICEF has wrked with alacrity in cost effective programs to decrease mortality and morbidity rates affecting the world's children. We have witnessed changes in attitude and programs in recognition of the role that freer markets and the private sector can play in achieving economic and political freedom. Nonetheless, much remains to be done and, we believe, the US must continue to play a lead role in these programs to assure additional mvement toward our goals.

Previous Page Blank 1 AID 370-3 18831

FY 1987 Estimated

237.3

FY 1988 R q u e n

194.0

Basic Interests

United States voluntary contributions to these UN and QAS programs provide the basis for US. efforts to improve their effectiveness and influence their substantive direction. US. contributions through this account:

--serve US. national interests that cannot be met through unilateral or bilateral action: e.g., mrld-wide weather data and improved weather forecasting as well as nuclear safeguards;

--encourage the acceptance of international re-sibilities by other nations;

--strengthen U.S. efforts to resist the expansion of technical assistance and other forms of program growth in the regular (assessed) budgets of international organizations.

--provide tangible d-stration of American support for humanitarian activities;

--serve to advance American ideals and ideas affecting the evolution of the international system and;

--complement U.S. bilateral assistance program, and serve U.S. purposes in areas too sensitive for, or outside the reach of, U.S. bilateral aid.

Examples of benefits derived from US. contributions include:

--US. interests in nuclear non-proliferation are directly served by the International Atanic Energy Agency's (IAEA) worldwide safeguards program which is reinforced through U.S. voluntary contributions under this heading. In addition, many of these support activities are conducted largely in US. facilities. IAEA demonstrated its crucial role in behalf of nuclear safety, following events in Chernobyl.

--World Meteorological Organization (W) efforts to strengthen the capacities of Central American and Caribbean states to monitor, collect, and disseminate weather data help protect American lives and economic interests through improved forecasting of hurricanes and other tropical disturbances affecting the Gulf States.

--The multilateral approach of the UN Environment Program (UNEP) and the Convention on International Trade in Endawered Species (CITES) is uniquely suited to dealing with global enviro~lental problems which typically transcend national boundaries. CITES facilitates conservation and protects endangered species against over-exploitation through international trade. UNEP has helped achieve the Convention for the Protection of the Natural Resources and Environment of the South Pacific Region and facilitated current negotiations for protecting the ozone layer.

--QAS - technical assistance programs are an important development component of the organization's overall activities and thus support its important security and peacekeeping functions. The technical assistance programs are clasely integrated with development programs of other international organizations to achieve an optimum division of labor.

--Financing projects that are smaller than those usually considered by other multilateral or bilateral financial institutions, the UN Capital Developnent Fund (WDF) helps recipients in the least developed countries to use improved appropriate technology in order to secure access to markets.

-qhe International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) directs activities primarily at smll farmers and the rural poor in fccd deficient countries through concessional loans and grants. As such, it stimulates greater opportunies for private initiative on the part of small farmers while improving U.S. relations with developing nations.

-qhe UNIDO Investment Prmtion Service brings together U.S. investors and develmina countrv investment ramt ti on officers. The * <

Investment Promotion Service offers investment promotion officers from developing countries first-hand knowledge of US. business and financial practices, thereby facilitating their dealings with potential investment partners from the U.S. private sector.

--US. contributions to the UN Educational and Training Program for Southern Africa (UNEPPSA) and the UN Trust Fund for South Africa (UNPFSA) provide tangible evidence of a U.S. camnitment to peaceful change in-Southern A£ rica and funding for many recipient stidents attending schools in the United States.

--The International Convention and Scientific Organization Contributions (ICXC) facilitate continued U.S. participation in certain international scientific conventions and activities serving U.S. danestic interests which formerly were flnded through U.S. participation in UNESCO.

--The UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) has continued to play a major role in addressing the many problems affecting children in the wrld. In addition to its theproven programs in water and sanitation and in primary health care, UNICEF has aggressively embarked on a major program thrust aimed at decreasing mortality rates for children. The program enphasizes the use of inexpensive technology, such as oral rehydration salts and vaccination, and well-organized social marketing technique: to achieve wide coverage.

--The UN Development Program (UNDP), with projects in mre than 150 countries and territories, serves as the central source of funds for UN technical assistance. Its programs are based upm a five-year Country Program that serves to identify each recipient's overall priorities. During the last 18 months, UNDP has pursued internal reforms to improve mnagernent and the quality and relevance of the

programs it finances. UNDP, with full US and other donor support, has also mved to plqy a mre effective role as field coordinator of technical assistance programs.

Developing country governments often have a strong voice in determining the overall direction of the multilateral programs. This can encourage self-reliance, but care must be taken to avoid an emphasis on the government's role which can stifle individual private initiative. Recipient country governments are required to provide substantial counterpart financing for these programs -- financing which encourages a sense of respcnsibility and accountability for their own develqment.

This method of providing assistance can serve to enhance those internal factors required for ultimate long-ten success in the development effort, provided that the emphasis is on using private initiative and institutions to encourage broad-based development throughout the econcmy rather than being oriented exclusively toward the public sector and overly dependent on government institutions as implementing agencies. It also helps to promote more collaboration and less confrontation in donor-recipient relationships. Many recipient countries consequently consider multilateral assistance prcgrams as acceptable means for stimulating internal policy reforms and even permit UNDP technical advisors to work in sensitive areas which are often not cpen to bilaterally funded program experts. In carrying out this role, UNDP's efforts are critical, especially those of in-country field staff to ccordinate with other aid agencies and assure consistency in confronting development problems and supporting appropriate development policies.

The inherent primary interaction of multilateral organizations with governments in programs such as these risks an undue enphasis on central government planning for development. It is US. policy to have more reliance placed on market forces and individuals which are the real engines for development. During the last year, we have witnessed mvement in this direction. The UN General Assembly adopted a resolution sponsored by the United States and a number of developed and developing countries calling on UN assistance agencies to encourage entrepreneurs and foster private initiative. More than twenty African countries, during the UN General Assembly Special Session on Africa, openly acknowledged past overreliance on government-administered systems and made commitments toward a higher role for market forces, pr'vate initiative, and sounder policies. A newly created Office of P i ivate Sector Affairs in UMlP and the UNIW Investment Promotion Service are additional examples of this new impetus.

In addi t ion to contr ibut ing to e c o n m i c growth and p o l i t i c a l s t a b i l i t y , these programs introduce Western- ideas and e x p e r t i s e which promote t h e economic s t imula t ion o f developing coun t r i e s along more pragmatic Western l i n e s r a t h e r than those o f t h e Marxist economic model. The long-term b e n e f i t s r e su l t ing from t h i s inculca t ion of Western e c o n m i c and s o c i a l p r i n c i p l e s and experience with them should not be underestimated.

Contributions to the vo lun ta r i ly funded programs gain added value f o r the money expended s ince they encourage i n t e r n a t i o n a l burden-sharing. Every d o l l a r cont r ibuted by t h e United S t a t e s buys t h i s country a leading role i n influencing programs which a r e financed by four o r f i v e d o l l a r s from o the r donors. I n i t i a l l y , most of the items in t h i s account were f d e d l a rge ly by the United S ta tes . Over t h e years , t h e i r value has been increas ingly recognized, a td more and more coun t r i e s a r e now contr ibut ing l a rge r and l a rge r shares.

INIFRWTICNAL OEGANIZATIONS 6 PFlCXWUS (Voluntary Contributions) Budget Authority ($000)

UN Developnent Program (UNDP) ............. UN Children's mud (UNICEF)............... International Fund fo r Agricultural

Development (IN)..................... International Atanic Energy Agemy (IAEA) . QAS Development Assistame Programs (QAS) . UN Environment Program (UNEP) ............. Wrld Meteorological Organization (W) ... International Convention and Sc ien t i f ic

Organization Contributions (ICSOC)..... ....... UN Capital Developnent Fund (UEDF) UN Educational and Training Program .......... fo r Southern Africa (UNETPSA) UNDO Investment Pramotion Service........ UN R u s t Fund fo r South Africa (UM'FSA) ... Convention on International Trade i n ............. hdargered Species (CITES) UN Voluntary Fund fo r Victims of Torture ...................................

World Food Program (WFP).................. UN Fellowship Program..................... UN In s t i t u t e fo r Namibia (UNIN)........... Wxld Heritage mud (WF)................. UN Center on Hcman Settlements (Habitat).. UN Development Fund fo r Women (UNIFDI) .... UNDP Trust Fund t o Ccmbat Poverty

and Hunger i n Africa ...................

FY 1986 Actual

FY 1987 Estimate

$107,500 51,080

28,710 20,500 13,500 6,800 2,000

2,000 861

789 150 250

172

86 1,818

100 110 219 400 219

---

FY 1988 Request

$90,000 30,000

26 , 600 22,300 14,250 4,800 2,000

1,200 1,000

800 500 250

200

100 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

g/ Public Law 99-190 appropriated $277,922 thousand. However, t h i s amount was redu by P.L. 99-177 (Gramm-Rudman-Hollings reduction of 4.3%) and P.L. 99-349.

w As appropriated i n Public Law 99-500.

Purpose: UNDP coordinates and funds UN technical assistance with enphasis on the poorest countries. It is the largest single source for grant multilateral technical assistance.

UNITED NATICUS DEVELDPMENT P r n W (UNDP)

PROGRAM SUMMARY (In millions o f dollars)

Back round: UNDP was established in 1965 through the UN General + Asse ly's decision to merge t w United Nations organizations: the Expanded Program of Technical Assistance (EPPA), set up in 1949, and the Special Fund which was set up in 1958 to provide pre-investment assistance to relatively large development projects. UNoP was created to improve the coordination and effectiveness of assistance that 35 UN Specialized Agencies and programs were providing. UNDP eqhasizes five types of project activities: (a) surveying natural resources and identifying industrial and comrciaLpotentia1: (b) stimulating capital investment: (c) vocational and professional skill training: (d) transferring appropriate technologies and enhancing recipient absorbtive capacity: and (e) promoting the coordination and integration of economic and social development efforts.

