Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page

III. PROGRAMME, BUDGETARY, FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS (continued)
III. QUESTIONS CONCERNANT LE PROGRAMME, LE BUDGET, LES FINANCES ET L'ADMINISTRATION (suite)
III. ASUNTOS DEL PROGRAMA Y ASUNTOS PRESUPUESTARIOS, FINANCIEROS Y ADMINISTRATIVOS (continuación)

2. Election of Three Vice-Chairmen and Designation of the Chairman and Members of the Drafting Committee
2. Election de trois Vice-Présidents et nomination du Président et des membres du Comité de redaction
2. Elección"de tres Vicepresidentes y nombramiento del Presidente y de los miembros del Comité de Redacción

LE PRESIDENT: Avant de donner la parole au prochain orateur, je voudrais vous dire qu'après consultation entre les différents groupes, un consensus s'est dégagé sur la composition suivante du Comité de rédaction.Je vous prie d'en prendre note: Algérie, Argentine, Australie, Egypte, Espagne, Etats-Unis d'Amérique, France, Inde, Japon, Lesotho, Liban, Malaisie et Mexique.Voilà donc les treize membres du Comité de rédaction.

Il reste à nommer le Président de ce Comité. Y a-t-il une suggestion à ce sujet? Nous pourrions laisser le Comité se réunir pour qu'il nous fasse ensuite une proposition.

LE DIRECTEUR GENERAL: Si vous voulez vous référer au passé, c'est toujours le Conseil qui nomme le Président, mais je crois que le temps n'est pas suffisant aujourd'hui. C'est toujours le Conseil mais cela peut changer.

LE PRESIDENT: Je pense que nous pouvons attendre jusqu'à demain matin pour entendre, en séance plénière, les suggestions concernant la nomination du président du Comité de rédaction.

5. Programme of Work and Budget 1990-91 and Medium-Term Objectives (continued)

5. Programme de travail et budget 1990-91 et objectifs a moyen terme (suite)

5. Programa de Labores y Presupuesto para 1990-91 y objetivos a plazo medio (continuación)

LE PRESIDENT:Nous reprenons le cours de nos travaux avec l'intervention du délégué du Liban.

Amin ABDEL MALER (Liban) (langue originale arabe):Monsieur le Président, je regrette d'avoir à reprendre encore la parole en raison de l'incident technique qui a empêché les honorables délégués d'entendre ma déclaration de ce matin.

Je voudrais tout d'abord prier le Secrétariat de tenir compte pour les PV de la déclaration que je vais livrer et non de celle de ce matin.

Monsieur le Président, c'est un plaisir pour notre délégation de vous voir présider la quatre-vingt-seizième session du Conseil.

Je voudrais également féliciter les trois Vice-Présidents qui ont été élus ce matin.

J'aurais quelques observations à présenter, à ce stade de notre débat, au sujet du point de l'ordre du jour que nous examinons. J'interviens donc en qualité de membre du Comité du programme et en ma qualité de Représentant du Liban.

Le niveau proposé du budget n'est pas celui que nous aurions souhaité. Nous aurions préféré un niveau de budget permettant de répondre aux aspirations et aux attentes des pays en développement. Ces pays font toujours appel à la FAO, afin que l'Organisation leur fournisse l'aide nécessaire pour améliorer leur niveau de vie; c'est en effet ce qu'ils escomptent.


Nous regrettons donc que le niveau de budget proposé soit tel que le taux de croissance n'est que de 0, 45%. Nous avons été contraints d'accepter ce niveau du budget après avoir entendu les propositions faites par le Directeur général aux sessions du Comité financier et du Comité du programme et les justifications de celles-ci. Le Directeur général a donné, en effet, les justifications qui l'ont amené à maintenir le budget à ce niveau. Le Liban, malgré toutes les épreuves qu'il a endurées et dont tous les délégués sont conscients, était prêt à accepter toute augmentation du budget qui aurait été proposée. J'ai le plaisir d'informer le Conseil que le Liban a déjà pris les mesures financières pour le paiement de sa contribution à l'Organisation pour la période 1989. Le Représentant de la FAO au Liban recevra un chèque de ce montant à la fin de cette semaine ou, au plus tard, la semaine prochaine.

Nous demandons beaucoup à la FAO mais ne lui donnons que peu. Le Secrétariat a pris toutes les mesures nécessaires au cours des deux dernières années et conformément aux directives du Directeur général, visant à réduire les ouvertures du crédit à concurrence de 45 millions de dollars. Cela a été fait sans répercussions négatives sur le programme de travail. Malheureusement, nous avons remarqué (et ceci n'est pas connu de tous) que certains membres du personnel de l'Organisation - et non des moindres - quittent celle-ci en raison du faible niveau de rémunération par rapport au secteur privé. Cela est fort regrettable mais ces cadres de la FAO ne sont plus en mesure de rester dans l'Organisation car les réductions budgétaires de leur point de vue ne permettent plus à la FAO de mettre en oeuvre les projets auxquels ils sont attachés. Pour répondre aux programmes prioritaires, la FAO a donc besoin de personnel hautement qualifié. Je pose donc une question: comment pouvons-nous recruter de tels experts à un moment où d'aucuns estiment qu'il est nécessaire non seulement de maintenir le budget à son niveau actuel mais de le réduire; d'autres préconisent que l'on diminue le recours aux fonds extrabudgétaires. Je me demande alors comment l'Organisation pourra mener à bien ses activités d'une façon satisfaisante sans avoir recours aux fonds extrabudgétaires. Cela me semble pratiquement impossible.

Alors, quel est le sort de l'Organisation? D'une part certains réclament d'autres projets prioritaires, de nouvelles demandes de la part des pays en développement pour que ceux-ci reçoivent l'assistance nécessaire pour promouvoir l'agriculture, plus de transparence qui caractériserait toutes les activités de l'Organisation, de nouvelles demandes de réforme à des coûts très élevés, et d'autre part, des demandes de réduction du budget de sorte que son taux de croissance devienne négatif.

Je crois que le moment est arrivé de trouver un accord pour aider l'Organisation à l'avenir et pour consolider les résultats obtenus au cours des quarante dernières années. Essayons donc de nous mettre d'accord sur un programme de travail et budget tel que proposé pour le transmettre à la Conférence en vue de son adoption à la prochaine session. Nous espérons que le budget pour la période 1992/93 enregistrera une croissance qui permettra à l'Organisation d'assurer toutes ses activités. Ceci facilitera à l'Organisation l'octroi d'une assistance au développement agricole dans les pays en développement contribuant par là même à la lutte contre la faim dans le monde.

Abdullah M.K. BOJANG (Gambia):Thank you very much, Chairman. My delegation would like to thank Dr Shah, and the Chairmen of the Programme and Finance Committees, for the clarity of their presentation. The two committees and the Secretariat have put in a lot of effort in this exercise and we accordingly appreciate their diligence. The Gambian delegation would like to endorse the suggestion made by certain delegations that we recommend to the Conference to approve by consensus the Director-General's proposal. However, we are readily disappointed that very limited funding is provided under the TCP. We attach great importance to this programme at a time when most of our countries are involved in structural adjustments, less and less resources are available, even for vital sectors like agriculture. It is therefore necessary now to make our greater demands on the resources of the TCP. We would therefore order this Council to do everything in its power to make sure that at least we have further funding in this regard. It is gratifying to note that the Director-General is disposed to contact donors regarding possible further contributions on a voluntary basis, either through TCP or Trust Fund. We thank him for this initiative and we give him our wholehearted support. Thank you, Mr President.

Assefa YTLALA (Ethiopia):Thank you, Mr Chairman. First of all I would like to congratulate the three Vice-Chairmen upon their election to this important responsibility. I would also like to thank Mr Shah and Chairmen of the Programme and Finance Committees for their lucid presentations on the Programme of Work and Budget for 1990-91 biennium. As we were members of the Finance Committee, I should express that we were party to the recommendations in the document and supporters of the view of the majority. We are convinced that the programme element and priorities said and used in determining the programme and budget are results of intensive


discussions in the various committees and the bodies and feel that those concerned are fully considered in the documents that we have before us. As the programme elements in the documents were results of discussions that we had throughout the biennium, we don't feel it is appropriate to raise detailed matters at this stage because this will affect the gradual development of the consensus that emerged as the technical discussions were being carried out on each of the areas that were incorporated in the present Programme of Work and Budget.

Chairman, the proposed Programme of Work and Budget for the 1990-91 biennium has a very small and nominal programme increase when seen in the light of the range of requirements and expectations of member countries. The cost increase which is incorporated in the Programme of Work and Budget is a technical matter whose considerations are based on certain guidelines and discussions on these guidelines fall outside the mandate of both this august body and the Organization in which case we can only advise and recommend that those reasons and guidelines are closely synchronized with the request.

In a period of establishing a consensus, we would like to express our voice of endorsement, even though we feel that the proposed Programme of Work and Budget falls short of the expectations of member countries:the objective of achieving increased food production and appropriate assistance to this end by FAO.

Raphael RABE (Madagascar):Ma delegation voudrait d'abord vous féliciter et manifester sa satisfaction de vous voir à la présidence de cette session importante de notre Conseil. Elle félicite aussi les Vice-Présidents qui viennent d'être élus.

Monsieur le Président, la délégation malgache vous remercie de lui donner la parole et de lui donner ainsi l'occasion de s'exprimer sur ce point crucial de notre ordre du jour. Elle félicite le Secrétariat pour la qualité des documents qui ont connu au fil des années des améliorations très sensibles. Elle manifeste sa gratitude à Monsieur Shah pour la présentation très claire qu'il a faite du sujet et remercie par la même occasion les honorables présidents du Comité financier et du Comité du programme pour les compléments d'informations très utiles qu'ils ont bien voulu prodiguer à ce Conseil.

Comme toujours le Gouvernement malgache, par le canal de sa représentation permanente et des délégations qu'il envoie aux Sessions des différents organes de la FAO, a suivi de très près, d'une part l'exécution du programme de travail 1988-1989 mais aussi et surtout l'élaboration du projet de programme 1990-91. Il a donc eu largement le temps de faire part aux moments appropriés, de ses avis et recommandations à l'endroit des documents qui ont servi à l'élaboration du projet.

A la Conférence régionale de la FAO pour l'Afrique qui s'est tenue l'an dernier à l'île Maurice, la délégation malgache a joint sa voix à toutes celles des délégations présentes à cette conférence, pour lancer un appel vibrant à la Communauté internationale afin que le soutien accordé aux gouvernements des Etats africains soit plus intense, car la réalisation du programme des Nations Unies pour le redressement et le développement de l'Afrique connaît un retard important; aussi requiert-il beaucoup plus d'efforts.

L'on sait que dans le cadre dudit programme la FAO a élaboré pour le secteur de l'alimentation et de l'agriculture en Afrique un programme d'agriculture pour les 25 prochaines années qui, ayant reçu un appui vigoureux et unanime des Etats Membres, devrait connaître une mise en oeuvre effective et soutenue. Malheureusement tel n'est pas le cas, car trois années de suite l'Organisation a connu des difficultés financières sans précédent l'empêchant de répondre au pressant appel adressé par nos populations les plus démunies.

C'est en considérant et en ayant constamment à l'esprit les prioritésde l'Afrique en particulier et celles de tous les pays en développement à bas revenu et déficit vivrier en général, que la délégation malgache a contribué activement aux différentes étapes de programmes de travail et budget 1990-91.

