UNESCO. General Conference; 30th; Records ... - unesdoc - Unesco

we voting on? By the way, Madam President, the original proposal by the representative of Kenya was based, if I
understood him correctly, on the suggestion made by the Chairperson of the Administrative Commission - that is,
to vote on the first part of the whole package and just to take note of the contents of the document which was
presented by the Director-General. But after having understood all the implications, Kenya has withdrawn its
proposal. So what are we voting on now? Madam President, I think we need to be clear on these two points
before we put the motion to the vote.
129. The PRESIDENT:
Indeed we have to be. I thank you. I give the floor to the Secretary of the General Conference.
130. Le SECRETAIRE :
Je vous prie de m'excuser, Madame la Présidente, de reprendre la parole, mais peut-être conviendrait-il
de lever une ambiguïté qui tient à la nature même du projet de résolution qui est proposé ce soir. Comme je le
disais à l'instant et comme l'a confirmé le Président de la Commission administrative, il est demandé à la plénière,
d'une part, de prendre note du rapport de ladite Commission et, d'autre part, d'adopter la résolution qui lui est
proposée dans ce rapport. Or, il se trouve que cette résolution, qui tient en quelques lignes et dont le Président de
la Commission administrative a donné tout à l'heure lecture, se borne à prendre note du contenu du document
dont a fait l'objet le point considéré de l'ordre du jour. En d'autres termes, l'expression "prendre note" a été
utilisée dans deux contextes différents, mais s'agissant de la résolution qu'il est recommandé à la plénière de la
Conférence générale d'adopter, elle s'applique au contenu du document 30 C/42 et Corr. Par conséquent, si elle
était d'accord, il conviendrait que la plénière prenne note dans un premier temps du rapport de la Commission
administrative tel qu'il lui a été présenté puis, selon la recommandation de la Commission administrative, qu'elle
adopte dans un deuxième temps une résolution par laquelle elle prend note du contenu du document 30 C/42, qui
est un document distinct du rapport de cette Commission administrative. Merci.
131. The PRESIDENT:
Sir, it does not answer the question asked, whether that would mean that the seven-grade system would
be postponed. It does not make it clear whether the matter still could be dealt with by the incoming
administration. I understand it would indeed mean postponement for another two years. I think that is clear, and
that we can vote upon it. If this is not carried, then of course we could go into the substance but I shall find out
what opening we have for that. I give the floor to the Legal Adviser.
132.1 The LEGAL ADVISER:
Madam President, before the General Conference decides whether to adopt or not to adopt the draft
resolution proposed by the Administrative Commission I think that there should be no doubt as to the
consequences of the adoption of that draft resolution. If that draft resolution is adopted, as I said moments ago, it
means that the results of the salary survey and the implementation measures which the Director-General had
proposed have not been accepted by the General Conference. So these measures and the results of the salary
survey would be forgotten for ever and the only thing that would remain for implementation would be the sixgrade
scale which we have at present.
132.2 At the next session of the General Conference the results of the salary survey would not be presented to
the Conference because they would have become out of date. So this situation will remain until five years hence
because, according to the schedule of International Civil Service Commission General Service salary surveys,
these are organized at Headquarters duty stations once every five years and this year was the chance of Paris.
Thus if the Conference decides not to implement the recommendations of the ICSC it means that we have to wait
for five more years before new proposals would be put before the General Conference. Thank you, Madam
President.
133. The PRESIDENT:
Thank you Sir. Mr Marshall, can I ask you if this was understood when the Administrative Commission
was debating the issue?
134. Mr MARSHALL (New Zealand), Chairperson of the Administrative Commission:
I am not in a position to give an answer to that. I said earlier that if there were any doubts about the
meaning of what we were doing, we should make time for a comprehensive debate. Although there were many
people who knew exactly what they were doing, I suspect from the hint dropped by Nigeria that we run the risk
of adopting a resolution without knowing the full implications and this was just in the nature of the way the
debate evolved, as you might recall. So I am concerned, Madam President, that you should not preside over a
Conference which makes decisions of which the implications are not fully clear. Although it is inconvenient, and
indeed a nuisance, to try and find some more space, the Conference has to make a decision knowing what it is
doing and fully aware of the implications. If we make a decision of which we are not fully aware, we will be
586