FY 1986 Actual

138.115

Governments provide voluntary contributions for the general resources of UNDP. The recipient developing countries supply 60 percent of required project resources through cash contributions, physical facilities and services, locally-procured supplies and the provision of counterpart personnel. Additional financing canes from third parties, e.g., governments co-financing special projects or programs which UNDP is funding from general resources.

In 1985, UNDP expenditures totaled $778 million for 5,275 projects, including the costs of 1,436 new projects in sane 150 countries and territories. Its coordinating role within the UN system permits a multi-sectoral approach to the needs of developing countries. Of its program resources, UNoP spends some 22% on agriculture, forestry and fisheries: 15.1% on emncmic and social planning for development: 12.8% on natural resources, exploration and exploitation: 12.4% on industry: and 11.9% on transportation and oommunication. UNDP complements the aid programs of the United States, the World Bank and other important donors. Although its annual program is d e s t in size, public and private follow-up investment well exceeds the UNDP contribution. In 1985, such cmitments amounted to $8.6 billion: in 1984 they were $9.4 billion.

FY 1987 Estimated

107.5

Through its 116 field offices and Resident Representatives, UNDP helps bost governments to define development goals and formulate cqrehensive development plans. UNDP's roundtable process provides prospective donors -- United Nations agencies, multilateral development banks and bilateral contributors -- with a forum to discuss a country's economic situation and development needs.

FY 1988 Request

90

AID 370-3 16-83)

U.S. Interests: The requested level of support reflects current economic realities and will mean that UNDP will start its Fourth Programing Cyole (1987-1991), if other contributions remain constant, with a sanewhat lower resource base than it is projected to have at the end of the current cycle. Nevertheless, the U S . will continue to lead efforts toward the timely implementation of recently adopted decisions to undertake major internal programming reforms. The 1985 Governing Council approved a program for the Fourth Cycle which will permit member governments to exert greater influence on operations and which will ensure that a greater share of resources go to the poorest countries. This program includes the precedent-breaking decision that requires countries with per capita GNPs above $3,000 in 1983 to reimburse UNDP for its technical assistance and the cost of local field offices. Of the 19 countries affected, two are in Eastern Europe and eight are members of OPEC. Another decision creates a 26-member group, including the United States, which will consider programing matters including quality, appropriateness, effectiveness and efficiency between the annual Council sessions.

U.S. support for UNDP is a visible indicator of our commitment to solving the problems of developing countries. Financing UNDP's development efforts helps the United States to resist expanded and proliferating funding for technical assistance through the assessed budgets of the UN Specialized Agencies. UNDP serves US. interests by promting international stability and helping to create an environment conducive to U S . trade and investment activities. Increased agricultural production and rural development are m n g the U.S. priorities reflected in UNDP-financed programming. The UNDP Administrator and many of his key subordinates currently are Americans. The U S . econany benefits from UNDP. In 1985, UNDP employed 770 U S . citizens, ordered more than $27 million in US. equipment, awarded $4.6 million in technical contracts to U.S. firms, and trained 1534 recipients of --funded fellowships in the U.S.

Other Donors: The United States pledge for FY 1986 was 17.8% of total contributions munting to $774 million. Other major pledges to the Program included: $63.6 million from Sweden (8.2%): $62.4 million from Japan (8.1%): $59.4 million from the Netherlands (7.7%): $57 million from Norway (7.4%): $46.4 million from Canada (6%).

FY 1988 Program: Council decisions on the fourth five-year Programing Cycle beginning in 1987 set realistic resource goals which will be reflected in more realistic planning levels. Graduation of richer developing countr+es to a wholly reimbursable financing arrangements plus judicious use of existing trust funds will help to shift scarce resources increasingly toward the least developed countries. Due to the continuing crisis in Africa, UNDP will focus attention on measures to overcome the problems of drought, desertification, famine, disease, shelter and fccd production. The UNDP adminsitration and Council members will give increased attention to iqxoving the quality of programs as well the pace of their implementation in the field.

Purpose: UNICEF encourages and assists the long-term humanitarian developnent and welfare of children in developing countries. UNICEF accomplishes this through educational programs which make governments, munities, and private groups aware of the plight of children and the possibilities for improving their situation. UNICEF also provides gods and services to help meet basic needs in maternal and child health, sanitation, clean water, nutrition, elementary education, and social services in support of self-help efforts. In disasters, UNICEF also provides emergency aid.

PROGRAM SUMMARY (In millions of dollars1

Background: The United Nations General Assembly created UNICEF in 1946 to aid the impoverished children left in the wake of World War 11. Although originally an emergency aid program, UNICEF evolved by 1953 into a long-term voluntary development fund aimed at improving conditions for the poorest children of the developing world.

F Y 1986 Actual.

51.494

UNICEF has programs in 118 countries. In its work, UNICEF cooperates closely with governments, private groups, and local communities in developing nations, and other aid donors to protect children and to enable them to develop their full mental and physical potential. Individual governments set their priorities as a result of studies of major needs, and UNICEF assists in implementing the mutually agreed upon projects.

UNICEF assistance includes both gads and expert services. All programs have a direct relation to the welfare of children and mothers. Some programs -- such as clean water and sanitation -- also benefit other members of the community. Projects are designed to maximize both the involvement of local communities and the use of equipment and materials which can be locally obtained and maintained. Such projects are frequently linked to resources from other bilateral and multilateral aid agencies, e.g., the UN Capital Development Fund a d the U.S. bilateral AID program.

FY 1987 Estimated

51.08

UNICEF assistance is allocated on a sliding scale according to such factors as the number of children, the wealth of the country, and, especially, the infant mrtality rate. Allocations are scaled so that the largest countries do not monopolize most of the assistance and the per-child allocation m n g countries of similar size favors the wrest countries which receive approximately 5 1/2 times as much per child as do the middle-income developing countries.

Fy 1988 Request

30.00

A/ Includes $5.35 million transferred from the Econcmic Support ~und-for ~ebanon to the IO&P account.

AID 370-3 18-83)

UNICEF has a small emergency assistance unit and continues to play a key role in many international relief efforts. For example, between 1979 and 1981, UNICEF had the lead role in the UN's Kampuchean emergency relief effort. In Lebanon, UNICEF played a key role in providing relief, and has continued to play an important role in providing rehabilitation assistance.

From the beginning UNICEF played an important role in the emergency drought relief efforts in Africa. UNICEF recently issued an appeal for $102 million for emergency assistance to sixteen countries in Africa. It has almost completed the process, approved by the UNICEF Executive Board in 1985, of strengthening its staffing in Africa (by shifting positions from other parts of the world) in order to be able to better cope with the continuing crisis.

U.S. Interests: UNICEF's approaches have generally been consistent with U.S. development assistance priorities. UNICEF complements and reinforces the u.S. bilateral assistance (e.9.. in December 1985 AID, in cooperation with UNICEF and W O , held the Second International Conference on Oral Rehydration Therapy - ICORP I1 - here in Washington as a follow up to the successful ICORP I held in 1983). Since the beginning of 1986, officers from AID, UNICEF, mO, PAHO, the Wrld Bank and UNDP have held a series of meetings, both in Washington and in New York, aimed at increased cwrdination of their several programs, especially in childhood immunization, oral rehydration therapy, and problems threatening progress mde in child survival.

Official U.S. support for UNICEF also conforms with the humanitarian ideals of the American people who have supported UNICEF generously through private donations over the years. U.S. participation enables the United States to serve hmitarian aims in some nations where direct bilateral assistance is not politically feasible or desirable. In these cases, multilateral aid often serves as an alternative to dependency on Soviet-bloc assistance and provides a Western-oriented presence. UNICEF also furthers U.S. political and humanitarian interests in the developing mrld by mobilizing assistance from public and private sources throughout the world for programs benefiting children and mothers. The position of UNICEF Executive Director (currently James F. Grant) has always been held by a U.S. citizen. In 1985, UNICEF spent almst $106.7 million in g d s and services in the United States.

Other Donors: The United States has been a leader in UNICEF since its inception and remains the largest single donor, accounting for 20.6% of the $250 million in governmental contributions to UNICEF General Resources in 1986. Other leading donors to general resources in 1986 included: Sweden - $31.1 million (12.4%): Norway - $21.9 million (8.7%); Italy - $21.6 million (8.6%) : Japan - $15.5 million (6.2%): Finland - $11.4 (4.6%).

FY 1988 Program: In the face of severe budgetary austerity, this request signals the continuing commitment of the United States to support the work of UNICEF, which complements and reinforces U.S. humanitarian initiatives and policies. Because the United States is not alone in facing such constraints, it is possible the UNICEF's resources may decline in 1988. Fortunately, UNICEF foresaw the need as early as 1981 to adjust to harsher econanic realities and undertook a restructuring of its operations to inprove program efficiency. A $30 million request will maintain the United States as one of UNICEF's largest donors, and assure continued U.S. leadership in UNICEF's Executive Board and influence on UNICEF policy. The United States will continue to urge UNICEF to realize administrative economies in order to protect its programs. Such economies will permit UNICEF to preserve the momentum of its highly effective Child Survival Revolution without reducing other essential programs such as water supply, sanitation, nutrition, education and social services.

PROGRAM SUMMARY (In millions of dollars)

FY 1987 Estimated

Purpose :

IFAD focuses international development assistance on increasing food production in the poorer developing regions. The Fund's activities are directed specifically at small farmers and the landless poor, through concessional loans and grants. In addition, IFAD has engaged the OPEC countries in a significant development effort with the mre traditional OED donors.