N'étant membre ni du Comité financier ni du Comité du programme nous n'avons pas participé à la session spéciale de janvier 1989 des deux comités mais nous avons examiné très attentivement les résultats de leurs travaux. Par contre, nous avons pris part à tous les travaux des autres comités techniques qui ont examiné le Programme de travail et budget, et, bien entendu, nous avons participé aux travaux de la 95ème session du Conseil.


Partie prenante dans les conclusions de ces organes, nous n'éprouvons aucune difficulté à accorder notre appui au projet bien que nous continuions à regretter que la part du Programme de coopération technique ne représente que 11,5% du budget alors qu'elle représentait plus de 14% en 1986-87.

A signaler que le rapport du Comité financier au paragraphe 3.5 indique que sur 63 millions de dollars du biennium 1988-89, au 31 août il ne restait que 5 900 000 dollars alors que les demandes insatisfaites sont très nombreuses. Une raison de plus pour démontrer que le montant fixé pour le PCT est loin d'etre exorbitant. Il est insuffisant et nous souhaiterions que dans l'avenir cette part du PCT dans le budget augmente sensiblement et approche et - sinon atteigne -les 17 ou 18% du budget.

Nous regrettons également que, en raison de différentes considérations, on ne puisse pas, dans le biennium à venir, remédier aux effets négatifs des réductions draconiennes opérées aux programmes 1988-89.

Le retard dans l'exécution des programmes et le manque à gagner persisteront donc malheureusement.

Devant ce tableau peu brillant et loin d'être encourageant peut-on encore se permettre d'insister sur le principe sacro-saint ou la religion pour certains de la croissance zéro? Une croissance réelle du budget de 0,45% serait-elle encore jugée exorbitante? Voudrait-on continuer à ignorer le mal causé par la suppression des programmes prioritairescorrespondant à 45 millions de dollars?

Le dialogue a toujours existé au sein de cette Organisation et la volonté de coopération toujours manifeste, surtout sur les grands thèmes qui nous ont occupés et nous occupent actuellement. Les délégations, fort heureusement, ne sont pas ici pour s'affronter mais pour trouver ensemble les voies et moyens pour vaincre la pauvreté, la sous-alimentation et la faim. Employons-nous donc à faire le bilan de nos actions communes et à rechercher les actions appropriées aux lacunes et aux imperfections qui n'ont pas manqué de ternir les résultats de nos efforts conjugués. Les Comités financier et du programme, le groupe d'experts auxquels nous avons confié l'examen de la FAO et de la gestion de ses ressources nous confirment sans ambiguïté aucune que la FAO est une excellente institution technique et de développement, efficace et bien gérée. Cependant, pour garder ses qualités et s'acquitter de son mandat il faut d'une part qu'elle soit assurée de disposer de ressources suffisantes, mais, d'autre part, que des ressources habituelles soient accrues.

Au regard de ces affirmations rassurantes, on pourrait se poser la question de savoir à quoi aurait servi l'examen de la FAO si on continue à douter de la pertinence des propositions qui nous sont présentées, propositions qui ne sont que le résultat des recommandations que nous avons nous-mêmes formulées précédemment.

Dans son intervention de ce matin le Président du Comité du programme nous a informés de ce qu'au sein de ce Comité il y avait un agrément total sur la substance du programme. Dans ces conditions, nous pensons que la logique et le bon sens nous interdisent d'adopter une attitude négative à l'endroit d'un projet qui a recueilli un agrément total. La logique et le bon sens nous imposent donc le consensus dans son adoption.

Tawfik A.H. AL MESHHEDANI (Iraq) (original language Arablc): Mr Chairman, I wish you every success, and I should like to congratulate the three Vice-Chairmen, who have the confidence of the Council. I should like to congratulate Mr Shah and to hail the excellent way he has presented this item. I should also like to thank the two Chairmen of the Programme and Finance Committees for helping the committees to come out with these fruitful results and for their proposals.

On considering the Programme of Work and Budget, we have found that the document is quite clear, particularly as regards the priority programmes, which has facilitated our understanding of the different programmes. We believe that there is a solid basis for the proposed programmes. For that reason, we support the priorities.

As for the budget level, we believe that great efforts have been deployed to reach this level.

As for the proposals, they are in conformity with the efforts deployed by our countries in order to overcome the problems relating to food and agriculture. We fully agree that we must increase the technical and economic programmes, including the Programme of Technical Cooperation, although we believe that the increase has been quite modest and does not correspond to the requirements of our countries.


On the other hand, we regret the support to be given by the TCP, because we depend on this proportion to a large extent. We believe that the approach adopted by the Director-General as far as the Programme of Work and Budget is concerned is quite responsible and takes into account the consensus and that the priority identification is very practical and accords with what could be applied; and, of course, all priorities have been taken into consideration.

In conclusion, we approve the Programme of Work and Budget and suggest that it be submitted to the Conference.

Igor MARINCEK (Suisse): J'aimerais d'abord, Monsieur le Président remercier Monsieur Shah ainsi que le Professeur Mazoyer et l'Ambassadeur Bukhari respectivement Présidents du Comité du programme et du Comité financier, de leur introduction de ce point de l'ordre du jour.

Notre Conseil est appelé à donner un premier préavis à la Conférence sur le Programme de travail et budget proposé pour 1990-91. Ce faisant il devra examiner les propositions du secrétariat sous les aspects suivants:

Premièrement : est-ce que le Programme de travail est bien orienté sur des priorités claires qui correspondent à une stratégie convaincante?

Deuxièmement, est-ce qu'il y a une concentration suffisante des activités proposées pour assurer une utilisation efficace des ressources?

Troisièmement, est-ce que la hauteur du budget proposée est justifiée, notamment en ce qui concerne les augmentations des coûts assez sensibles? Un premier constat s'impose: la structuration et la présentation du Programme de travail et budget ne laissent toujours pas ressortir assez clairement les priorités du programme. Le seul effort de priorisation visible concerne l'augmentation dite réelle du budget, c'est-à-dire 1/100ème de celui-ci. Par ailleurs, le nombre d'activités proposées, ceci sous forme d'élément de programme dans le grand programme deux, ou de programmes et sous-programmes dans le reste du Programme de travail et budget proposé, ne cesse d'augmenter. Nous comptons 310 éléments de programme pour le chapitre deux, soit une augmentation de 8 par rapport au programme en cours. Le nombre de programmes et sous-programmes proposé est de 150; dans le biennium actuel nous en comptons 147. C'est un indicateur que l’éparpillement des activités continue, ce qui a pour résultat une situation où de nombreuses activités restent en dessous du seuil de la masse critique. Cependant, il est sans doute trop tard pour faire à ce Conseil ou à la prochaine Conférence des changements profonds au programme de travail proposé. Nous devrions cependant décider à la 25ème conférence de réduire sensiblement le nombre d'activités d'ici deux ans c'est-à-dire pour le programme du budget 1992/93, réduction qui n'affecterait pas le niveau du budget 1992/93 et qui permettrait ainsi de redéployer un montant significatif d'années de travail au profit d'activités prioritaires dans lesquelles la FAO dispose d'un avantage comparatif.

Une telle approche nous paraît être indiquée pour renverser la tendance qui va à l’éparpillement croissant des ressources et qui risque de paralyser notre Organisation.

Le budget proposé pour le prochain biennium nous paraît trop élevé, les augmentations de coût réclamées pas clairement justifiées. D'abord, le budget ne tient pas suffisammentcompte du fait qu'une certaine limite a été atteinte pour beaucoup de pays en ce qui concerne leur contribution obligatoire au système multilatéral. Ensuite, nous devons signaler que nous avons des problèmes avec le calcul du budget, en particulier avec les augmentations des coûts mais aussi avec l'abattement proposé pour délai de recrutement.

Ce dernier devrait à notre avis être adapté au taux moyen pendant le biennium en cours des vacances de poste effectives. Ce taux semble se situer autour des 10%. Il faut donc augmenter, et non pas diminuer le taux d'abattement pour délai de recrutement. Il en résulterait une diminution du budget de près de 20 millions de dollars.

Pour ce qui est du calcul des augmentations des coûts, il nous manque les indicateurs-clef nous permettant de vérifier leur bien-fondé. Par exemple, le taux d'inflation utilisé, l'augmentation des coûts de personnel en chiffres et non seulement en classes d'ajustement de poste etc.

Finalement, 11 y a un aspect structurel qu'il faut considérer quand nous regardons le calcul proposé pour les augmentations des coûts, notamment son élément de biennalisation. Il n'est pas possible de réorienter les activités de l'organisation aux nouvelles exigences auxquelles elle doit faire face, si l'on n'est pas disposé à toucher aux programmes hérités du passé.


Ce sont nous les pays membres qui devons'cider si nous voulons limiter la marge de manoeuvre de notre Organisation pour réorienter ses programmes à la croissance dite réelle, ou si nous pensons au contraire qu'il est nécessaire d'augmenter la flexibilité de l'Organisation à sa capacité d'ajustement et de ce fait étendre sa marge de manoeuvre à l'essence de son programme.

Recalculer le Programme de travail et budget 1988/89 au prix actuel est un exercice qui nous lie trop au passé et qui renforce les inerties du Programme, ce qui favorise une utilisation peu efficace et peu économique des ressources. La seule méthode correcte à ce sujet serait à notre avis de partir des dépenses effectives dans le biennium en cours, mais on ne nous donne pas ces chiffres.

Il me semble utile de rappeler dans ce contexte que la Conférence adopte uniquement l'ouverture des crédits pour le budget ainsi que le programme de travail. Elle ne donne cependant aucune garantie pour le maintien des structures du Secrétariat. Etablir le nouveau programme en biennalisant les coûts de l'ancien programme de travail pour ensuite ajouter la croissance réelle et l'inflation prévue constitue cependant indirectement une telle garantie structurelle. Ainsi les variations des prix relatifs des ressources dont dispose ou auxquelles peut faire appel la FAO pour la mise en oeuvre des programmes perdent leur fonction régulatrice dans l'allocation efficace et économique des ressources de notre Organisation.

J'aimerais maintenant aborder la question de l'inflation prévue pour 1990/91. Le niveau de cette inflation et de l'augmentation des coûts correspondante étant hypothétique, nous pouvons soutenir les augmentations des coûts seulement si elles sont strictement liées à l'augmentation effective des coûts, vérifiée par le Commissaire aux comptes.

Ma délégation aimerait faire une proposition allant dans ce sens et qui concerne le projet de résolution sur l'ouverture des crédits pour 1990/91. Nous proposons plus précisément les changements suivants à cette résolution que nous pouvons trouver à la page LXIV du document C 89/3 en version française. Si nous regardons ce texte, nous proposons de ne pas changer le point 1., de ne rien changer en ce qui concerne le point 2.a). Pour les chiffres budgétaires, nous proposons de déduire du montant prévu du budget le chiffre pour l'inflation 1990/91, c'est-à-dire le chiffre de 45,1 raillions de dollars au taux de 1 235 lires par dollar. Donc nous ferions une déductionde ce montant et nous pourrions intercaler un nouveau 2.b), avant le 2.b) actuel, qui pourrait se lire comme suit: "un crédit supplémentaire de 45,094 millions de dollars (à ajuster au taux de change en vigueur du dollar lors du vote budgétaire) est ouvert pour faire face aux augmentations des coûts liées à l'inflation éventuelle pour la période 1990/91. L'Organisation est autorisée à utiliser ce crédit dans les limites de l'évolution effective des coûts. Cette évolution sera vérifiée par le Commissaire externe aux comptes".

