David Faulder, on 05 March 2011 - 04:46 PM, said:
How might one "reapportion"?
I suppose any "reapportionment" would be an abandonment of the principal of payment related to casualty numbers. A possible justification for this might be to consider that the fixed cost element of the entire contruct that is the CWGC should be apportioned by means of a more equally shared "standing charge" with a reduced amount of the overall costs thereby being apportioned by reference solely to numbers of casualties.
This a matter of practicality for countries such as Canada and Australia who may well look askance on the possible results of CWGC budget cuts given how important their Great War casualties are in their national stories. The solution may have to be for them to dig deeper into their pockets.
All the countries on the contributors list are well able to afford to pay a standing contribution of say £3 million a year each with the balancing contribution being casualty number related. Of course, the question will be raised "Why should they given the numbers of their losses?" One reason why they should perhaps consider such a move might be based on the old adage "He who pays the piper etc". If they want more influence on what happens in the CWGC cemeteries far from home, then how much they contribute would assist this aim.