Background :

IFAD is a United Nations Specialized Agency created in 1977 with strong leadership of the United States. It is the only international financial institution in which the OPEC and OECD countries contribute and participate under conditions that approach equality. For the initial capitalization and first and second replenishments, the United States has pledged a total of $460 million to IFAD, while the other OECD donors have pledged $1 billion and OPEC $1.1 billion. The proportionate shares have been between 40% to 42% and 58% to 60% for the OPEC and OED donors respectively.

An additional special characteristic of IFAD is its tripartite structure, which divides voting strength in the Fund's Governing Council and Executive Board equally among OECD members (Category I) , OPEC members (Category 11) , and the developing countries themselves (Category 111). Relationships among IFAD'S members are constructive, with little political polarization. In practice, decisions have been made on the basis of consensus rather than actual votes.

U.S. Interests:

U.S. support for IFAD reflects the Administration's continuing commitment to programs that directly benefit needy people in developing countries. The A.I.D. Administrator is the United States Governor of the Fund. The United States is the only country which enjoys a pdnnanent seat on IFAD's Executive Board, the bcdy which approves prdjects and determines policy (all other countries must rotate on and off the 36-member Board). As a result of thiS permanent seat, the United States is always able to make its views known regarding the design of

A/ $18.7 million to IFAD's general (second replenishment) res&rces and $10 million to IFAD1s Special Program for Sub-Saharan African Countries Affected by Drought and Desertification.

I L AID 370-3 (8-83)

IFAD'S projects and to closely wnitor the consistency of IFAD's projects with the U.S. Government's own development objectives.

Program =us:

During its first nine years of operations (1978-86), IFAD funded 195 projects in 90 developing countries with a total value of over $2 billion. During 1986, IFAD approved 20 projects totalling approximately $122 million and 17 technical assistance grants totalling approximately $5 million.

IFAD is primarily a facilitating and co-financing institution. The fund co-finances more than two-thirds of its portfolio with other multilateral and bilateral institutions. The United States and other donors have encouraged co-financing as a means of engaging other international financial institutions increasingly in small fanner development activities. Many of IFAD's loans (43%) fund projects designed by other international lending institutions, chiefly the World Bank and the regional development banks.

Two-thirds of IFAD's resources are provided on "highly concessional" terms - 1% interest, with 50-year repayment and 10-year grace periods. These terms are available to countries with a GNP per capita of $450 per year or less. Countries with GNP per capita of $450 to $900 per year normally receive loans on "intermediate" terms - 4% interest, five years' grace and 20 years' repayment. A few loans have been made on "ordinary" term - 8% interest, 3 years' grace and 15-18 years' repayment, all to countries with GNP per capita of over $900 per year.

In developing its projects, IFAD closely studies the policy environment of a potential loan to identify potential obstacles to small-holder production. If host country policies discourage small farmer agricultural production (through controlled prices, state-owned marketing channels, etc.), IFAD will work with the recipient government to make the adjustments necessary for market-based incentives.

In addition to IFAD'S traditional development efforts, the Fund has launched a Special Program for Sub-Saharan African Countries Affected by Drought and Desertification. This special program seeks to generate an additional $300 million in voluntary contributions for a five-year (1986-1990) effort to rehabilitate the small farmer agricultural systems of countries most affected by drought and desertification. The United States has contributed $10 million toward this special program and other donors have thus far pledged or contributed approximately $190 million.

Management :

In 1986, IFAD's operating budget remained at its 1985 level of $27 million, financed principally from the interest earned on contributions of donors who pay in cash (mstly OPE donors). The United States' payments are always made in the form of a non-interest bearing letter of credit. Accordingly, the U.S. has paid virtually none of IFAD's -rating costs.

Project Features:

A large number of IFAD's projects carry a distinct "IFAD stamp" in terms of their poverty focus, target group orientation, and the direct participation of the beneficiaries themselves in the design and implementation of the project. Examples of IFAD's efforts can be found:

-- In Bangladesh, Nepal, Thailand and Pakistan, where small farmers were too often frozen out of credit systems for lack of formal collateral, but are now eligible for credit on the basis of group or even personal guarantees due to IFAD's efforts;

--In Guinea, where small holders are cultivating land which had previously been designated as state farms -- incremental rice production is expected to increase by 100% annually and coffee production by 530% annually;

--In Malawi, where nearly 10,000 farmers are actively participating in the implementation of the Dowa West Rural Development project through the formation of IFAD-sponsored farmers' clubs -- maize production alone is expected to increase by 330,000 tons as a result of IFAD's assistance;

-In Honduras, where farmers are getting credit and technical assistance through farmers' groups which have grown 100-fold in just four years -- introducing appropriate technologies such as the use of vegetable matter rather than expensive chemical fertilizers for their maize production.

Evaluation:

During the first four years of IFAD's operations, most of its mitoring and evaluation (M & E) activities centered around building M & E components into project design. Since 1984, mid-term evaluations have been made possible by the maturation of IFAD's project portfolio.

In 1986, a total of 56 M & E missions were undertaken for mid-term evaluations (16), completion evaluations (5) and M & E design and follow-up missions (35). In monitoring the performance of its projects, IFAD has found that 80% are progressing satisfactorily, of which 13% are exceeding appraisal targets for food production, income generation, and other proj'ect objectives. Another 9% of IFAD's ongoing projects are showing moderate implementation problems and 11% suffer from serious problems which are hindering the achievement of original project objectives.

A.I.D. assessed IFAD's project perfonance in 1985 with six teams of development experts visiting a total of 19 IFAD projects in all regions of the world. The A.I.D. examination found that IFAD'S projects are unique in that they begin by identifying a target group of particularly needy and disadvantaged people, assess the production constraints of this group, and design projects that will provide the inputs needed for enhanced food production or in- generation.

Replenishment:

The United States contributed $200 million to IFAD's initial capitalization, while other OED donors contributed $370 million and OPEC $435 million, for a total of just over one billion dollars. By late 1981, IFAD had fully committed these funds to loans and grants.

For IFAD's first replenishment, donors agreed in January 1982 to provide $1.07 billion during 1981-83. The United States share - $180 million (17% of the total) - was authorized in FY 1982 and appropriated over the FY 1983-85 period. Other OED members pledged $440 million, and the OPEC donors $450 million, although some of the OPE donors (Iran, Iraq and Libya) have not yet mpleted their contributions.

Negotiations on a second replenishment (IFAD 11: 1985-1987) reached a conclusion on January 23, 1986, after t w and one half years of deliberations. The agreement calls for a $460 million level of replenishment, of which the W D donors will contribute $276 million (60%) and the OPEC donors will cmtribute $184 million (40%) . The United States pledge amounts to $79.84 million or 17% of the total.

rnRNATIONAL ATDMIC ENERGY AGENCY mmi)

I. PROGRAM SUMMARY (In millions of dollarsl

Purpose: The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is a cent ra l element of international e f f o r t s t o prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Through its system of international safeguards, the IAEA provides assurance tha t nuclear material in peaceful developent programs is not diverted for non-peaceful purposes. The IAEA a l s o maintains an important program in nuclear sa fe ty and is the primary focal point for international cooperation in nuclear safety. U.S. voluntary contributions a re used in par t t o strengthen the IAEA's safeguards system in ways tha t improve its effectiveness and t o enhance the IAEA's a b i l i t y t o use the most advanced safeguards techniques and e q u i p n t available. U.S. voluntary contributions a re a l so used t o promote nuclear sa fe ty worldwide and t o encourage adherence t o and s u p p r t for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (Nm) and/or the Treaty of Tlatelolco by ass i s t ing nuclear projects in a number of developing countries t ha t a r e party t o these i n p r t a n t nuclear arms control t rea t ies .

FY 19868 Actual

Background: The IAEA's program of technical cooperation was in i t i a t ed in the l a t e 1950's to a s s i s t developing countries i n the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. A t present the IAEA is providing assistance in the form of nuclear training and e q u i p n t t o approximtely 80 of its 112 members. Thus, for many IAEA members, the IAEA's technical cooperation programs are the most important component of the IAEA's ac t iv i t i e s .

IAEA's technical cooperation a c t i v i t i e s include a nuclear safety component t o provide requis i te training and support for the safe handling of nuclear material. Nuclear safety-related a c t i v i t i e s a re being expanded a s a par t of international e f fo r t s t o enhance nuclear safety in the aftermath of the Chernobyl.nuclear reactor accident. This includes increased use of cost-free experts in nuclear safety.

F y 1987 Estimated

The U.S. Program Of Technical ~ s s i s t a n c e t o Safeguards (POTAS) was begun i n 1975 as a means t o a s s i s t the LAEA in the developent and continued implementation of the most effect ive safeguards system possible. The s ingle mosf impressive achievement of the programhas been the developent of d family of measurement instruments for the non-destructive assay of nuclear materials of many d i f fe ren t types and forms. These re l iab le , portable, microprocessor-assisted instruments have mde t ru ly credible safeguards possible. Without the a b i l i t y of the inspector t o make re l iab le , precise measurements in the f i e l d , effect ive safeguards would not be possible.

FY 1988 Request

AID 370.3 (8831

Another most important contribution to the program is the provision of cost-free experts to the IAEA. By mrking closely with the inspectors on a daily basis, these men and women have,made this major transfer of technology from the United States possible.

u.S. Interests: The United States historically has strongly supported the IAEA and its safeguards system, which serves critical U.S. security a d non-proliferation interests. Under Article I11 of the NET, all non-nuclear weapon states party to the Treaty (over 130) are required to accept IAEA safeguards on all nuclear material under their jurisdiction. Thus, the NFT and IAEA are inextricably linked as the cornerstones of international efforts to prevent the further spread of nuclear weapons. As part of U.S. efforts to maintain and strengthen these critical compments of the international non-proliferation regime, the United States implements its long-standing policy of providing preferential funding in nuclear assistance to NFT/Tlatelolco parties almost exclusively through the IAFA's technical moperation program. This practice is designed to highlight sane of the benefits of participation in these inportant nuclear arms control treaties. U.S. efforts to strengthen IAEA safeguards through the US. voluntary safeguards support program are central to ongoing efforts to u~rade and update safeguards procedures and techniques. Part of the U.S. voluntary contribution is used to fund nuclear safety activities related to technical cooperation projects, thereby promoting the safe handling and use of nuclear materials. Much of the U.S. voluntary contribution is spent either in the United States or for U.S. equiwnt which results directly in income for U.S. firms and individuals and creates future demand for U.S. equipnent and services.