Ensuite, le paragraphe 2.b) deviendrait le paragraphe 2.c) avec l'adaptation correspondante des chiffres, le paragraphe 2.c) deviendrait 2.d), etc.

Je suis disposé à donner le texte de cette modification au Secrétariat. Finalement, j'aimerais observer que l'estimation des recettes accessoires est très conservative. Elle repose par exemple sur un taux d'intérêt de 5,5 %. Or, actuellement le taux d'intérêt du dollar dépasse 8 % et la tendance n'est pas à la baisse.

Egalement l'estimation des recettes dites diverses semble être trop basse. Dans l'ensemble nous pensons que les recettes accessoires pourraient être plutôt estimées à 20 millions de dollars plutôt qu'à 12 millions de dollars.

LE DIRECTEUR GENERAL: Je n'ai pas lu la proposition de la Suisse mais je crois qu'elle n'est pas conforme à l'Acte constitutif de l'Organisation. L'Article VII de cet Acte stipule que le Directeur général a pleins pouvoirs et autorité pour diriger les travaux de l'Organisation, c'est-à -dire, inter alia, pour mettre en oeuvre le Programme de travail, sous le contrôle du Conseil et de la Conférence. Le vérificateur externe ne peut pas s'immiscer dans les prérogatives de l'exécutif et le Directeur général ne peut pas dépendre de lui dans des aspects essentiels de la gestion qui vont bien au-delà de la vérification des comptes. Le vérificateur externe a des fonctions qui s'exercent a posteriori; la gestion est par essence une fonction a priori.


La proposition suisse va très loin.

Si j'ai bien compris le représentant de la Suisse, il propose un budget inférieur de 20 millions de dollars, si l'on estime à 10 pour cent la proportion des postes vacants. En plus, vous faites une contre-proposition de budget réduit d'au moins 20, se ce n'est pas 30 ou 40 millions de dollars.

Igor MARINCEK (Suisse). Effectivement, j'ai abordé différents éléments: il y a des éléments concernant l'abattement pour vacance de poste puisque le taux utilisé est de 5,5 % actuellement. Une simple extrapolation - évidemment c'est au Secrétariat de donner les chiffres - permettrait de donner un chiffre. Avec 5,5 % qui correspond à une diminution de budget de 20 millions de dollars, l'extrapolation pourrait être de 20 millions de dollars en plus.

Raymond ALLEN (United Kingdom): I would like to thank Dr Shah for his helpful introduction, and also Professor Mazoyer and Ambassador Bukhari for their introductions on the work of the committees.

Taking first the medium-term objectives, our main comments on the technical contents of the paper have already been conveyed in the various technical committees.However, we note from the document that the deliberations of the various committees, at which programmes have been discussed during the year, seem to have little influence on the budgetary proposals.On the other hand, the accompanying text does appear to have been expanded in places to take account of some of the major concerns.

Turning first to the agriculture programme, the introduction to the programme provided a useful overview of the long-term trends which may be expected in world agriculture and the goals and strategies to be adopted in facing anticipated future problems.In this analysis we are particularly pleased to see the increased emphasis being placed on the importance of improved agricultural policy planning in many countries to accommodate both complex internal and external changes in the economic and social environments in which they are likely to occur.We fully support the view that this will become an increasingly important area of real work for the future in which FAO will have an increasingly valuable role to play through the provision of advice and the options, policies and strategies needed to promote equitable growth.

We are also pleased to see the renewed emphasis which has been placed on the importance of establishing a strong institutional base in developing countries.Not only to provide support through the continued development of agriculture, but also to support increased development of a sounder management system for resource base.This is rapidly becoming a practical problem of major concern in many countries as populations continue to expand and fears for the environment continue to grow.Institutional strengthening at national level will be an essential component in any future plans if the inevitable conflict between the need for more food and the protection of the environment - particularly in marginal lands - is to be checked.Appropriate institutional strengthening at both policy and technical levels is again an area of work in which we feel FAO has particularly valuable expertise to offer as part of the overall international effort in this important field.

The priority which has been accorded to the alleviation of rural poverty and the promotion of equality and development is also very welcome.The widening inequality between rich and poor and the growing evidence that large sections of rural societies have tended not tobenefit from technological improvements, is again an area of increasing concern in most countries and requires a concentrated effort for successful intervention.In this respect specific reference to the need to develop economic and social opportunities for women in agriculture in a number of individual work programmes is encouraging, and we believe essential, for the sustalnability of the development process.

It appears from the Director-General's introduction, and from the table on page 31 of the document that in the Forestry sector there has been little attempt to address the real issue of relative priority and funding provision between sectors.The proportion of the regular programme budget to forestry has not improved in terms of actual increased allocation.Agriculture receives a much larger increase than has been afforded to forestry.This is despite the great expansion of activity called for in the forestry sector, much of it related to conserving the


environmental and natural resource base for agriculture.The relative balance of funding between different elements within the forestry programme is acceptable.However, this is not the real point of issue and to analyse it in detail would distract attention from the main issue.All aspects of the forestry programme need strengthening.

Paragraph 10 on page 180 also seems to miss the essential point.It is not only forestry policies which need review and reorientation, but governmental policies bearing on the forestry sector.

As I said earlier, we have already presented our technical comments on the individual work programmes at the various fora.However, we remain concerned with the overall magnitude and broad scope of the programmes, and while appreciating the efforts which have so far been made in rationalizing several components, we suggest that this should be seen as an ongoing process.A formidable task lies ahead if our efforts to develop agriculture growth on a sustainable basis is to succeed.For this to be achieved care will need to be taken to ensure that the available resources are not spread over too wide a field of endeavor to be effective, but are carefully focused on key priorities to achieve maximum effect.

Turning now to the budget itself, my delegation agrees that our aim should be a programme and budget approved by the Conference by consensus.Of course, the budget which the Conference will eventually pass will be based on the Director-General's proposals in document C 89/3 and include such variations and expenditure patterns in the biennium as arise from the implementation of the review.The British Government is able to support only budgets of specialized agencies which show zero real growth in those activities funded from assessed contributions. Zero real growth must mean no programme growth as measured by methods of calculations of cost increases traditionally used within that organization.Our view is to compare like with like.I notice from paragraph 4 (18) of the programme framework on page 41 that the methodology for calculation of cost increases in 1990/91 is the same as that for 1988/89 and approved by the Finance Committee, Council and Conference.

There are clearly some shifts of programme and budget activities, but it is actually hard to see how far they are marginal and how far they are radical.There are also some reorganizations such as the transfer of agrometerology to research and technology development division, but it is not clear what other possible changes have been considered.Since the programme part describes all activities FAO hopes to undertake (field programmes as well as regular programmes), it is not clear from the budget part what activities are geared essentially to success in building or carrying out a larger field programme, or what are basically either invariant regular programme activities or tooling up to provide the technical backup for field programme activity.Implied funding from different sources for the programme, is set out by sub-programmes such as crops, livestock, etc.There is little indication of the distribution of regular programme paid staff and other resources to the various activities within each sub-programme. It is not clear in most cases how far the regular programme provision of staff and resources depends upon a corresponding volume of extra-budgetary resources provided by recipient goverments, UNDP, or other donors.

Much is said about shared responsibility for shared activities, and about internal coordination. However, I have the impression that all of this is to be achieved by special working parties or coordinating groups.

The need for such groups is itself often an indication that something is organizationally wrong. A regrouping and redefinition of responsibilities may lead to much less time spent on these joint working parties, especially since certain skills cannot successfully be duplicated in every technical division.

Turning now to some specific elements in the budget, I have some queries concerning the increases in the proposed budget which relate to the consistency of approach.Upon the answer will depend the extent to which we can support this budget when it comes before the Conference.The budget calls for an extra US$ 14 million to cover the eventual results of the International Civil Service Commission Survey on conditions of service of staff in professional and higher categories.As mentioned by my US colleague this morning the General Assembly have not commented on the report and there is no guarantee as to what the results of their comments will be.

Consequently, there is no financial provision for the Report in the regular budget of the United Nations.

On page XLI we are told that the cost increases take account of the measurable impact of approved changes in scales for professional staff and changes in allowances as and when approved by the authorization body concerned.I read from that that the practice of the past has been not to make provision for possible salary increases.May the Council please have details of the


practice in FAO in the past when we have been faced with expected increases?Have we always tackled these increases as ones which should be absorbed, as the United States delegate said this morning again; or have we found a way which combines propriety with prudence, by agreeing a provision which is only authorized by the Council following completion action by the General Assembly?

Document C 89/3-Sup.4 refers to the application of the lapse factor, with the proposal that this be reduced from 5.5 percent to 3 percent. The paper gives us a comparison of the rates used in other UN organizations.We do not consider that comparisons of this kind serve any useful purpose since situations vary from one to another.However, I should like to point out that the 5 percent lapse factor is quoted for UNIDO.This is indeed normal practice, but the Director-General increased the factor to 9 percent on the regular budget and left it at 5 percent on the operational budget.The budget was accordingly reduced by the relevant amount, and this was treated as a reduction in real terms.

A consistent approach has been called for in Member Nations' attitudes to the various organs of the United Nations, and if these were adopted in this case the reduction in the lapse factor would have the effect of increasing the budget in real terms.

If there is an actual reduction in the level of unfilled vacancies, then this growth represents expansion towards agreed budget levels.However, if there is no change in vacancy levels this growth represents a real increase in the budget. We are given little or no evidence in the document that the level of unfilled vacancies has fallen, and hopes of a lower level of turnover in the future are hardly a basis for any change.Only if it can be shown that the present lapse factor has resulted in budgeted posts remaining unfilled due to the lack of resources can there be a case for a reduction in the lapse factor.Even then, we consider that a gradual reduction only would be more prudent.

Regarding the absorption of cost increases of $3 million for consultants, travel and staff upgrading, I seem to recall that it was agreed in 1988/89 that efficiency savings would be made in these areas.Therefore, no inflation adjustment is made on these items in the currently proposed budget.The inference from this is that the price increases of $3 million would be off-set by efficiency savings of $3 million, such that the same level of programme activities can be maintained with the same level of resources.However, if one subtracts the $3 million from the real increases as has been proposed, this implies that the price increases are met not by efficiency savings but by a reduction in the level of programme activities.This gives the lower growth rate.

It therefore appears that the case for claiming the lower growth rate of the budget rests on the acceptance of a lower level of efficiency and the use of resources than has already been agreed.

We should also welcome some clarification of the methodology used for working out the post adjustment factor.As I understand it, it all depends on movements in relative costs of living and exchange rates.I should therefore welcome some clarification of why an inflation factor has been built in.

We welcome the outline budget process and support the Finnish and United States comments on this.

Gerhard LIEBER (Germany, Federal Republic of):Mr Chairman, first allow me to express my pleasure at having the opportunity of working again under your able guidance here in the Council.

My delegation thanks Mr Shah and the Chairmen of the Programme and Finance Committees for their introduction to this item, the Programme of Work and Budget for the coming biennium, which is one of the most important items on our agenda.

My Government would like to thank the Director-General and the Secretariat for the well prepared budget document, which compares well with budget documents of other United Nations specialized agencies.However, before giving our final opinion on the budget before us we should like to touch up a few items and ask a few questions.


First, let me state quite clearly that my Government agrees in principle to the priorities FAO intends to establish for the coming biennium.However, the parts of the document describing new priorities deal in great detail with what FAO has done so far, and in our opinion too little with what it intends to do in the future.In particular, the items Policy Advice and Sustainable Development, which have been given considerable attention in the report on the current biennium, give us the impression that here primarily verbal shifts in priorities took place.This impression is intensified by the fact that in some cases the same programme elements and/or sub-programmes are listed under the activities for different new priorities.

