On 23rd October, the Managing Director of the Uganda Coffee Development Authority wrote a letter to the ICO.
A number of member states had requested a cut in their contributions by 50%, and the letter refers to a working party that had been formed to review and make recommendations.
The complexity of the situation became apparent to me as I read the communication and then referenced the rules which had been cited, as well as the rules which were cross-referenced from other rules, and took into account the Working Group Terms of References (ToR), and meeting minutes.
From my bystander perspective, and without access to the ToR or minutes that the ICO Chairman is correct in their position. However, I sympathise with the Uganda Coffee Development Authority for having to navigate such a minefield. I also have one significant concern which I come to later.
The letter is attached below, with the response from the Chairman of the ICO.
Dr Emmanuel Niyibigira expresses concern about a timing of a meeting to approve the ICO budget has moved ahead without giving the members 30 days notice to review the documents in advance.
This, Mr Niyibigira notes is in breach of the rules, and he asks for the meeting to be delayed for time to review the budget.
The ICO has a number of documents which work together to form the overall rules that apply. They are:
- Rules of the ICO
- ICO Financial Rules and,
- International Coffee Agreement
Now the trouble with having overlapping rulebooks is the complexity and potential ambiguity they introduce. If I was a Non-Executive Director of the ICO, I might be seeking to simplify the member rules and constitution of the organisation!
The specific issue Mr Niyibigira refers to is Rule 5 of the ICO Financial Rules obligation that states:
Not later than 31 May of each year the Executive Director shall, in accordance with
paragraph (1) of Article 20 of the Agreement, submit to the Finance and Administration Committee a draft Administrative Budget for the following financial year in the manner prescribed in the Financial Rules. The draft Administrative Budget, having been reviewed and, as appropriate, in the course of its deliberations amended by the Committee, shall then be sent by the Committee with its recommendation to the persons designated in accordance with Rule 7 of the Rules of the International Coffee Organization (‘Rules of the ICO’) to arrive at least 30 days before the session of the Council at which the Administrative Budget is to be approved. If the Committee does not reach a unanimous decision relating to its recommendation, it will inform the Council of this fact and the reasons therefor, with a view to requesting a final decision from the Council on the issue (‐s) raised. (Bold highlights by editor)
The requirement is then to deliver communication under the ICO Rule Book, Rule 7, which determines what comprises a legal communication.
These rules, argued Mr Niyibigira have not been followed, and therefore he requested the meeting rescheduled.
In their response, the ICO Chairman noted that in fact, the working party had a defined Terms of Reference in which, it states, will provide a recommendation to the Council for approval.
They point out that the Finance and Administration Committee – on which Uganda has a seat, met in September and agreed to present their recommendations to the Council without reference to any further deliberation.
Running an International Body cannot be easy. I can’t imagine having to understand the nuances and complexity of a multi-cultural International business.
However, one rule in particular stood out as concerning. The ICO made one other reference citing a Rule in which Paragraph 1 of Article 9 of the International Coffee Agreement states:
The Council shall establish such rules and regulations, including its own rules of procedure and the financial and staff regulations of the Organization, as are necessary to carry out the provisions of this agreement and are consistent therewith.
If I’m correct, this rule appears to say that The Council can, when it suits them, ignore the other rules and do what they like. I’d be interested in clarifying what the purpose of this rule is, because if a ‘wildcard’ rule exists, then it makes all other rules impotent and, arguably, not rules at all, but guidance.
The ICO serves a crucial function in our industry, and in the current environment, we need it agile and responsive. This may be an isolated incident, but I’m sure the member states wouldn’t be averse to having a review of the existing documentation to see if there are ways to simplify and improve the clarity of the rulebooks.