Other Dcnors: Extrabudgetary voluntary support in 1985 from other countries and organizations amounted to approximately $49.9 million. Other major donors included Italy, the Federal Republic of Germany, Japan, France, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union. Some 66 IAFA members made voluntary contributions to the Technical Assistance and Cooperation Fund (TACF). The United States provided approximately $7.2 million (23%) of the target figure of $31 million for the 1986 TACF. Other major donors include Italy (approximately 34%): Japan (10%) : USSR (lo%), UK (4-5%). The United States also contributed approximately $4.04 million for in-kind and extrabudgetary support in 1986, and $6.6 million was allocated for U.S. safeguards support and non-proliferation activities.

FY 1988 Program. The FY 1988 program w i l l focus on technica l problems r e l a t i n g to the implementation o f safeguards. They w i l l be addressed with the following genera l order o f p r i o r i t y . The h ighes t p r i o r i t y t a sks a r e to so lve problems which a r i s e a t f a c i l i t i e s o f p a r t i c u l a r concern; n a m l y , f a c i l i t i e s under safeguards in nm-NFT s t a t e s and NFT s t a t e s with severe regional s e c u r i t y concerns. The second p r i o r i t y is placed on t a s k s which improve the q u a l i t y and e f fec t iveness o f safeguards a s a whole with emphasis on the a c t i v i t i e s c a r r i e d o u t by inspectors i n t h e f i e l d . The t h i r d p r i o r i t y includes th ree types o f tasks : those re l a t ed to the depth and q u a l i t y o f the technological i n f r a s t r u c t u r e o f the IAEA Department o f Safeguards (e.g., equipment mintenance and repa i r , establishment o f performnce-monitoring programs); those r e l a t e d to s i g n i f i c a n t improvements in t h e e f f i c i e n c y o f safeguards (with p a r t i c u l a r emphasis on the introduction o f sophis t ica ted d a t a - a q u i s i t i o n techniques in t h e f i e l d coupled with d a t a l i n k s from the f i e l d to Vienna); and those re la t ed to improving t r a in ing and performance c a p a b i l i t i e s .

U.S. a s s i s t ance to the t e d n i c a l cooperation program w i l l stress the s a f e handling o f nuclear ma te r i a l s i n t h e implementation of t echn ica l cooperation p r o j e c t s involving medical, ag r i c l l l tu ra l o r b a s i c i n d u s t r i a l app l i ca t ions o f nuclear energy. The United S t a t e s w i l l provide equipnent: U.S. exper t s e r v i c e s , including nuclear sa fe ty : f e l l o w s h i p and t r a in ing courses, including safe ty-re la ted t r a in ing . Preference w i l l be given to programs i n developing coun t r i e s p a r t y to t h e NPT/Tlatelolco. In 1988, t h e United S t a t e s voluntary con t r ibu t ion o f $22.3 mi l l ion is cur ren t ly planned t o be divided a s follows: $8 mil l ion f o r safeguards: $3.1 mi l l ion for t r a i n i n g , fel lowships, and exper t se rv ices : $1.8 mi l l ion f o r t echn ica l a s s i s t ance projec ts : and $9.4 mi l l ion in cash con t r ibu t ions t o the TACF.

ORGANI!?.ATION OF AMERICAN STATES (0%) DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE PFCGWE (DAF')

r PROGRAM SUMMARY -7 (In millions of dollars)

FY 1986 Actual Estimated Request :1P88

Purpose: U.S. contributions to OAS Development Assistance Programs mbilize human and natural resources in Latin America and the Caribbean in multilateral development efforts to promote economic development together with U.S. interests in the area.

Background: The CYLS has four voluntary funds for development: the Special Multilateral Fund (SMF), the Special Projects Fund (SPF), the Special Development Assistance Fund (SDAF) , and the Special Cultural Fund (SCF).

The OAS adopted a new program on Drug Abuse and Trafficking Control in November 1986, demonstrating its readiness to shift toward current problems which handicap development activities. Major program activities include regional development (SDAF), technical and vocational training (SMF), scientific and technological research into new energy sources S , food production and distribution (SPF), skills training (SPF) , tourism promotion (SDAF) , adult literacy (SMF) , and promtion and commercialization of handicrafts (m). Institution-building has been deemphasized to focus on pre-investment and pilot projects benefitting the most disadvantaged member countries.

Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, and Venezuela have gradully become net dcnors rather than net recipients of W development programs. Concomitantly, the U.S. share of voluntary contributions has gradually declined from 66% in the 1960's to 49% in 1986 (including external sources, e.g., Spain).

The OAS has a highly effective infrastructure including specialized personnel, Inter-American Centers, a reservoir of outside technical advisors and consultants, a data bank comprising the results of earlier studies and research on development, and extensive experience in planning and administering technical assistance within the region. W technical services have been used by the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, the United Nations Development Program and the U.S. Government (e.g., Interior) to carry out specific projects.

The effectiveness of OAS development programs is evident in the following: 85,000 specialists have been trained under OAS programs; financial support from non-member countries and institutions is increasidg, reflecting confidence in the organization: and 045 pre-investment feasibility studies have generated over $6.5 billion in dm-stream loans from the World Bank and Inter-American Develapment Bank.

U.S. I n t e r e s t : U.S. po l i cy seeks to preserve and s t rengthen the e f fec t iveness o f the OAS as a forum f o r dea l ing with hemispheric issues. Cmtcomes favorable to t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s on hemispheric i s sues have been c o n s i s t e n t l y more poss ib le i n the (XS than in other i n t e r n a t i o n a l fora. The l e v e l o f U.S. m t r i b u t i o n s to the OAS is perceived as a measure of L S . oomnitment to t h e Inter-American system and influences t h e l e v e l o f support which the United S t a t e s can expect from o the r (XS members on i s sues o f concern to us (such as peacekeeping, respect f o r human r i g h t s , and preservat ion o f an environment conducive to f a i r t r ade and p r i v a t e investment).

The Inter-American Developnent Bank and the OAS have taken over much of t h e developnent work previously assumed a lone by u.S. b i l a t e r a l a s s i s t ance programs and have es t ab l i shed a de f a c t o d iv i s ion o f labor. Besides car ry ing o u t its own pro jec t s , t h e QAS focuses on p r e - f e a s i b i l i t y s t u d i e s and the Inter-American Developnent Bank devotes most o f its resources to p ro jec t financing . Other Donors: QAS developnent program funded by members' voluntary cont r ibut ions i n 1986 t o t a l l e d $22.8 mi l l ion , of which t h e U.S. con t r ibu t ion of $14.1 mi l l ion m u n t e d to 62%. Other mjor con t r ibu to r s included Argentina ($2 mi l l ion or 9%): Braz i l ($2.3 million or 10%) : Mexico ($1.9 mi l l ion or 8%). Contributions from non-meher observer coun t r i e s (Spain, Canada, I s r a e l , I t a l y etc.) were $6 mil l ion f o r an o v e r a l l total of $28.8 mil l ion.

FY 1988 Program: P r i o r i t y a r e a s are t h e following: drug abuse, energy, f inancing and e x t e r n a l deb t management, tourism, i n t e r n a t i o n a l t r ade , education (curriculum renovation, vocational education, a d u l t educat ion) , food processing and marketing, technology s e r v i c e s (metrology, q u a l i t y con t ro l , s t andard iza t ion) , a r t s and c r a f t s .

-- Specia l Developnent Assistance Fund - $5.7 million. This fund spec ia l i zes i n an in tegra ted approach, e.g. regional planning, and p r e - f e a s i b i l i t y s t u d i e s f o r d m - s t r e a m financing by the publ ic (Inter-Ameri,can Developnent Bank) and p r iva te sectors. The 1988 program w i l l focus p r i n c i p a l l y on energy, food production, expor t and tourism promotion, and emplo+nt generation. The Caribbean is a s p e c i a l t a r g e t area. P r o j e c t s . a r e c a r r i e d o u t p r i n c i p a l l y by t echn ica l a s s i s t ance o f OAS s p e c i a l i s t s and e x t e r n a l l y contracted exper ts .

Q4S mehers contr ibuted $9.5 mi l l ion i n 1986, o f which t h e U.S. cont r ibut ion of $5.56 m i l l i o n equaled 58%. The proposed budget f o r 1988 is $10.5 mil l ion: t h e United S t a t e s sha re would b e 54%.

-- Specia l k l t i l a t e r a l Fund - $6.4 mil l ion. This fund works ~rimarilv throuqh n a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s which it aim to s t rengthen i n the f i e l d s o f education, 'science, and technology. The 1988 program w i l l focus mainly on drug abuse, upgrading educat ional supervision 'and teaching from elementary through higher education, a d u l t education and l i t e r a c y , technological se rv ices , metallic and non-metallic resource developnent, and marine resources developnent.

W members contr ibuted $9.3 mi l l ion t o the Fund i n 1986, o f which the U.S. cont r ibut ion of $6.1 mi l l ion equaled 65%. The estimated 1988 budget is $11 mill ion and the U.S. share would be 58%.