As far as Policy Advice is concerned, the Director-General in his statement to the Ninety-fourth Council Session expressed his concern - and rightly so - about FAO's reduced role in this important field.The role of FAO is also reflected in the fact that FAO carries out policy advice only in half a dozen countries while the World Bank claims to do so in more than seventy countries.

Expert Group No. 1 states in its very informative report, in paragraphs 2.23 and 2.24, that FAO is being too passive in this field in having often left alone developing countries in the process of structural adjustment.In the same direction goes the more general criticism of the Jansson report of the field programmes within the framework of the United Nations, which states the lack of analytical work and pathfinding studies in developing countries.This should have been the task of FAO in the very important field of agricultural policy.We expect FAO's positive response in this field in the future.

My Government has some similar concerns about the very important priority - Sustainable Development.We shall come back to that later.

As we read it, there is a marked increase in funds for the TCP.Here we are again in agreement with the report of Expert Group No. 1 which suggests that a smaller number of but better prepared projects should be carried out.In view of the fact that the TCP comprises 10 percent of the on the whole very positive and good field activities of the FAO, the view that additional funds for the TCP would probably be of greater benefit to developing countries in other programmes of the FAO is in our opinion at least worth discussing.

The same expert group also suggests that the regional offices should assume the last place as regards funding priorities.In view of this, and of the tight budget situation it is not very comprehensible why the same resources in real terms are made available to the regional offices as in the current biennium.

Some sub-programmes of FAO show cost increases which are still not quite clear to my Government. I give you two examples: the 20 percent growth in Establishment Entitlement, and the 30 percent plus growth in the resources for the Conference.We would be very grateful for some more detailed information.

We are also concerned about the proposed change of the lapse factor.This element for budget calculation - a very important one - should follow the real situation as closely as possible.If it is set too low, over-budgeting is the unavoidable result.

We should also be very grateful for some more indepth information on how the real budget increase will go down from 1 percent to 0.45 percent by the absorption of $3 million from the resources calculed to compensate cost increases.

David COUTTS (Australia):It is a pleasure to be back at the Council.It is a couple of years since I have had the pleasure of attending a Council meeting.I congratulate you and am pleased to see you in the Chair again, and I congratulate the Vice-Chairmen on their election.Just before I comment on this item, Mr Chairman, with your indulgence I should just like to thank the Council on behalf of our Minister, Mr Kerin.I did not raise my flag before because I thought it would be quicker if I did it now.He did ask me to thank the Council on the assumption that they were going to agree to forward his nomination before the Conference.He is very much looking forward to coming to Chair the Conference.He is certainly going to endeavour to do his best to make the Conference a success.There will be many challenges and he is looking forward to that.


Turning to the item, Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take too long, Australia has been on the Finance Committee and we have had the opportunity to make our views known a number of times during the preparation of this Programme of Work and Budget.Overall we are satisfied with the documentation that has been provided, and we are certainly satisfied with the assistance that we have received from the Secretariat as the process has developed.FAO is a complicated organization;'complex' may perhaps be a better word.No matter how much information you provide, there is always something else which somebody wants to see.One has to balance that against the realities and the costs of providing that.

In relation to the priorities and the substance of the Programme, Australia is broadly supportive of what is in the document.We have no particular problem.We are pleased to see that there is continuing and increasing concentration of policy analysis and advice.That has been an area which we have been supporting for some considerable time, for much the same reasons as have been given already by one or two other delegates, that we think that it is absolutely vital that, where an organization such as FAO is providing both technical assistance and general advice, this has got to be done within the context of a policy framework, or with a consciousness of the policy framework that is going to assist the adjustments that are necessary in a number of countries receiving this assistance.This will come again in the Review, so I will not belabour it any more.However, we are certainly happy to see that emphasis.

We are also happy to see the emphasis on a number of other things.I will not mention them all, but certainly sustainable development in the environment is one to which I think it is absolutely self-evident FAO has to give considerable attention to.Again, we shall come back to that when we look at the Review, because it is something we suggest there.

We are also pleased to see the continuing work on women and rural community development generally in the WCARRD programme and, perhaps, what is going to be done in future on that.It does underline to us though that FAO does need to approach its work with some degree of flexibility because, while there are these priorities, they can change fairly sharply.On the whole, we think that the Programme has evolved fairly flexibly in the sort of direction, and we are pleased to see that.FAO has been taking up things like forestry and pesticides, and other matters as they come along.I think it is important that it has flexibility to continue to respond to that. These are some other issues on the horizon which would not be reflected in this Programme, but which we would like to think FAO will have the flexibility to respond to if it is necessary.One of these which will, I think, come up here and during the Conference is the issue of driftnet fishing in the Pacific.I am not suggesting that anything should be in the Programme on that now, but it is an issue which is around.It is related to the sustainable development issue.We should like to think that the Organization, if there is a need to get involved in that issue, can respond flexibly.

In relation to the Budget itself, Australia has made clear on a number of occasions that we support zero real growth, maximum cost absorption.This Budget does not strictly conform to that formula.However, I was just talking about flexibility, and I think there is a lot of discussion to go on the Budget and on the Review.I think my country's position still has to be finally decided when we have those discussions all the way through.However, our policy is zero real growth and maximum cost absorption.One of the problems though is that figures can be very difficult things on which to get agreement, or even agreement on what they mean.There has been a number of comments on the cost increase and what that reflects.I agree with the UK delegate, that although there are some concerns that I have about the way that FAO does its sums here - not that there is anything incorrect about them, but it is a complex calculation.That is the way it is traditionally done and the Finance Committee is satisfied that it has been done on a consistent basis.We think that is the correct way to do it.

There is one issue there, however, which I think is also worth flogging.I am pleased to hear that it has been mentioned a couple of times.It is this allowance for additional cost in the next biennium which will result if there is approval of the salary reviews that are going in the United Nations.They are reasonably significant amounts of money.I think 8 million dollars is the figure I recall from our discussions earlier.I will be interested to hear Mr Shah's answer


on that question by the UK, because, as I understand it, if we had not known, or made allowances for that at this time - say, there was a very big question mark over whether that would be approved by the UN, but then it turned out that in the middle of next year that increase was approved, then eventually that would work its way in the biennialization aspect.Maybe Mr Shah needs to clarify that for us.

Presumably, as far as my country is concerned, if we did approve that 8 million dollars and then the UN did not vote for that increase, then we would expect that money not to be spent on other things.I mean, the money has been voted, if we voted for that purpose, and I am not quite sure what the end result would be if, in fact, it was not voted for, or all of it was not voted for, by the UN, but we had included it in our Budget.Maybe Mr Shah would be able to clarify that for us.

TCP:I would just like to remind the group also that money for TCP on the basis that the budget is not going down, it is going up, both in terms of the cost increases and in real terms.It is going down as a percentage of the overall budget.That is the decision that the Conference will have to make, but if you want to put it up to 18 percent of figures that have been mentioned, then, of course, you have got to say what you are going to cut in order to do that.As far as we are concerned, we support the TCP as a programme.We have always indicated some concern though that its resources should not be increased too dramatically.That is not to deny the need that it exists in developing countries for those sorts of programme, but the question as to the experts, whether TCP is the best way to provide always this type of assistance.We shall talk more again about TCP in the Review, so I will not say more about it now.

The lapse factor has been mentioned too.I should just like to mention that quickly.The Finance Committee did discuss it, as Ambassador Bukhari mentioned.As he also mentioned, we completely failed to agree in any fashion whatsoever about that item, and we have passed that all to the Council.In a way, that is a pity because it is really our job to make a clear recommendation, but it was not something we could agree on.My own position on that, however, was that FAO has managed for twenty years or more on a lapse factor of 5.5 percent, and I have not seen any arguments that convince me in the smallest fashion that there is any special reason now why we need to change that figure.

It will lead to an increase in the Budget, I think, of 18, 19 million dollars.I am just completely at a loss to understand why we want to complicate, an already complicated task by bringing that matter into it at this time.Five point five percent means that about one position in 19 is vacant on average.I just do not think that is an excessively large number of vacancies.I think if the Organization can run with only one position in 19 vacant, then it has got a very stable staff structure;indeed, too stable, because hardly anyone would be leaving on that basis, and I do think you need a gradual turnover in an organization.

I think that is just about all I wanted to say.I would just finally reiterate our position on the Budget.I have said what it is basically.In our minds there is a linkage though to what we decide to do on the Review, and that is the reason why I think these two issues have to be seen together in the context of this particular Conference.I think that is an issue that Commission II will have to look at too, how it deals with those two issues side by side.So, Australia is still prepared to talk about the Budget at this stage, but it does depend on what happens on the Review.

Huang YONGNING (China) (original language Chinese):Mr Chairman, thank you for giving me the floor.Firstly, the Chinese delegation is delighted to see you again in the Chair presiding over our meeting, and wishes to express its appreciation to Mr Shah and the Chairmen of the Programme and Finance Committee for their presentation of the document on the PWB.

I should now like to express our views on the document:the Summary Programme of Work and Budget for 1990-91 was reviewed at the 95th Session of the Council last June.We are now reviewing the final Programme of Work and Budget for the next biennium.We have noticed that, first, the next programme remains at US$ 5.5 million.Secondly, the cost increase of US$ 16 million has resulted from the natural increase in Personnel cost.We believe thatthe budget level in the final PWB


is determined by the DG taking into consideration the comments made by the Council and other fora.The final PWB was examined by the Programme and the Finance Committees in September.We have taken note also of the views of the two Committees contained in their Report to the Council. Therefore, we endorse the submission of the PWB to the Conference for approval.

The Chinese delegation will further state its views in Commission II during the Conference and we shall work together with other delegates to have the PWB improved by the Conference. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Atif Y. BUKHARI (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) (original language Arabic): I thank you, Sir, for giving me the floor. We should like to tell you that we are particularly pleased to see, once again, you chairing this Council session. As a member of the Finance Committee, I do not feel I need to go into the details of the PWB for 1990-91, but I would like to explain my country's attitude and position. I am sure you realize the PWB is, for FAO, the very backbone and basis of the Organization's work for survival. Thanks to this, it is able to contribute to helping developing countries.

From our viewpoint and from the viewpoint of developing countries in general, the PWB is the most important issue for discussion by the general Conference. It rates far and above all others. Consequently, Mr Chairman, I think we must realize that this is of great significance before discussing the others and I very much hope that the adoption of this PWB is carried out on the basis of a consensus, bearing in mind the measures taken concerning the priorities. This has all been examined by the Programme and Finance Committees and the Director-General in drafting the PWB, clearly did give due consideration to the guidance and recommendation of the governing bodies. He took into account the view of the regional conferences, too, and he did not fail to give account to the wishes of developing countries as regards the increase in the budget, and the appeal of developing countries. The end product, Mr Chairman, is to be found here in this clearly limited budget which is what might be described as a psychological budget.

Thirdly, there is no denying that developing countries will be duty bound to give their approval to this budget level for 1990/91, in full awareness of the fact that this budget will not fully answer their wishes for a better agricultural and food organization. We must remember that the developing countries, we, the developing countries, Mr Chairman, realize that there is a constant increase in demand from the developed countries, the industrial countries, they have increased their demands of recent years, particularly as regards further meetings and documents and the Organization will have to play a key role here, there and everywhere, and these new requests, which we hear in developing countries from the developed countries, are accompanied by other insistencies, that is that the Organization should not increase its budget level.

I would go further to these countries, the developed countries, and ask the Organization to absorb increased costs and the effects of inflation. So, Mr Chairman, dear brethren, what remains to be done to help the developing countries. There is no denying that we all fully realize that the interest shown by industrialized countries in our Organization and interest which has increased over recent years, is clear evidence, I say, that this power organization is playing a vital role as regards giving assistance to developing countries.

Now, as regards increased agricultural production, they are trying to help countries become self-reliant. Nevertheless, we ask the developing countries, Mr Chairman, to restrict their interest to certain issues so that the Organization can carry its humanitarian message to all corners of the world. Mr Chairman, the inflation rate and increased costs are tangible realities which we are all bound to acknowledge. Everyone, including the Secretariat, knows that this is an issue that was debated at length and is being debated again and again. Indeed, these criteria governing increased costs were discussed in the Finance Committee, an important committee which depends upon Council. They have also been discussed by external governmental committees, representing many countries. We must say that the criteria involved are not all that clear to decipher because the subject is complex, the Organization after all does not just work out of Italy, it works in all the corners of the globe.

Now, Mr Chairman, I would like to highlight the fact, and we refer to the famous 14 million that some members have questioned. We heard a member of the Finance Committee, that is Mr Coutts of Australia, stress the fact that the United Nations is going to revise this question and that there is in fact a study underway, and we believe that the present trend is that proposals concerning increased salaries of professional staff be adopted with full financial implications. We ask Council members who raise this question of the 14 million dollars, I say we would like to say to them that if the Organization does not include this figure in its budget estimate for the coming biennium, what will be the situation if the decision is in fact taken. This means that we will ask the Director-General to introduce further lapse factors affecting the programme in order to cover this shortfall. That is something we cannot expect.


In concluding, Mr Chairman, the delegation of Saudi Arabia expresses its determined support for the Programme of Work and Budget for the coming biennium. This decision has been taken, because we are appreciative of the lofty objectives of the Organization and what it has done over recent years. This decision is also the result of our support for the Director-General. We appreciate the tireless efforts he has engaged in in preserving the Organization and its paving its way for the future, enabling it to carry its message to developing countries in order to guarantee food security which will be lasting. Thank you, Sir.

Bahar MDNIP (Malaysia): Thank you, Mr Chairman, for giving me the floor. First of all, allow me to join other delegates in expressing my delight in seeing you again in the Chair, Sir, and also to your newly elected Vice-Chairmen. We are confident that this Council will be concluded successfully under your very able leadership. Thanks are also due to Messrs Shah, Mazoyer and Bukhari for their clear explanations.

Mr Chairman, my delegation considers this agenda item, the Programme of Work and Budget for the next biennium, 1990-91, as the most important item in this session of the Council. As it has been emphasized by many delegations and without any further constraint, this Programme of Work and Budget should get the support and approval of all. My delegation has read the documents which reflect the fact that the Director-General and his staff have taken every measure to formulate a proposal which is acceptable to all under this very difficult economic situation and tight financial squeeze. They have put in the forefront their great wisdom and judgement to reflect their needs and priorities, and having in mind the urgency and magnitude of the problems of food and agricultural development of the developing countries, the constraints consequential to sufficiency and resources and the capacity of the Organization to fulfil its mandate.

Mr Chairman, my delegation wishes therefore to congratulate the Director-General and his staff for having realistically examined and prepared this programme proposal.

As he indicated in the proposal, this Programme of Work and Budget was formulated after critical and serious examination, taking into account the urgent demands of the developing countries, after extensive dialogue among members and after other consultative steps had been taken.

My delegation does not want to go into a deeper examination of the proposals because we feel that, in the present situation, the Director-General has put forward what appears to us an acceptable proposal, though with the barest minimum budget level. There has been minimum increase of the budget level to ensure minimum negative effect vis à vis the programmes. There has been a humble increase of 1 percent, which is equivalent to an increase of half, or less than half, a percent in real programme. There has been a reduction of TCP from 12.8 percent to 11.8 percent. We only hope that this will not be the case in the future. We feel that zero growth should not be applied to an agency like FAO which plays an important role in the alleviation of hunger and malnutrition in the world.

If we consider carefully the actions taken by the Director-General and his staff in preparing the proposals summarized here, in which he has trimmed the budget for greater efficiency and economy and to shift his programme activities to boost technical and economic programmes, we would agree that this proposal would result in the implementation of priority programmes with the aim of increasing efficiency and optimum utilization of resources. We agree with the nine priority areas as envisaged in this Programme of Work and Budget.

In view of the fact that this proposal has been closely examined by both the Programme and Finance Committees, and in view of the constructive way that this proposal was prepared to give thrust and balance to the Programme, my delegation gives its full support to the proposals of the Programme of Work and Budget, especially with regard to the level of budget, and the strategies and priorities in the Organization's Programme for the next biennium.

Sra. Laurie CORDUA CRUZ (Nicaragua): Considerando que es la primera vez que mi Delegación hace uso de la palabra, quisiera aprovechar la oportunidad para expresarle nuestra satisfacción por verle presidir nuevamente nuestras labores. Igualmente felicitamos a los Vicepresidentes por su elección. También quisiera agradecer al Sr. Shah y a los Presidentes del Comité del Programa y de Finanzas la presentación que hicieron esta mañana del tema que nos ocupa.

Señor Presidente, si bien consideramos que el aumento del presupuesto propuesto no compensa los efectos de los recortes de años anteriores, que como es de todos conocido, asciende a 45 millones de dólares, sí lamentamos la reducción del uno por ciento en la asignación al TCP, Programa que consideramos tiene importancia fundamental como instrumento eficaz para responder a las necesidades urgentes en nuestros países. No obstante esto, Sr. Presidente, mi Delegación,


apreciando la labor y esfuerzos realizados por el Director General para presentarnos una propuesta del Programa de Labores y Presupuesto realista y que pueda gozar del amplio consenso, espera, tal como lo han expresado la mayoría de las Delegaciones que me han precedido en el uso de la palabra, que el Consejo recomiende a la Conferencia la aprobación del Programa de Labores y Presupuesto para el bienio 1990-91 por consenso.

Por otra parte, Sr. Presidente, mi Delegación desea expresar que rechaza la solicitud de una mayor absorción de costos. Consideramos que esto, aunado a la crisis financiera sin precedentes que atraviesa la FAO por la falta de pago del mayor contribuyente, tendría graves efectos sobre nuestra Organización.

Para finalizar, Señor Presidente, la Delegación de Nicaragua reitera su apoyo al Programa de Labores y Presupuesto para el bienio 1990-91 y rechaza cualquier vinculación de la aprobación del mismo con la discusión de otros temas.

Jang Bae YOUNG (Korea, Republic of): Mr Chairman, like other delegates, 1 should like to express our pleasure at seeing you once again in the Chair of this important session of the Council. As we are all aware, the agenda before us is one of the most important and challenging items in this session. However, we believe that, under your able guidance, as you have shown in many previous sessions, our meeting will produce fruitful outcomes and thereby reach a final conclusion, as all Member Nations desire.

I should also like to congratulate the three Vice-Chairmen on their unanimous election and to express our appreciation to Mr Shah and the Chairmen of the Finance and Programme Committees for their clear and succinct presentations and valuable remarks.

May I now make some brief comments on this agenda item?

Firstly, my delegation would like to express its compliments on the efforts made by the Secretariat in the course of preparing the Programme of Work and Budget proposals, such as improvements in form and structure and enhancement of budgetary transparency and the reduction of unnecessary expenditures.

Secondly, on the issue of budget level, we feel that the 1.1 percent increase is not sufficient to meet the increasing demand for agricultural development in developing countries. However, taking into consideration the financial difficulties of the Member Nations, as well as FAO's efforts for management improvement, we are of the opinion that the proposed budget is an acceptable one. Therefore, we fully endorse the Director-General's proposals.

In this regard, we should like to add our voice to the appeal for the unanimous adoption of the proposal at the forthcoming Conference.

Finally, my delegation believes that the nine programme priorities in the Programme of Work and Budget will reflect current needs for world agricultural development. We therefore fully support the priorities proposed by FAO. However, we should like to place special emphasis on priorities such as sustainable development, biotechnology and women in development. We hope that particular consideration will be given to for future budget allocations in this regard.

Ilja HULINSKY (Czechoslovakia): My delegation's remarks on the Programme of Work and Budget 1990-91 may be brief ones. We have noticed that some of our comments made in the FAO Council on the Summary Programme of Work and Budget have been reflected in the final documentation for the Twenty-fifth Session of the Conference, namely in the Director-General's draft of the full Programme of Work and Budget for 1990-91 and in the Report of the Programme and Finance Committee. We would wish that there should be enough time left for exchange of opinions on conclusions of the review of certain aspects of FAO's goals and operations, the relevant documents on that item having been for the first time on the Council's agenda.


Therefore, I have just four remarks to make at this stage.

First, on the proposed budget level, the Czechoslovak delegation is aware of the fact that the budget level had been formulated, from the very beginning of preparations of the outline of the budget for 1990-91. In extensive dialogue between Member States and the Secretariat, with the manifested intent of securing a consensus. That was the reason why we agreed at the Ninety-fifth Session of the Council to request the Director-General to proceed with the preparation of the final draft on the full Programme of Work and Budget on the basis of the document CL 95/3, inclusive of the budget level proposed in it.

While reserving our definitive position for the Twenty-fifth Conference of FAO, the Czechoslovak delegation would like to express its general support for the Programme of Work and Budget contained in document C 89/3, both for its substance and priorities, as well as for the proposed budget level.

Secondly, on procedure, in preparation of the Programme of Work and Budget 1990-91 a new procedure has been applied on an experimental basis. It is now suggested that the same procedure, i.e. a three-stage Programme of Work and Budget - the outline, the summary and the full PWB - be continued for at least another biennium so that its value can be judged over a longer time period.

As for the Czechoslovak delegation, we reiterate our position that we will endorse the continuation of this process, especially should it be clear from the outcome of the Twenty-fifth Session of the Conference that the new procedure would pave the way for consensus.

Thirdly, on resources, I am sorry that I have to raise again the problem of potential additional resources, which can be of help in covering both the material supplies and the services to field programmes, apart from the possibilities of being used for FAO's training programmes in the present difficult financial situation of our Organization. I am speaking of the UNDP accounts in national currencies that have been accumulated from several governments' voluntary contributions to the UNDP over a long period of years.

The Czechoslovak delegation strongly believes that it is more than time to get rid of the anachronistic political approach in that respect dating from the cold war period. Along with UNDP, FAO could, and should, do more than it has done until now within the IPF for utilization of these resources, following the example of UNIDO and WHO. I am using this opportunity to draw the attention of my colleagues from the Group of 77 to this problem, seeking their support in this matter. At the same time, the Czechoslovak delegation would like to suggest to the Director-General that he considers initiating the discussion of solving this question with the UNDP Administrator.

Fourthly, with reference to priorities, the Czechoslovak delegation has already endorsed the nine priorities of our programme of work. I will comment on just one aspect of our selected priorities. While taking into account that the requirements of the small farm sector will remain FAO's primary concern, the Czechoslovak delegation would welcome the increased assistance of FAO to the large farming sector. At the last Council's session we made known in detail why we share the position explained in document CL 95/3, namely, that it is necessary for FAO to meet the growing demand of member countries for information related to management techniques of large farms and to strengthen FAO's assistance to the large-scale farming sub-sector in developing countries. This is in order that the large farm units can become economically viable. We are also of the opinion that FAO should provide for the exchange of experiences concerning management practices of large farms operating in different countries. Our position was supported and reflected in the last Council's report (document CL 95/Rep). We are happy to note that it has been recalled in the Fifty-eighth Session of the Programme Committee (document CL 96/4) and elaborated upon in the draft full Programme of Work and Budget for 1990-91 (document C 89/3).