-- Specia l P ro jec t s Fund - $1.8 mil l ion. The U.S. s t a r t e d t h i s Fund i n 1973 to focus exclus ively on hor izonta l ccoperation a m g two or more member states. Its p r i o r i t i e s a r e the same a s f o r the Specia l k l t i l a t e r a l Fund, bu t the method o f cooperation is d i f f e r e n t and the more developed coun t r i e s pool resources for the b e n e f i t o f the lesser developed members. Educational p ro jec t s , including drug abuse, absorb approximately 30% of the b ldget , sc ience and tedmology t h e r e m i n i n g 70%.

QAS members contr ibuted $3.3 mi l l ion to the Fund i n 1986 o f which t h e U.S. cont r ibut ion o f $2.1 mi l l ion equaled 64%. The est imated 1988 budget is $4.5 mil l ion: the U.S. share would be 40%.

-- Spec ia l C u l t u r a l ~ u n d - $350,000. This ~ u n d ' s focus is on jcb c rea t ion to preserve t r a d i t i o n a l a r t i s a n a l techniques and a l s o to upgrade products to c o m r c i a l s tandards f o r export. A c t i v i t i e s are c a r r i e d o u t pr imar i ly through a network o f Inter-American Centers which receive supplemental funding from countr ies . The Fund a l s o supports r e s to ra t ion of monuments, preservat ion o f archives , and some archeological s tud ies . QAS members contr ibuted $742,375 to t h e Fund i n 1986, o f which the U.S. cont r ibut ion o f $350,000 was 47%. The budget es t imate for 1988 is $800,000; t h e U.S. sha re would be 44%.

UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT P- (m)

I PROGRAM SUMMARY

Purpose: The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) promotes and coordinates international, regional and national efforts to preserve, protect and inprove the environment and maintain the natural resource base.

(In millions of dollars)

Background: The UN General Assembly established UNEP in Decemter, 1972 to catalyze and coordinate environmental programs and activities of UN agencies and promote international efforts to protect the environment. UNEP established a voluntary Enviromnt Fund to finance its program activities. The United States has been a major participant in UNEP since its beginning, providing approximately one third of total voluntary contributions. UNEP's Environment Fund received pledges of $29.2 million for 1986, including $8.613 million (29.5%) from the United States.

F Y 1986 Actual

8.613

Principal goals of UNEP's program are to monitor and assess major global arid regional environmental trends, and to coordinate international action to inprove environmental and natural resource management. For example, UNEP's Regional Seas Program has developed eleven Action Plans for environmental cooperation in specified ocean areas, including the Mediterranean, the Wider Caribbean Region (including the Gulf of Mexico) and the South Pacific Region (which includes U.S. trust territories). UNEP has also played a key role in initiating environmental treaties includimg the Endangered Species Convention (CITES) and the Convention to Protect the Atmospheric Ozone Layer. The United States is a signatory to both of these. Also of special interest to the United States are UNEP's Global Environmenal Monitoring System (Gm), in particular, its Global Resource Information Database (GRID) suiprogram currently being developed with major assistance by NASA; and programs on tropical deforestation, soils, and desertification. Another priority UNEP activity is the International Register of Potentially Toxic Chemicals, Including Pesticides (IRPPC) . U.S. Interests: UNEP's activities generally closely parallel U.S. interests and therefore complement the efforts of the United States to -rove our own environment. Since U.S. businesses must meet high dcenestic environmental standards, the development of uniform international guidelines observed by all trading nations will improve the U.S. competitive stance. There are also benefits for U.S. industries which supply pollution control equipment.

F Y 1987 Estimated

6.800

AID 370-3 (8-83)

F Y 1988 Request

4.800

UNEP uniquely serves US. interests in protecting the global environment and prmting sustainable development. UNEP's multilateral approach, engaging both industrialized and developing countries, promotes cooperation on regional problems such as acid rain, marine pollution and desertification. Its global mandate enables it to address issues such as carbon dioxide buildup and ozone depletion.

UNEP is responsive to other U.S. interests. At the last Governing Council Session in 1985, Council members supported U.S. program priorities and agreed to seek improvement in UNEP'S management and to use existing resources m r e effectively. We are following UNEP's efforts in this area closely. The Executive Director worked to help minimize the impact of political issues on the Council's environmental deliberations.

An unresolved problem which continues to burden our relationship with UNEP is the unacceptably low level of U.S. citizens (7%) on the UNEP professional staff.

Other Donors: In 1986, UNEP pledges totaled $29.2 million, of which the U.S. pledge of $8.613 million represented 29.5%. Other major donors included: Japan - $4.0 million (13.7%): USSR - $3.6 million (12.3%): Federal Republic of Germany - $2.2 million (7.5%); United Kingdom - $1.5 million (5.1%); Norway - $1.0 million (3.4%). The FY 1988 Program: With the expected completion in 1987 of the first stages of several critical programs including: -/GRID, a Regional seas agreement for the South Pacific, and- technical meetings on a possible protocol to the 1985 Ozone Convention, we anticipate that in 1988 UNEP will move into the implementation stage. UNEP will take over funding responsibility from NASA for its GIW/GRTD program, and continue to expand it. UNEP will also cooperate with other m organizations such as the World Health Organization, the F d and Agriculture Organization, and the World Meteorological Organization especially in areas of human health, climatic impacts, deforestation, and the UN Action Plan to Ccsnbat Desertification. Finally, we anticipate further follow-up activities, in conjunction with private industry, to the successful 1984 World Industry Conference on Environmental Management (WICBI) . The FY 1988 request level of $4.8 million represents 18% of total anticipated receipts of $26 million to m ' s Environment Fund. ~ h u s it reaffirms U.S. support for UNEP, but reinforces our position that others must contribute a greater share and that we would like to see more Americans employed by UNEP.

Purpose: The World Meteorological Organization W) Voluntary Cooperation Program (VCP) provides training and equipment to help less developed countries (LDCs) improve their national meteorological and hydrological services. This assistance permits LDCs to upgrade basic weather observation networks and related telecommunications systems and inprove local data processing capabilities and weather forecasting techniques. LDCs are thus better able to obtain and utilize weather data necessary to their national economies, and to participate in W O programs, particularly the World Weather Watch (W). The W monitors atmospheric and oceanic conditions, and coordinates the rapid collection and exchange of weather data on a global basis.

PROGRAM SUMMARY (In millions of dollan)

Background: The W established the VCP in 1967 in response to a U.S. initiative. Each year a W Panel of Experts prepares a list of eligible projects in accordance with the overall KMO program. Donor countries support particular projects according to their own priorities. Contributions to the VCP may be cash, equipnent, services, or training.

F y 1986 Actual - 1.723

Equipment and services are provided to establish new weather stations, or to support existing ones. Training is provided both at regional training centers and donor institutions. In 1985 donors provided 198 fellowships, including 50 hosted in the United States.

The WMI uses cash contributions to supplement donor-supported projects and occasionally to provide full support for a project when no donor is available.

F Y 1987 Estimated

2.0

The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Mministration (NOAA) , administers the U.S. contribution to the VCP on behalf of the United States.

F Y 1988 Request

2.0

U.S. Interests: U.S. suFport of the W VCP enhances LDC participation in the KW and enables the U.S. to obtain otherwise unavailable data that is necessary for our national requirements. As a result of the U.S. contdbution, we receive more timely and reliable data for the U.S. ~ational Meteorological Center, and international meteorological reports which are used by U.S. civil and military agencies, and private companies. For exanple, NOAA uses enhanced observation and reporting capabilities by African, Central American and Caribbean LDCs to provide more accurate forecasts of hurricanes affecting the United States. NOAA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture use W reports to analyze and forecast international

weather and agricultural production. USAID uses this information for early warning of natural disasters around the world. U.S. aviation requires meteorological information for international flight planning. In addition, the U.S. contribution utilizes nearly all U.S.- made equipnent.

Other Donors: In 1985 the WMO X P received contributions totalling $4.8 million including $1.9 million (39%) from the U.S. : USSR $1.3 million (27%); U.K. $549,000 (11%); France $239,000 (5%): and $1M),000 from Egypt, Finland, and Germany (2%). Three and one-half percent of contributions received in 1985 were in cash, and the remainder were in goods and services, including training. Contributions in 1987 are expected to total approximately $5.5 million with a U.S. contribution of $2 million (36%), including a direct cash contribution of $100,000 and $1.9 million in equipnent and services.

FY 1988 Program: The W O Secretariat is working with mehers to complete a worldwide network of weather stations needed to support the international meteorological wmunity. Donor nations may contribute by establishing observation stations at a proposed location where ncne exist at present, or by supporting the expansion of existing facilities. Donor countries largely determine the VCP program by their response in equipnent and training to the proposed program. NQAA will provide necessary equipnent and related service to W s for the WW and other W O programs it chooses to support with the U.S. contribution. In particular, this includes upper air equipnent, instruments for surface &serving stations, and improvements in telecammunications equipnent for timely data dissemination to other menber nations. LDC perscnnel will receive appropriate training for this equipnent, thus enhancing their moperation with the WMO. This arrangement requires recipient countries to play an increasing role in monitoring climate program and envircnmental quality. U.S. assistance is provided worldwide.

INTERNATIONAL. CONVENTION AND SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION ~ B ~ O N S

Furpose: To continue support for U.S. par t ic ipat ion i n and meet U.S. c m i t m e n t s t o international conventions and sc i en t i f i c organizations engaged i n work considered essent ia l and inportant t o U S . in terests .

PROGRAM SUMMARY (In millions of dollars)

Background: with its witMrawal from the United Nations Educational, Scient i f ic , and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) effect ive December 31, 1984, the United States no longer contributes its share of cos t s f o r a c t i v i t i e s supported d i r ec t ly by UNESCO even though they may benefit s ignif icant ly U.S. danestic interests . The a c t i v i t i e s ircluded i n t h i s request are those considered t o serve signif icant U S . danestic interests . These a c t i v i t i e s would not continue as individual budget requirements i n the future should the United S ta tes resume membership in UNESCX).