The Czechoslovak delegation to the Twenty-fifth Session of the General Conference would like to put forward further initiative in that respect: namely, the organization of training courses in Czechoslovakia on large-scale farm management to be offered through FAO to interested managers of large farms and assistants in developing countries. These courses will not favour a certain structural model. They will be purely technical and practical, based on the presumption that the economically viable management of large farms in different countries possesses a great number of common features. The organization of these training courses, may become one of the components of the concrete response to growing requests for information related to techniques of large farm and estate management, as mentioned in the Sub-programme 2.1.1.2 paragraph 30 of proposed full Programme of Work and Budget for 1990-91.


With that I shall limit my remarks on the item under discussion. The Czechoslovak delegation to the Twenty-fifth Session of the Conference will have sufficient opportunity to elaborate our posision concerning aspects of the Programme of Work and Budget for the next biennium.

LE PRESIDENT: Avant de donner la parole au Représentant du Canada, je voudrais signaler au Conseil que 14 autres orateurs sont actuellement inscrits pour participer au débat sur cette question. Je demande donc au Conseil s'il souhaite poursuivre ce soir, en séance supplémentaire, le débat sur le budget afin de permettre de consacrer plus de temps à la question du rôle de la FAO ou s'il veut que nous arrêtions le débat à 17 h 30 pour le reprendre demain matin.

Gonzalo BULA HOTOS (Coloabia): Primero que todo, sería conveniente conocer la lista para que cada delegado sepa en qué turno está, y luego pensamos que como hoy es el primer día de nuestros trabajos, podríamos atenernos al horario convenido, y a partir de mañana tomar cualquier decisión fuera de ese horario.

LE PRESIDENT: Y a-t-il un avis contraire?

Il y a donc 14 délégués inscrits mais nous aimerions avoir la liste complète des orateurs de manière à bien organiser notre travail. Pour le moment, les orateurs inscrits sont les suivants: Canada, Grèce, Kenya, Libye, Philippines, Trinité-et-Tobago, Congo, Italie, Japon, Brésil, Mexique, Pakistan, Argentine et France.

Y a-t-il d'autres délégués qui désirent prendre la parole? Algérie, Gabon, Indonésie, Hongrie, Guinée, Lesotho, Inde et Angola.

Du fait que le temps est limité, je propose que les délégués qui ont déjà parlé ne reprennent pas la parole afin d'éviter de prolonger le débat, à moins que ce ne soit indispensable à la suite des réponses du Secrétariat.

Je m'excuse auprès du délégué de l'Iran mais je crois qu'il a pris la parole ce matin. Désire-t-il la prendre à nouveau?

Taghi SHIRVANIAN (Iran, Islamic Republic of): Pardon me, I will do it tomorrow morning.

LE PRESIDENT: Nous avons encore actuellement 22 orateurs. Je propose que ceux qui ont pris la parole ne la reprennent plus. Autrement, nous risquons de ne pas avoir assez de temps pour consacrer deux jours, comme je l'ai promis aux délégués de la Suisse et des Etats-Unis d'Amérique, à l'analyse du rôle de la FAO.

Nous avons beaucoup de travail à effectuer et je compte sur la compréhension des délégués qui ont déjà parlé pour qu'ils ne reprennent pas la parole.

Je considère que la liste des orateurs est close. Cela fera au total 45 délégués qui auront pris la parole. Il me semble que c'est un nombre très important.

Earl W. WETBRECHT (Canada): We are pleased to see you in the chair directing our proceedings during this Council session. I wish to thank Mr Shah, along with the Chairmen of the Programme and Finance Committees, for their introduction to this agenda item.

Through our participation in the committees on Agriculture and Fisheries, as well as in the June Council session, we have had an opportunity to comment upon earlier proposals contained in the Summary of the Programme of Work and Budget. Also, as a member of the Programme Committee we participated in the examination of the outline, as well as the summary, and the final Programme of Work and Budget proposals.


Nevertheless, ray delegation welcomes this further opportunity to share its views on a number of proposed elements during this Council session. The Canadian delegation would like to compliment the Secretariat for the improvements made in the content and format of the Director-General's Programme of Work and Budget for the 1990/91 biennium. The incorporation of tables with the programme elements facilitates the assessment of activities and the identification as to where adjustments have been made. We also welcome the section on cross-sectoral priorities and agree with the main priority elements. The documents stopped short of providing a comprehensive list of possible lower priority elements, or areas where savings can be achieved. As the delegates of Finland, we see advantages in the process of further prioritization and note that it is an element which will arise in the context of our discussion on FAO review.

As noted initially by the delegate of the United States, Canada would welcome the continuation of the process introduced this year on an experimental basis whereby an outline programme of work and budget is presented to the Programme and Finance Committees by the Director-General. In previous discussions of the budget level, Canada has consistently argued that the programme changes should be made by reprioritization rather than through an overall increase in the programme budget level. We acknowledge cost increases of a non-descretionary nature and appreciate the information provided in the Programme of Work and Budget on the cost increases. However, as other delegations we prefer to see maximum absorption of cost increases. For example, we had questioned whether or not some activities, which were not implemented in the current biennium, needed to be recosted in 1990/91. Also certain budget elements such as the lapse factor could, in our view, be adjusted to reflect more closely the actual level of vacancies.

Other major specialized agencies have adjusted their 1990/91 programmes without requesting a growth in their budget levels. As the largest specialized agency in the UN system we are not convinced that FAO should be seeking a larger share of the system's resources.

My delegation welcomes the establishment of the new Sub-programme sustaining resource potentials. We hope that activities planned under this programme will improve FAO's contribution to the integration of ecological principles in agriculture practice. Referring to a comment made in the Programme Committee's report, we support FAO's participation in the forthcoming UN Conference on Environment and Development, working in close cooperation with its relevant sister agencies.

Canada recognizes the leadership role of FAO in the application of remote sensing and we welcome the emphasis placed on a world agriculture information centre. We also welcome the sharper focus on proposed activities relating to women in development. As pointed out by the US representative this morning we acknowledge the important contribution of the Codex Alimentarius in providing a basis for international coordination to harmonize national food standards as well as FAO's role in the harmonization of plant quarantine and phytosanitary requirements under the provisions of the International Plant Protection Convention.

We feel that the focus of FAO's programme in the fisheries sector generally corresponds with the views that have been expressed earlier, including the views expressed by the Committee on Fisheries.

The Canadian delegation compliments the FAO on the role that it has played in the promotion of the Tropical Forest Action Plan. The establishment of a coordination unit for the TFAP represents an important step. With the increasing number of national plans and preparation, and the growing involvement of donors, FAO will need to maintain a data bank of TFAP activities and closely monitor the outputs.

We note the importance that many countries attach to the technical cooperation programme and welcome further information provided on this programme in this document. However, we are not convinced that the information is sufficient to justify an increase of the magnitude proposed.

In conclusion, we thank the Director-General for the comprehensive document that has been presented under this agenda item.


Jean A. YENNIMATAS (Grèce): Ayant entendu les orateurs qui m'ont précédé, je serai très bref. Je vais essayer, en quelques lignes très générales, de vous faire connaître notre appréciation.

Le Conseil du mois de juin avait appuyé dans l'ensemble les propositions présentées par le Directeur général concernant le Programme de travail et budget pour 1990-91 et notre délégation avait axé son intervention sur deux raisons primordiales: premièrement, parce que mon pays estime que la FAO doit continuer ses efforts ayant pour but d'éliminer la faim et la malnutrition et de promouvoir le développement et l'harmonisation de la production agricole mondiale au profit des populations défavorisées; deuxièmement, parce que le Programme de travail et budget proposé à l'époque par le Directeur général est réaliste et devrait permettre d'arriver à un consensus.

Les années à venir ne seront pas faciles. C'est d'ailleurs la constatation du Directeur général. Mon pays, qui en est conscient, fera de son mieux pour participer pleinement aux efforts qui seront entrepris par notre Organisation.

Par ailleurs, permettez-moi de souligner entre autres l'importance du nouveau sous-programme de sauvegarde du potentiel naturel. Grâce aux projets-pilote et aux études qui seront entrepris dans le cadre de ce sous-programme, il sera possible d'établir un grand plan d'action dans l'avenir ayant trait aux politiques d'appui d'une agriculture durable, à la conservation des sols et des eaux et à l'impact des changements climatiques sur l'agriculture.

Dans le même contexte, l'analyse plus élaborée du Programme de travail et budget par région nous amène à la conclusion que les augmentations accordées aux régions de l'Afrique et de l'Amérique latine et Caraïbes sont justifiables.

Le budget que le Directeur général propose essaie d'équilibrer les divergences d'opinions entre ceux qui favorisent une plus grande augmentation du budget et ceux qui estiment une croissance zéro plus appropriée. A notre avis, le budget proposé réussit cette tâche et répond aux besoins fonctionnels de l'Organisation. En conclusion, notre délégation appuie les propositions du Directeur général concernant le Programme de travail et budget pour la période 1990-91.

Daniel D.DON NAN JIRA (Kenya): Mr Chairman, I thought that you had succeeded in convincing this august body that there was no need to go into a long debate because when you opened the meeting I thought you had avoided a number of procedural matters that consume a lot of time, so I was going to congratulate you heartily. However, seeing what is happening in this group now I do not know whether to congratulate you or not. But it is not your fault; it is our fault because most of the things that we are discussing here have already been discussed. My delegation would have wished that we go straight into the issues and make specific recommendations to the Conference, because what we are doing now has already been done, and it appears that what we are going to do will be done in the Conference. May I therefore appeal to the Council delegates to be sparing in their statements. I do not promise that I myself will be short because, as they say, "When in Rome do as the Romans do", but I do appeal to the Council to be short so that we can adopt the excellent reports which are before us for consideration, which the Director-General, with his usual competence, and with the competence of those who work with him, has given us. Therefore, I hope that there will be no need tomorrow for us to go into sessions longer than have been scheduled.

Having said that, I should like to highlight a few points which seem to my delegation to be relevant and worthy of note during this session of the Conference.

First, I wish to associate the Kenya delegation with the recommendations and details of the various components of the budget and the proposed priority activities. We hope that they meet with the approval of the Council.

Secondly, the Kenya delegation strongly holds the view that the problems and needs of Africa require preferential treatment. Consequently, we hope that due attention will be paid to such needs and priorities in the course of the Council and of the Conference sessions.

Thirdly, there is the question of prioritization of programme acivities in Africa. According to my delegation that is still a challenge to us and to the international community. We believe that the African countries themselves and the FAO can continue to give priority to the African priorities, in concert of course with the resources that will be made available for this purpose.


Fourthly, in the view of my delegation the following are among the major areas requiring priority treatment in the African context. Among those to which we would like to see priority treatment given is the strengthening of applied research and transfer of existing technologies to enhance the scientific and technological capacities of the developing countries. These capacities are incomplete unless and until they are backed by adequate financial resources. For example, (i) we in Africa should be helped to eradicate the ugly and terrible American screwworm fly before it is too late. Its own name "screwworm" is very ugly. I hope that we can address this question and make sure that we arrest it before it goes too far; (ii) supply and distribution of affordable inputs for increased agricultural productivity; (iii) conservation activities relating to soils, forestry and biological diversity; (iv) strengthening and increasing resources to livestock development and animal feeds production; (v) accelerating manpower development and training in the developing nations and enhancing the role of TCP in this regard. Last but not least, something must be done to arrest the reverse transfer of resources from developing to developed countries. Competent studies which we read show an alarming and frightening trend which warrants putting this question on a priority list of items for our discussion.