F Y 1986 Actual

1.228

U.S. Interests: The U S . withdrawal f ran UNESCO does not a l t e r the U.S. policy of supporting international cooperation i n educational, sc ien t i f ic , cu l tu ra l an3 c m u n i c a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s where there are technical, economic and p o l i t i c a l benefits to the United States. The programs proposed for funding i n t h i s request protect the more inportant, d i r ec t benefits t o American sc ien t i f ic , educational, cu l tura l and business cormunities formerly derived through membership i n UNFSCD. The Intergovernmental Oceanographic Comnission, International Hydrological Program and International Geological Correlation Program were of U.S. or igin o r created with the encouragement of the United States, and we haw a continuing influence in the work they do. Data exchange networks associated with them provide information on a global scale not otherwise available through b i l a t e ra l o r regional agreements. The Universal Copyright Convention provides s ignif icant benefi ts t o the United S ta tes ard the others, similarly, respond t o the needs of U S . constituencies and provide tangible benefits t o them.

FY 1988 Program: The following items re f l ec t estimates of continued ac t iv i ty by the United S ta tes on mutually agreeable terms with other par t ic ipants i n these forums.

F Y 1987 Estimated

2.0

Intergovernmental Oceanographic Comnission (IOCL. American oceanogrwhic research work benefits d i r ec t ly through access t o data

F Y 1988 Request

1.2

otherwise unobtainable. In addition, IOC enables American oceanogrqhic experts t o par t ic ipate i n research workshops and allows U.S. vessels, under IOC aegis, access t o foreign waters for research. The United S ta tes remains e l i g i b l e t o be a member of the 102 by v i r tue of its UN membership; $300,000 per year would finance continued actiw U.S. participation.

AID 370-3 I8831

Intergovernnental Comnittee on the Universal Copyright Convention (ICU?C). The United S ta tes is a signatory t o the Convention and would be exwcted t o make an awrour ia te contribution t o the cos t s of the h i t t e e , whose work be&& U.S. c m r i g h t i n t e re s t s relating t o haae video an3 audio recording and protection of ccmputer software and satellite signals; $75,000 per year would be sufficient.

International Geological Coordination Program (I-). This program d i r e c t s a t ten t ion of seoloqis ts worldwide t o important projects on mineral and petrolem-deposits and correlates data on &logical s t r a t a , research projects, and on standards for geological maps and ear th science projects. Continued par t ic ipat ion in these programs, heretofore funded through the UNESCO budget, would cos t $100,000 per year.

Natural Hazards Program (NHP). This program includes the work of t h e International Advisory Carmittee on Earthquake Risk. Program funds a t the r a t e of $25,000 per year would be used t o support continued U S . par t ic ipat ion i n international s i t e surveys and information exchange progr-•

International Hydrological Program (IKP). This program undertakes studies and praaotes standards and cooperation among LUi specialized agencies an3 non-governnental organizations which provide the United S ta tes w i t h valuable infomation on water resources worldwide. Although the United S ta tes l o s t its place on the IHP Intergowrmental Ooumil because of witMrawa1 £ran UNESOJ, support of American par t ic ipat ion a t the r a t e of $55,000 per year would pennit the United Staes t o remain act ive i n inportant IHP projects.

Man an3 the Biosphere Program (MW). This is an interdisciplinary progran of ecological research that enables USG q e n c i e s and American - . s c i e n t i s t s t o carry out sttldies abroad among its 105 member s t a t e s , acquire data a d cooperate i n the developnent of new resource management techniques f o r ecosystems of par t icular i n t e re s t s t o the United Staes, e-g., trcpical fores t s , a r id zones, Caribbean Islands, and polar regions. Although the United S ta tes l o s t its place on the MAB In t e rgove rmnta l C o o r d i ~ t i I q C ~ ~ l l c i l , $230,000 per year would support U.S. par t ic ipat ion i n selected domestic MAB projects, international workshops, and technical advisory Mies.

International Libraries, Archives and Science Docmentation Program. This ac t iv i ty sets standards f o r and provides data on internat ional information &9mology ac t iv i t ies . Gntinued U.S. par t ic ipat ion is of par t icular benefit t o the American carputer and information industr ies and support is estimated a t $115,000 per year.

Non-Governmental Research Organizations. UNESCO budget funds are used f o r d i r e c t f i n a n c i a l support to c e r t a i n organiza t ions , including the In te rna t iona l Council o f S c i e n t i f i c Unions (ICSU) , t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Brain Research Organization (IBFO) and other learned or s c i e n t i f i c i n t e r n a t i o n a l and regional organizat ions. S u p p r t to continue b e n e f i t s to U.S. i n t e r e s t s is est imated a t $180,000 per year.

I n t e r n a t i o n a l Cooperative Research Programs. Cer ta in i n t e r n a t i o n a l research a c t i v i t i e s d i r e c t l y b e n e f i t U.S. research and are n o t included i n t h e above ca tegor ies , e.g.: I n t e r n a t i o n a l Biologica l Col lec t ion Centers: I n t e r n a t i m a l Organization o f Biotechnology and Bioengineering: and o the r r e l a t e d i n t e r n a t i o n a l and regional organizat icns. Support f o r U.S. p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a l imi ted number o f these program would be $115,000 per year.

In te rna t iona l Conventions. The United S t a t e s has r a t i f i e d s e v e r a l add i t iona l in te rna t iona l conventions which a r e v i t a l to U.S. in te res t s . Cmtinued U.S. p a r t i c i p a t i o n would requ i re payment of adminis t ra t ive overhead costs i n l i e u o f dues t o UNESCO, est imated to total $5,000 per year. These conventions include: the Bei ru t Agreement (1984) and t h e Florence Agreement (1950) concerning the i n t e r n a t i o n a l t r ans fe r o f educat ional , c u l t u r a l and s c i e n t i f i c goods: the Convention on t h e Exchange o f O f f i c i a l Publ ica t ions (1958); and the Convention on the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer o f Cu l tu ra l Property (1970).

Purpose: The United Nations Capital D e v e l o p n t Rud (UNCDF) provides concessional c a p i t a l assistance t o the l eas t developed countries (LtK's) for snall-scale investment projects designed t o promote socio-econanic development and national self-reliance.

mITED NA!FIONS CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT FUND (UNCDF)

PROGRAM SUMMARY (In millions of dollan)

Background: The General Assembly established UNCDF i n 1966 and in 1967, placed it under the Administrator of t h e United Nations Development Program (UNDP), subject t o policy guidance from the UNDP Governirg Council. UlrXPF is headed by an Executive Secretary and is supported by a snall secre tar ia t s t a f f . UNCDF's s t ruc tura l l ink with UNDP allows it t o draw on UNLlP's cent ra l services, t o u t i l i z e its network of Resident Representatives in developing countries, thereky keeping operating costs t o a minimum.

F y 1986 Actual.

.861

A combination of special features makes UNCDF's ro le i n the mult i la teral financing system unique. W F ' s mandate and operational pol icies enable it t o (a) focus on t h e poor by working a t the grassroots level with laborers, -11 farmers, micro-entrepreneurs, the unemployed, low-income urban dwellers and other vulnerable groups; (b) help meet basic needs fo r food, safe drinking water and sanitation a s well a s develop the productive sectors and income generating ac t iv i t i e s i n agricultural and -11-scale industries; (c) invest i n mall-scale projects ($200,000 t o $5 million) that are not large enough t o be considered by other mult i la teral financing inst i tut ions.

UN Specialized Agencies, working with host governments, international development banks and pr ivate en t i t i e s , execute UNCDF projects. In 1985, UNCDF approved a t o t a l of $37.4 million in commitments. UNCDF general resources funded $33.4 million while the remairder was funded

F y 1987 Estimated

.861

through joint financing arrangements. Project expenditures fo r 1985 were about $27 million. Projects i n agriculture accounted fo r over 43

F y 1988 Requesi

1.0

percent of the to ta l .

U.S. Interests: U.S. support of UNCDF is consistent with our policy of helping the poorest people. While reflecting current economic rea l i t ies , our continued support demonstrates our view tha t UKDF is a well-run program. 'Ituo-thirds of the countries served by UNaF are located i n Africa, where drought and t h e cumulative e f f ec t s of deser t i f icat ion have exacerbated chronic econanic problems.

WDF has comentrated on the basic needs of the rural sector. In 1985, approximately half of UNCDF's t o t a l commitments went t o develop agriculture and agricul tural water resources. Other important sectors receiving significant W F allocations were transport (10.0%) ; i rdus t r ies (9.3%) ; housing (14.1%) ; education and training (5.5%) ; and health (9.9%). Typical UNaF projects imlude food s tores fo r drought r e l i e f , flood protection, and improvement of water supply.

29

AID 3703 (8831

Other Dcnors: Total pledges for 1986 were expected t o reach $24 million, of which the U.S. pledge of $861,000 represented 3.6%. Wjor donors t o UEEDF in 1986 were: Sweden - $5.2 million (21.6%): t he Netherlands $4.1 million (17%) ; and Norway $4.0 millim (16.6%).

FY 1988 Program: W D F w i l l continue its e f fo r t s t o expand the swpe and volume of its project commitments. In addition, UNCDF w i l l continue t o coordinate its a c t i v i t i e s with UNDP and other developent agencies s o that there is follow-up t o pre-investment a c t i v i t i e s , cap i ta l and technical assistance, and financing of o p r a t i n g costs.

UXDF estimates project approvals in 1988 of $30.0 million without any s ignif icant change in project make-up and delivery. h j o r emphasis w i l l be on fund rais ing through increased voluntary and t r u s t fund/cost sharing contributions.

A U.S. contribution of $1 million would represent approximately 4% of the t o t a l estimated voluntary wntr ibut ions in 1988.

UN EDUCATIONAI. AM) TRAINING PFSXRAt4 FOR SOWl'HERN AFRICA (UNETPSA)

purpse: To provide scholarships f o r secondary and college level education and advanced technical and vocational training t o students from the Republic of South Africa and t o a lesser extent from Namibia who are denied such education and training i n their own societies. The training helps prepare these students t o assume leadership roles i n the developnent of the i r countries.

PROGRAM SUMMARY (In millions of dollars)

Background: The UN Educational and T r a i n i q Prcqram for Southern Africa (WETF'SA) was established by the UN General Assembly i n 1967 by integrating e a r l i e r special programs designed t o assist i n the education and training of persons i n minority ruled southern Africa. Besides Namibia, South Africa, and Southern Rhodesia, t h i s included Portuguese t e r r i t o r i e s i n Africa before they k a m e independent i n 1974-75. Following the independence of the Portuguese t e r r i t o r i e s and Zimbabwe (Rhodesia), UNGPPSA ceased giving new grants t o students from those nations, although renewals w i l l continue t o be made un t i l existing students f in i sh their studies. (Current information indicates t ha t there are 7 students from Zimbabwe i n the prcqram and none remaining from the former Portuguese t e r r i t o r i e s . By FY-1988 almost a l l of these students w i l l have finished the i r courses of study.) UNFPPSA's objective is t o enable these young people t o play a f u l l role i n the i r soc ie t ies a s they h o m e independent o r a s majority ru le is achieved a d t o provide general support for the concept of peaceful t rans i t ion i n southern Africa.

FY 1986 Actual

UNElPSA's a b i l i t y t o award new scholarships is based on t o t a l annual contributions and pledges received, balanced against the increasing cos t of education and the need t o renew the awards of continuing students. The t o t a l number of awards granted under the program during 1985/1986 reporting period was 1,109 (504 new awards and 605 renewals), a s against 929 (318 new awards and 611 renewals) for 1984/85 period.

During the 1985/86 reporting period, student placement by region was as follows: Africa - 610 (55%) ; North America - 281 (25.3%) ; Asia - 147 (13.25%); Europe - 69 (6.2%); and Latin America ard Caribbean Countries - 2 (0.18%) out of a t o t a l of 1,109.

I I

FY 1987 Estimated

AID 370-3 18-83]

F Y 1988 Requert

U.S. I n t e r e s t s : The primary United S t a t e s i n t e r e s t i n s u p p r t i n g UNEXTSA is to ind ica te U.S. support f o r the a s p i r a t i o n s o f the young people i n southern Afr ica to be a v i t a l p a r t o f t h e i r s o c i e t i e s as they become independent or a s major i ty r u l e is achieved. U.S. s u p p r t w i l l he lp develop a core o f s p e c i a l i s t s , technic ians , and adminis t ra tors who a r e a b l e to assume pos i t ions i n the governments.

.Other Donors: I n 1986, t h e U.S. cont r ibut ion o f $861,000 represented 24.8% o f the total pledges. Other major donors 1986 included: Norway - $826,211 (23.8%): Denmark - $497,000 (14.3%): Japan - $300,000 (8.6%) : Sweden - $208,406 (6%) : and Finland - $170,843 (4.9%).

FY 1988 Program: UNETPSA is concentrat ing on s tuden t s from the Republic o f South Afr ica , with 760 (68.5%) o f the scho la r sh ip holders i n 1985/86, and to a lesser ex ten t Namibia, with 342 scholarship holders (30.8%). Faced w i t h an ever-increasing demand f o r a s t a t i c or decreasing resource, the Advisory Committee on LlNEmSA (with 1 3 mnhers, including the U.S., and three observer states and four observer organiza t ions) is cons tan t ly seeking new ways t o provide scholarships to s tuden t s from southern Africa. These include scholarships i n Comnwea l th coun t r i e s a t no cost to the program, t h e promtim of co-financing arrangements and t u i t i o n waivers, and the encouragement o f s tudy i n Africa and other lwcost regions.

The U.S. continues to se rve on the UNETPSA Advisory Committee, which is t h e governing body o f the Program. Many o f t h e scholarship r e c i p i e n t s w i l l continue to s tudy in the United S t a t e s , although the Advisory Committee's d r i v e to place more of these s tuden t s in lcwer-cost coun t r i e s is noticeable. I n t h e 1985/86 repor t ing period, 267 of 1,109 awardees (24%) were studying i n the U.S., a s aga ins t 264, or 28.4% in the previous repor t ing period. Although precise f i g u r e s are n o t ava i l ab le , we es t imate t h a t educating these s tuden t s in t h i s country re su l t ed in l e a s t $2 mi l l ion i n t u i t i o n and o the r r e c e i p t s f o r S . i n s t i t u t i o n s during the 1985/86 r e p r t i n g p r i o d .

-prpose: The UNmO Investment Pranotion Service (IPS) hosts investment pranotion of f icers £ran developing countries and supports t he i r e f f o r t s t o a t t r a c t private investment cap i t a l for i rdus t r i a l projects i n their h m countries.

- PROGRAM SUMMARY Iln millions of dollan)

Background: UNDO ceased t o e x i s t a s an organ of the United Nations and became the 16th p i a l i z e d agency of the United Nations on Jarnary 1, 1986. Under its Constitution, which entered in to force on June 21, 1985, UNIDO's primary objective is the pranotion of indus t r ia l dewlopnent i n developing countries. Given t h i s madate, UNmO is seeking t o identify n e w means of cooperation with the pr ivate sector. The UNmO Investment Promtion Service is v i t a l t o t h i s coweration. By pranoting the flow of external f i n a m i a l , technological a d managerial resources t o developing countries, the IPS represents the c leares t recognition within the UN system of the inportame of private investment cap i t a l i n the development process.

The North American IPS off ice , founded i n New York i n 1978 and relocated t o Washington, D.C., i n 1986, is one of eight IPS of f ices worldwide. The other seven of f ices ( in Vienna, Austria; Cologne, The Federal Ftepublic of Germary; Paris, h-ame; Milan, I ta ly ; Tokyo, J-n; Warsaw, Poland; and Zurich, Switzerland) a r e f u l l y funded by their respective host gowrnments.

FY 1988 Request

FY 1986 Actual

U S . Interests: Promtion of pr ivate sector development is a major U.S. pr ior i ty . The IPS network worldwide re f lec ts UNmO's recognition of the i n p o r t m e of pr ivate investment cap i t a l i n the indus t r ia l developnent process. The IPS program stimulates the pr ivate sector i n developiq countries, producing a ca t a ly t i c inpact on the i r danestic econanies. Industrialization of the develcping countries leads ultimately t o increased markets fo r U.S. goods ard services. The North American IPS of f ice o f f e r s investment pranotion o f f i ce r s from d e w l o p i q countries f i r s t h a d knowledge of U.S. business ard f i n a m i a l practices, thereby f a c i l i t a t i q the i r dealings with potent ia l investment partners from the U S . pr ivate sector. The new of f ice i n Washington w i l l work closely with the mult i la teral lending ins t i tu t ions a d regional business associations.

FY 1987 Estimated

AID discontinued its grant a s s i s t ame t o the IPS off ice a s of FY 1987. Therefore, the FY 1988 contribution through the IO&P account w i l l be the only U.S. contribution t o the IPS office. A contribution of $500,000 t o the Washington IPS of f ice would, for the f i r s t time, f u l l y fund the core a c t i v i t i e s of the off ice. This would provide the United States w i t h an urprecedented opportunity t o shape the future direct ion of the office.

AID 370-3 (8831

Other Donors: Major contributors t o UNIDO's New York IPS o f f i ce i n FY 1986 were: AID - $754,000 (72%); U N D O (assessed budget) - $185,600 (17%); UNDP - $110,600 (11%).

FY 1988 Program: nnphasis w i l l be on investment prcmotion through short-term (one month i n duration) or ientat ion prcgrans which introduce investment promotion o f f i ce r s t o the US. pr iva te sector. Information on foreign investment opportunities (IPS-identified projects) w i l l be made a ~ i l a b k t o U.S. business. The IPS o f f i ce w i l l focus on the pramtion of small-scale, agro-allied indus t r ia l projects. The IPS o f f i ce w i l l publicize i n the United S ta tes the 6 t o 8 investment prcmotion meetings held during the year i n develcping countries.

UNITED NATIONS TRUST FLND FOR SOWW AFRICA (UEITFSA)

I PROGRAM SUMMARY (In millions of dollars)

Purpose: The UN Trust Fund for South Africa (UWiBA) provides hmitarian assistance to victims of apartheid and racial discrimination in South Africa and Namibia.

Fy 1986 Actual

Background: UNTFSA was established in 1965 to provide assistance to persons living in South Africa an3 Namibia who are being victimized by legal and social discrimination. The Fund provides legal assistance to persons persecuted under South African legislation, offers relief to such persons and their dependents, provides relief assistance for refugees from South Africa, and offers assistance to persons persecuted under legislation in Namibiar

The Trust Fund is administered by a 5-member Cornnittee of Trustees who disburse grants to voluntary organizations and other appropriate bodies concerned with relief and assistance to victims of apartheid, and facilitates the activities of these organizations.

I I I F y 1987 Estimated

The growing opposition to apartheid within South Africa and Namibia and the actions undertaken by foreign investors and operators have dramatically increased the vulnerability of those actively opposing apartheid and has endangered the economic status of the black majority in these areas. The Trust Fund can play an inportant, if limited, role in meliorating the problems facing the black population of southern Africa. It is important that the United States play an appropriate part in helping these people to withstand the pressures of apartheid.