I believe that the needs of the poor and the hungry of the world are and should be the concern of all of us members of the world community. We should take concerted measures to alleviate the critical social and economic situation of the less fortunate strata of society, especially those who live in the rural areas. After all, the proposed budget increase is not, comparatively speaking, large enough, especially bearing in mind the needs of the poor and hungry who should be the beneficiaries of our efforts. All the programme activities in the given documentation are essential but if they are to be performed satisfactorily not even the requested budget increase will suffice. We therefore reiterate the Kenya delegation's view that the proposed Programme of Work and Budget be adopted by consensus.

LE PRESIDENT: J'espère être en droit de vous remercier pour votre concision. En effet, il s'agit de questions très importantes; ce sont deux questions sur lesquelles chaque délégué doit pouvoir s'exprimer quitte à faire des séances supplémentaires.

Il y a deux questions importantes: le Programme de travail et budget et les réformes; convenons tous que c'est là notre travail et si nous devons faire une troisième séance nous la ferons.

Bashir El Mabrouk SAID (Libya) (original language Arabic): I accept the recommendation made by the Ambassador of Kenya as far as brevity is concerned, but I should like to have his permission to congratulate the Director-General on his presentation of this document, as well as Dr Shah and the Chairmen of the Finance and Programme Committees for their introduction and explanations.

Being a member of the Programme Committee I participated in the preparation of the document, and I should like to confirm that the proposals of the Programme of Work and Budget honestly reflect all the viewpoints that were expressed. This document has taken into account the needs of the developing countries under severe economic conditions and I believe that we should thank the Secretariat for this attitude. The priorities mentioned in this document and proposed by the Director-General are priorities that should be supported. We should like to reiterate what has been mentioned by previous speakers, that is that such priorities have been expressed by the organs of the FAO, the governing bodies of the FAO.

We were hoping, in the light of the increasing needs of developing countries, that there would be a further understanding of such needs, and that they would be reflected in the Programme of Work. The increase does not exceed 0.5 percent. That is why we are a little concerned about the appropriations of the TCP which we, the developing countries, all support. We should like to acknowledge the fact that the Secretariat has made great efforts to reconcile the increasing needs and the limited resources. We should like to thank the Secretariat for this.

My delegation would like to reiterate the following points. To link the approval of the programme and the review process is completely unacceptable and we, the developing countries, are refusing this attitude.


The consensus is what we are trying to achieve and what has been solved by the Director-General. Actually the Director-General has never called for separation, but we always have to depend on the idea of consensus. Thirdly, the additional step referred to in this documentary regarding the elaboration of the Budget should not be judged as of now and should not be the basis for our future work, because the necessity of reaching a consensus at an earlier stage, and through this experience, this review process only entails further costs. In this context we should like to support those who have supported the budget level and the Programme of Work and Budget. Thank you Mr Chairman.

Bruce J. TOLKNTINO (Philippines): Mr Chairman, thank you for giving us this opportunity to present our views. We should like to congratulate you for running this meeting very smoothly, and we should like to thank the Chairmen of the Committees on the Programme and Finance, who, it seems, have worked so hard on the document, along with the support of the Director-General and his staff.

With regard to the Programme of Work we should like to note with satisfaction the priorities that have been set for the next biennium. In particular we are very interested in the function that FAO will provide in terms of policy advice. It is a much-needed and welcomed assistance to us, particularly in the process of rebuilding our economy. The policy framework is that framework which provides the essential elements for development, especially at the time when many of us -and in particular the Philippines- are undergoing structural adjustment. This structural adjustment is taking place as we realise the inter-dependence of the various parts of our economy, and our dependence also on the economies of other countries, both developing and developed, including questions that had to do with the debt problem and food security.

We are also satisfied with the attention being paid to sustainable development, and we are pleased to say that in the past few weeks we have been cooperating very powerfully with the work of FAO in the celebration of World Food Day. In that celebration we focused on the help that FAO has been giving the Philippines in terms of the programmes of integrated pest management and attention to the fate of the seas and the protection of the environment.

We should also like to thank FAO for facilitating the assistance being provided by the Italian Government, and we thank the Government of Italy for supporting our work for the comprehensive agrarian reform programme of the Philippines.

With regard to the Budget, we all realize of course that in the face of all of the demands for assistance being placed upon FAO, it is very difficult to sustain and meet that demand in terms of the limited resources we are all afforded. We regret that the level of TCP support, as a proportion of the Budget, has been reduced, because this is a very important part of the FAO programme, and we depend on it for the resolution of many of our policy questions and policy debates.

We hope that the level of TCP support is increased in future years, and that the level of about 14 percent at least, and even up to 17 percent, is restored in the future. However, the restoration of that level of support is dependent upon all of us meeting our commitments or contributions, and honouring these commitments that we have made in the past.

Finally, we should all remember that the Programme of Work and Budget is the combination of a process which started with the beginning of the previous two-year period, and of deliberations in various Committees, previous Councils, and also the sub-committees that have worked on these documents and on the programmes, on the technical committees on agriculture, forestry, fisheries and commodity problems, as well as also the regional conferences. Therefore, the Programme is a compromise between the demands of the various Member Nations of FAO, the demands of FAO and of the limits of the resources provided by FAO. It is a balance between the concerns and the demands and hopes of the Member Nations. It is not a perfect document, we realize, but it has been arrived at as a result of serious work and serious focus. Therefore, even though it is not a perfect document, it is the result of work in which we have all cooperated, and the delegation of the Philippines supports the Programme of Work and Budget.


E.P.ALLKTNE (Trinidad and Tobago): Mr Chairman, the delegation of Trinidad and Tobago is also happy to see you taking charge of the deliberations of this Session. We also extend our warmest congratulations to the three Vice-Chairmen. We must also convey our thanks to Mr Shah for his usual lucid presentation, drawing our attention to the important details, not even allowing us to go adrift in failing to recognize the new colour scheme of the documentation.

The Trinidad and Tobago delegation wishes only to make a relatively brief statement at this time. This Ninety-Sixth Session of the Council, together with the Twenty-fifth Conference Session, are poised for particularly historical significance in the life of this Organization.

Weighty and far-reaching decisions will flow from our deliberations, decisions of a kind which will undoubtedly affect FAO for decades. It is the debate, the points of view, the final decisions from the Conference, which will, in essence, determine what will happen in the years to follow.

Fortunately, there is a consensus on the relevance of FAO, the necessity of a continued strong and effective FAO and the need for expanding activity by the Organization. Our delegation supports the basic priorities indicated, and there is comfort in noting that a technical assistance thrust will be maintained.

No one can dispute that this Organization has been seriously affected by a precarious resource situation in recent years. We are informed that over the past two biennia, programme cuts have been effected to the extent of US$ 45 million. Frankly, what we are doing is forcing the Director-General to become perhaps the best human resources engineer in the United Nations system. In a delicate balancing act he continues to reduce and to freeze posts each biennium, knowing full well that the requests of the countries in need will and must increase.

It takes considerable courage to come here against the background of what the majority of delegations have said most vociferously and continuously over the years about the importance of TCP, and to say decisively that the allocation had been reduced percentage-wise.

Also the experts have clearly endorsed the crucial importance of the Programme. The developing countries must, therefore, inevitably share the optimism of the Director-General that resourcefulness from elsewhere will tip the balance again in the desired direction.

Our delegation can understand requests for clarification of various matters in the presentation of the Programme of Work and Budget. We are certain that the Secretariat will respond accordingly, since we see no indications of fluster on the podium. However, in a real sense, to suggest no increase for the 1990 biennium budget against what has happened in recent years is really asking for perhaps what we may call "minus zero" budgeting. Such a position simply does not fit the reality of the situation.

Mr Chairman, we thank the Chairmen of the Programme and Finance Committees for their presentation of this item. As we see it in the final analysis, the case for support of the Director-General's proposals in the present circumstances is simply overwhelming. In a real sense, the present budgetary request of a 0.4 to 0.5 percent increase can only be regarded as a very temporary situation. The realities of the world situation in food production and availability, nutrition, rural development and the increasing crisis in environmental matters do not allow for any continued trend in this direction.

Therefore, this delegation unhesitatingly recommends that the Programme of Work and Budget goes forward to the Conference with all appropriate explanations duly provided. It is also our further hope that, as the days move on, delegations from all countries will move away from fixed positions, and progress in harmony to consensus, for the good of the millions of disadvantaged who need a strong FAO.


Joseph TCHICATA (Congo): Comme je prends la parole pour la première fois aujourd'hui, je tiens, Monsieur le Président, â vous exprimer toute la joie qu'éprouve ma délégation à vous revoir à la présidence de notre Conseil. L'élection des trois Vice-Présidents, dont la compétence est reconnue par tous, constitue un gage supplémentaire du succès de nos travaux.

Je profite de l'occasion qui m'est ici offerte pour remercier tous les membres du Conseil pour la confiance qui vient de m'être témoignée en me proposant comme Président de la Commission II de la Conférence, dont chacun mesure le poids qui pèsera sur elle pour la réussite de la vingt-cinquième session de la Conférence. J'espère sincèrement mériter cette confiance et je puis vous assurer que non seulement c'est avec un grand plaisir que j'accepte cette charge mais encore et surtout que j'y serai présent.

Pour venir au point de l'ordre du jour qui nous préoccupe, je tiens â rendre hommage à l'excellente présentation qui nous a été faite comme à l'accoutumée par M. Shah au nom du Directeur général. Les fidèles comptes rendus des travaux du Comité du Programme et du Comité des finances, que nous avons suivis ce matin, sont à la hauteur de la compétence de nos deux éminents présidents, le Professeur Mazoyer pour le Comité du Programme et l'Ambassadeur Bukhari pour le Comité financier.

Je suis fort heureux de prendre part aux travaux de cette importante session du Conseil. En effet, les résultats de nos travaux pèseront sur ceux de la Conférence puisque notre Conseil a pour mission de faire des recommandations sur lesquelles la Conférence devra se prononcer, notamment sur les deux principaux points inscrits â notre ordre du jour. Il s'agit, comme vous l'avez compris, du Programme de travail et budget 1990-91 actuellement débattu, et de l'Examen de certains aspects des buts et opérations de la FAO que nous aborderons plus tard. Voilà deux points que nous traiterons séparément et pour lesquels aucun amalgame ne saurait être accepté. Nous devons librement, et en toute responsabilité, nous prononcer sur chacune de ces deux questions.

Pour revenir sur le vif du sujet, je noterai que tout a été dit sur la validité du Programme de travail et budget qui nous est proposé et les modalités d'établissement des propositions du Directeur général. Nous nous félicitons notamment du fait que dans ces propositions le Directeur général ait largement tenu compte des observations aussi bien de notre Conseil que des autres organes appropriés.

Quant à l'étape supplémentaire dans le processus d'examen du Programme de travail et budget, ma délégation pense qu'il est trop tôt pour se prononcer sur cette question. Mais mes conclusions pourraient être tirées au vu du résultat sur le vote du budget 1990/91, étant donné qu'une telle étape supplémentaire ne se justifiait que dans la mesure où elle favoriserait le consensus au moment de l'approbation du budget. Cependant, nous pensons également qu'une autre période probatoire est nécessaire avant d'évaluer ce processus révisé.