F Y 1988 Request

U.S. Interests: Support of the Trust Fund demonstrates U.S. cmitment to the cause of freedom in southern Africa and provides a positive irdication of our support for the forces opposed to apartheid.

Other Donors: Our FY 1987 pledge of $250,000 is estimated to represent 12.5% of anticipated pledges. Other prominent contributors for 1987 irrclude (projected) : Norway $570,000 (28%) ; Sweden $350,000 (17%); Denmark $300,000 (15%); and Finland $110,000 (5.5%).

FY 1988 Program: Many statutes and procedures based upon racial discrimination continue to exist in the Republic of South Africa. Additionally, there will be economic dislocations connected with divestitures and other econanic measures taken to induce political and legal changes in the Republic. The funds in FY 1988 will continue to support efforts through the South African judicial system to sustain the position of black South Africans and will provide assistance to families of those persecuted under existing repressive legislation.

AID 370-3 18-83)

'XWEWXON ON INPERNATIONAL TRADE I N ENDAN-D SPECIES ((3ITES)

Purpose: CITES p r o m t e s i n t e r n a t i o n a l w i l d l i f e conservation and provides a mechanism f o r protec t ion o f endangered spec ies o f w i l d l i f e and p l a n t s a g a i n s t over-exploi tat ion through i n t e r n a t i o n a l t rade.

PROGRAM SUMMARY (In millions of dollard

Background: The Convention is t h e key instrument fo r i n t e r n a t i o n a l w i l d l i f e conservation and a major element o f U.S. conservation policy. I t receives broad pub l i c suppor t domestically. CITES resu l t ed from a conference held i n Washington i n 1973, a t U.S. i n v i t a t i o n , to p r o m t e the conservation o f endangered and p o t e n t i a l l y threatened spec ies o f wild fauna and f l o r a . Ninety-four na t ions a r e P a r t i e s to CITB, including most major w i l d l i f e producing and consuming countr ies .

CITES' p r i n c i p a l achievements are: ( a ) i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of and protec t ion fo r over-exploited species; and (b) a t ta inment o f t h e recognit ion as t h e worldwide instrument f o r c o n t r o l of t r a d e i n w i l d l i f e and w i l d l i f e products , i n the eyes of producing and consuming coun t r i e s a l i k e . Mher notable achievements are: (a) establishment o f na t iona l w i l d l i f e management and s c i e n t i f i c a u t h o r i t i e s fo r the f i r s t time i n many countr ies: and (b) developnent o f guidel ines fo r the s a f e shipnent o f l i v e specimens o f p l a n t s and animals: (c) compilation of an I d e n t i f i c a t i o n Manual fo r use by customs o f f i c i a l s i n iden t i fy ing protec ted species a t p o r t s o f entry: (d) progress i n s tandardiza t ion o f documentation, annual r e p o r t s on worldwide w i l d l i f e t r ade , and information required to amend l i s t i n g s o f endangered and threatened species: (e) more e f f e c t i v e controls on t r ade i n such specimens as e lephant ivory, rhinoceros horn, whale products , e x o t i c p lan t s , r e p t i l i a n l e a t h e r , and r a r e birds: ( f ) improved acqu i s i t ion and exchange o f d a t a and statistics on w i l d l i f e t rade; and (g) improved cooperation amng Par ty members jn conservation of endangered species.

FY 1988 Request

.200

F y 1986 Actual

. 1 7 ~

The CITES T r u s t Fund supports meetings of P a r t i e s and opera t ions o f the S e c r e t a r i a t , e.g., enforcement of CITES t rade regula t ions and i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f appropr ia te l e v e l s of con t ro l . The United Nations Environment Program adminis ters the Trus t Fund a s well as the S e c r e t a r i a t . Since t h e ~ $ s t Fund is n o t adequate to f inance a l l p r o j e c t s authorized by the P a r t i e s ( numerous undertakings are financed from t h e Specia l P r o j e c t s Fund. Donors, which include conservation groups, t r ade assoc ia t ions , and CITES P a r t i e s , earmark donations fo r p a r t i c u l a r p r o j e c t s , e.g., a s tudy to de f ine populat ions of and t r ade in Nile crocodiles.

FY 1987 Estimated

-172

U.S. Interests: A l l countries benefit from CITES' protection of endargered a d potent ia l ly threatened species of wild animals and p lan ts -- irr&laceable natural resources. TIE Convention was concluded a f t e r Congress, i n response t o strong public concern, directed the Amninistration ( i n the hdangered Species Act) t o negotiate an international agreement t o prevent over-exploitation of wildlife. U.S. participation, including its chairmanship of several major cannittees, provides the primary vehicle fo r United States leadership in an area i n which there has been almost universal acceptarce of c m n policy goals. U S . participation also is one of the pr incipal means by which conservationist a r t wildl i fe trade organizations i n the United States, which strongly support the Convention, exert the i r influence (direct ly and through the U S . goverrment) i n t h i s area internationally.

The United S ta tes implements the Convention dcmestically through the Wangered Species kt and other legislation. CITES f a c i l i t a t e s pr ivate American cannercial ventures i n wildl i fe trade by providing a sound, re l iable basis for conducting business. Farming and ranchiq of sane endangered species has resulted i n successful breeding of cer ta in animals and, thus, t he i r removal f r m endargered s ta tus , e.g. the American al l igator . This has been substantially beneficial t o U.S. producers and traders. Other countries an3 the American public look t o the U.S. t o remain i n the vanguard of international conservation and wildl i fe preservation.

Other Donors: Contributions for FY 1988 w i l l be determined in 1987 a t the s ix th Confererce of the Part ies i n Ottawa when the CITES 1988-89 budget is approved. Contributions a re based on the UN assessment scale a s adapted t o CITES. Principal donors pledged t o contribute t o the General Fund a s follows i n 1987: United S ta tes - $172,000 (21.2%); Union of Soviet Social is t Republics - $85,155 (10.5%); Japan, $81,100 (10%) ; Federal Republic of Germany - $68,935 (8.5%) ; Frarce - $5,272 (6.5%). (The USSR has never paid any of its pledges.) Altogether, a t l ea s t 92 countries a re expected t o be Par t ies t o the Convention i n 1988, many of which w i l l support it f inamial ly .

FY 1988 Program: The U S . contribution w i l l support Secretar ia t work i n several major areas. Of par t icular irrportance is the accorrplishnent of extensive f i e l d studies, beginning now and t o continue fo r several years, regarding populations of 86 e i e s of animals t h a t are now heavily traded, e-g., Caiman crocodiles ard Latin American spotted cats . The studies w i l l enable CITES t o determine i f prevailing levels of trade should be allowed t o continue. Available biolcgical data regarding these species a re insuff ic ient t o permit smh determinations now. CITES also w i l l continue developing its i w r y tusk tracking system t o control lega l trade and t o prevent i l l e g a l shipments. Detailed data regarding additional species of fauna and f lo ra w i l l be develcped for inclusion i n the Ident i f icat ion Manual, fo r use by border inspectors. The s ix th Conference of the Parties may d i r ec t the Secretar ia t t o undertake other ac t iv i t ies .

7- PROGRAM SUMMARY

The United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Tbrture -) provides worldwide humanitarian assistance to victims of torture and to their families. Its major goal is to provide medical and psychological assistance to victims and to their families. Secondary goals are legal, financial and social assistance to victims and their families.

/In millions of dollars)

Background: The United Nations General Assembly established the Fund in 1981. The United States strongly supported the Fund's establistnnent and has contributed finanically to it since FY 1985. Since the Fund began operations in 1983, 46 grants totalling $1.9 million have been authorized. These grants are aimed at the medical and psychological rehabilitation of victims of torture, including grants to the well-known and respected International Rehabilitation and Research Center for Torture Victims in Copenhagen, Demrk and to the Medecins sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders), Frame. Furthermore, several rehabilitation projects are carried out for the UN High Comnissioner for Refugees. Ninety percent of Fud expenditures are made in developing countries. Grants are awarded by the Fund's Board of Trustees who report directly to the UN Secretary General. The Board's mandate requires it to distribute aid through "established channels of humanitarian assistance," such as hospitals, research and training centers and overseas doctors projects. The Board may contribute to on-going projects or it may give to a humanitarian operation detailed criteria of the Board's desires for a particular project.

FY 1986 Actual

U.S. Interests: U.S. contributions to the Fund are irrportant to our multilateral human rights objectives in the UN Human Rights Cnmnission and supplement U.S. bilateral human rights efforts. They boost the United States in world opinion as a nation dedicated to unselfish support of the unfortunate victims of human rights violations. Equally as inportant, the very nature of the Fund singles out for censure those nations that chronically violate human rights, thus achieving a U.S. policy objective without the direct action of the United States.

Other Donors: In 1986, approximately $650,000 was pledged by Governments. The U.S. pledge of $86,000 represented approximately 13 percent. Other major donors include: Denmark - $120,400 (18%); Finland - $104,300 (16%); Switzerland - $90,300 (14%); Japan - $50,000 (8%) ; and Netherlands - $44,800 (7%). The Fund has also received contributions from four nonqoverrmental organizations (The World Lutheran Federation, the Baha'i International Carmunity, the Dutch Section of the Internatioml Carmission of Jurists, and the National Council of Churches of the United States) as well as by several individuals.

I I

FY 1987 Estimated

38 AID 370-3 18831

F Y 1988 Request

FY 1988 Pr ram: The Board of Trustees expects the Fund to expend 0,000 for hospitals and overseas doctors projects treating d

torture victims. The Fund plans to expand its operations from its present purely medical and pychological concentration to include saw social services to torture victims and to their families. These w i l l include small grants to assist victims and their families i n rebuilding shattered lives through self-help projects and small stipends while rehabilitated victims look for work. The Fund w i l l place increased eqhasis on emergency relief for ~ o l i t i c a l prisoners.