Ma délégation ne souhaite pas reprendre ici tout ce qui a été dit sur les mérites du Directeur général d'être parvenu à une proposition qui constitue un compromis entre les nécessités de faire face aux demandes sans cesse croissantes des pays en développement et les capacités de contribution des Etats Membres. Cependant, nous reconnaissons que l'augmentation de 0,45% paraît faible et tend plutôt à satisfaire les tenants du principe de la croissance zéro. L'absorption des coûts proposés me semble réaliste.

Mais nous voudrions exprimer notre désappointement quant à la diminution du taux budgétaire qui affecte le Programme de coopération technique qui vient ainsi d'être pénalisé malgré le succès qu'il connaît auprès des pays bénéficiaires.

Bref, nous approuvons toutes les activités proposées étant donné leur pertinence et nous nous félicitons ainsi de la capacité de la FAO de s'adapter aux nouvelles priorités qui s'inscrivent dans le cadre de son mandat et de ses objectifs.

Enfin, la délégation congolaise voudrait apporter tout son appui aux neuf domaines prioritaires et se félicite que le Directeur général ait concentré les ressources, certes limitées, sur des priorités soigneusement sélectionnées.

Pour conclure, la délégation congolaise donne son appui aux propositions du Directeur général et souhaite que le niveau du budget proposé, dont la croissance est quasiment nulle, soit approuvé par consensus à la Conférence. A cet égard, je pense qu'il convient, dès à présent, de dégager ce consensus que nous devrions recommander â la Conférence et nous proposons que le Comité de rédaction prépare un rapport clair et positif et qui évite des termes aussi vagues que "quelques", "certains", "de nombreux", et parle davantage du Conseil tout en mentionnant le point de vue minoritaire chaque fois que cela est nécessaire.


Gian Luigi VALENZA (Italie): Monsieur le Président, je voudrais dire avant tout combien nous sommes tous heureux de vous revoir ici comme Président de ce Conseil et de revoir aussi les deux Présidents du Comité financier et du Comité du Programme.

Je voudrais m'associer aux autres orateurs qui m'ont précédé pour remercier M. Shah pour son exposé très clair et au fond très édifiant. Je voudrais aussi féliciter le Secrétariat pour la présentation du document relatif au Programme de travail et budget que nous sommes en train d'examiner en ce moment.

Comme nous l'avons annoncé, je peux confirmer ici que le Gouvernement italien considère qu'une augmentation réduite de 0,4 ou de 0,5 du budget peut être en définitive considérée comme une croissance zéro, et donc comme une croissance tout à fait acceptable, même par les membres qui considèrent cette même croissance zéro comme indispensable et comme but ultime de leur requête.

C'est dans ce but que mon gouvernement souhaite que le programme proposé soit approuvé par consensus au moment voulu pour que les pays en voie de développement n'aient pas à se sentir particulièrement pénalisés.

LE PRESIDENT: Nous avons encore 14 orateurs inscrits.

Avant de clore la séance, je donnerai la parole au Directeur général qui voudrait intervenir à cet endroit de la discussion pour aider les délégués à réfléchir. Nous reprendrons le débat demain à 9 h 30 avec le Japon.

LE DIRECTEUR GENERAL: J'essaierai d'être bref. Je crois que le sujet est suffisamment important pour que je fasse déjà un commentaire général aujourd'hui sur le débat très intéressant qui vient d'avoir lieu.

Je remercie tous les délégués qui ont pris la parole sur les propositions du Programme de travail et budget.

Je voudrais simplement rappeler que votre Organisation n'a pas cessé d'être en crise depuis 1987. Ce n'est pas seulement une crise financière bien que celle-ci soit à l'origine de nos difficultés.

En 1987, nous avons été obligés d'éliminer des activités approuvées par la Conférence pour un montant minimum de 25 millions de dollars, du fait du retard dans le paiement de contributions, en particulier de la part du pays qui est supposé être, et qui ne l'est plus, le plus grand pays contributeur. En 1988, nous sommes restés en crise. Nous avons dû aussi éliminer des activités pour 20 millions de dollars, toujours en raison du retard dans le paiement des contributions.

En 1989, nous sommes toujours et encore plus en crise. Nous avons dû éliminer des activités pour 23 millions de dollars. On nous a parlé de 45 millions, mais au total ce n'est pas 45 millions, mais 45 millions plus 23 millions de dollars. Je parle en tant que responsable. Vingt-trois millions de dollars, c'était le coût additionnel des émoluments de diverses natures que nous avons dû payer comme augmentation à nos fonctionnaires et que nous n'avions pas prévu. Nous avions fait l'erreur de ne pas prévoir ces augmentations quand nous avions préparé le budget 1988-89. Aujourd'hui la crise a atteint un point qui n'est peut-être pas culminant - nous en parlerons demain - mais qui représente 177 millions de dollars de sommes dues par nos Etats Membres.

Si on m'avait dit, il y a quatre ans, que la FAO aurait des arriérés de 177 millions de dollars, j'aurais répondu: la FAO ne tiendra pas le coup. A la fin de l'année, nous aurons zéro dans notre fonds de roulement, zéro dans notre fonds pour la réserve spéciale et plus de 100 millions de dollars de dettes, "outstanding bills".

Comment dans ces conditions, pouvons-nous nous permettre de ne pas inclure dans nos propositions budgétaires cette fois-ci des crédits pour faire face à d'éventuelles augmentations de salaire?

Pendant ces trois années, nous avons été obligés de garder vacants 220 postes. Je rappelle que le nombre de postes à caractère continu n'a pas augmenté depuis 1976. Ce n'est pas une anecdote, c'est la vérité. Je serais heureux que l'on parle de cette situation à d'autres organisations du Système des Nations Unies. Même pour ce Programme de travail et budget, je me suis permis


d'éliminer encore 25 postes. Nous avons vécu ces deux années avec 220 postes vacants, 100 publications n'ont pas pu être réalisées, 25% de réunions n'ont pas été tenues, 25% de notre capacité d'organiser de la formation a été supprimée. Nos revues qui nous font connaître dans tous les pays du monde, dans les bibliothèques des Ministères de l'agriculture, dans les stations de recherche, dans les universités, n'existent plus. Il n'y a plus de Cérès, plus d'Unasilva, plus de Revue mondiale de zootechnie. Quand on cesse de publier, on dépérit. Tout cela pour dire que nous sommes en crise financière très grave. La fin de la crise financière est incertaine. En tout cas, les détails demandés pour l'accroissement des coûts ont été fournis au Comité financier. A chaque Comité son rôle. Le Comité financier se réunit deux fois par an, trois fois cette année. Il a donc eu tout le temps, comme l'a bien dit le représentant de l'Australie, d'examiner le budget en détail.

Un grand pays a envoyé quelqu'un ici à Rome pour avoir plus de renseignements. Nous sommes prêts à les fournir. Le Comité financier reçoit des ordres du Conseil. Si le Conseil veut donner des ordres supplémentaires au Comité financier, il n'a qu'à les donner. Il y a une formule pour calculer les coûts, nous la suivons. Si on change la formule, nous sommes prêts à présenter à l'avenir les coûts d'accroissement suivant la nouvelle formule. Nous ne faisons que suivre les instructions du Comité financier pour présenter les accroissements de coûts.

On a dit aussi que d'autres organisations des Nations Unies avaient présenté des budgets avec des croissances zéro ou négatives.

Je peux répondre que même si c'était le cas, on ne peut comparer que des choses comparables. Quand on a parlé du lapse factor on a dit qu'on ne pouvait pas le comparer à la situation d'autres organisations, parce que ce n'est pas comparable. Je répondrai la même chose. La FAO a perdu 68 millions de dollars pendant ses trois dernières années d'activités et n'a ainsi pu mener toutes les activités voulues par les Etats Membres. Est-ce que d'autres organisations ont vu leurs programmes coupés d'une façon aussi importante? Est-ce que leurs caisses sont vides comme à la FAO? Nous n'avons rien dans nos caisses qui nous permette de tenir. Est-ce que les autres organisations s'occupent de problèmes aussi vitaux que les nôtres, c'est-à-dire des besoins de base de la nourriture, ou s'occupent-elles de météorologie ou de politique?

En tout cas, je voulais simplement dire ce soir - parce que c'est cela le problème le plus important - que c'est le coût des augmentations qui a retenu l'attention des délégués et non pas le programme lui-même. Oui, je me sens coupable à propos du PCT - nous en parlerons demain - car je ne l'ai augmenté que d'1,7 million de dollars E.-U. tout en étant critiqué par la majorité des Etats Membres parce que je ne l'ai pas suffisamment augmenté. Mais je n'ai reçu aucun signe de sympathie des autres Etats Membres qui ne veulent pas que le PCT augmente. Il a en fait diminué en pourcentage. M. Shah répondra autant qu'il est possible de le faire aux questions et nous sommes toujours prêts à donner les informations nécessaires.

Il faut tenir compte du fait que nous agissons dans le contexte d'une crise financière sans précédent. Si nous avions le fonds de roulement à un certain niveau, à 17 millions de dollars ou à 23-24 millions de dollars, nous n'aurions pas inclus des crédits pour des augmentations éventuelles de salaires. Nous ne l'avions pas fait, 11 y a deux ans, mais il était possible de puiser dans la caisse. Maintenant, nous sommes sur la corde raide. Il est vrai que nous n'avons pas encore eu recours à des emprunts. Nous aurions pu avoir recours à des emprunts bancaires mais, toujours pour tenir compte de l'avis de ceux qui ne le voulaient pas, nous ne l'avons pas fait. Normalement, je crois que le Directeur général reçoit les instructions d'une majorité démocratique, mais j'ai également tenu compte des pays qui étaient d'un avis différent bien que minoritaire. J'en ai tenu compte avec mon augmentation de 0,4 pour cent. Ces 0,4 pour cent pourraient d'ailleurs être un double zéro.

Si les paiements bénévoles de certains pays ne sont pas faits pour le prochain biennium, nous aurons des raisons de croire que la situation deviendra insoutenable. Ces paiements, qui s'élevaient à environ 2,5 millions de dollars nous permettaient de payer le loyer et surtout d'entretenir ces bâtiments. Si nous devons encore prendre ces 2,5 millions dans notre chair, nous arriverons au double zéro. Nous sommes en crise et c'est tout. Il ne faut pas nous juger comme si nous jouissions d'une santé normale et que tout allait pour le mieux, comme si nous pouvions encore absorber ceci et cela.

Enfin, il y a la croissance zéro. C'est un concept que, personnellement, je n'ai pas encore compris. Comment peut-on parler de croissance zéro? Ce n'est pas une croissance, c'est une stagnation. Peut-être faut-il changer le mot et dire "stagnation". Si cette stagnation a commencé en 1983, il faut bien quand même y mettre fin.


Voilà les quelques remarques que je voulais faire dans un esprit très ouvert et libéral. J'espère qu'elles seront prises dans le même esprit et qu'elles feront comprendre que nous sommes en crise, qu'il ne faut pas essayer de trouver là 50 000 ou 200 000 dollars. Les caisses sont vides et nous ne pouvons pas prendre le risque de ne pas inclure dans le nouveau budget ce qui, selon nous, doit y être inclus.

LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie le Directeur général de ses explications très utiles. Nous allons lever la séance et nous nous réunirons demain, à 9 h 30, pour poursuivre les interventions sur ce point.

The meeting rose at 17.30 hours.
La séance est levée
à 17 h 30.
Se levanta la sesión a las 17.30 horas.



Previous Page Top of Page Next Page