PC 87/7

Programme Committee

Table of Contents

Introduction

Background

Review of practices

Issues

Proposal

Annex I

INTRODUCTION

1. At its 120^th session of June 2001¹, the Council agreed that the Programme Committee should examine the feasibility of developing preliminary information on Programme of Work and Budget proposals with a view to submitting it to the Committees on Agriculture (COAG), Fisheries (COFI) and Forestry (COFO). This Council directive was subsequently confirmed by the FAO Conference at its 31^st session of November 2001. The present document has been prepared accordingly.

BACKGROUND

2. As specified in the Organization's Basic Texts², the terms of reference of the Council Committees on Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture contemplate among other key tasks, that they should have an important advisory role in reviewing FAO's programmes in their respective sectors. However, it is worth noting that the language used is not identical for the three Committees as is demonstrated in the following overview of functions:

3. In summary, it would appear that:

1. only COFO and COAG have formally in their terms of reference a requirement to advise on future programmes within their respective sectors. It is noted that COFO is to advise the Director-General whereas COAG is to advise the Council. Moreover, in respect of their forward-looking advisory role, while COFO's terms of reference mention just "future" programmes of work, those of COAG are more explicit by way of timeframes, i.e. mentioning the "medium- and longer-term" programme of work.
2. all three Committees are required to review the programmes of work of the Organization and their implementation.

4. It may also be noted that there is consistent use of the expression "programme of work" in these constitutional dispositions. This seems to imply an expectation that the Committees are to advise the Council on such key aspects of programme formulation or implementation as:

• the pertinence of FAO's programmes in relation to effective needs and the Organization's comparative advantage,
• the soundness of objectives and the eventual impact,
• the relative balance among various activities, etc.

as opposed to the practical details of resource allocations, as would be conveyed by the pertinent aspects of Programme of Work and Budget (PWB) proposals. This is in contrast to, for example, the role of the Council where the full expression "Programme of Work and Budget" is used. None of the above General Rules mentions specifically that the Committees should receive advance information extracted from more comprehensive biennial PWB proposals; in fact, for COAG, the emphasis is exclusively on the "medium- and longer-term".

5. In effect, provision of Summary PWB-type information to all three Committees was not possible in earlier days (cf. Annex I below on the timing of past sessions), when COFO, for instance, used to meet in non-Conference years, sometimes very early in the year - a point of time when it would have been physically impossible to provide advance PWB information to this Committee. The "grouping" of sessions in the first months of the Conference years has become practice only since 1993, presumably with the intent of putting the three Committees on a more equal footing.

REVIEW OF PRACTICES

6. While not formally contemplated as such in the terms of reference as mentioned above, nevertheless, there had been a practice in the eighties and early nineties of submitting:

1. either pure "excerpts" of the Summary PWB (SPWB) document (which was to be subsequently considered in its entirety by the Programme and Finance Committees and the Council in the spring of Conference years), i.e. the sections dealing with respective substantive Major Programmes of the PWB; or,
2. when the timing of the sessions clearly could not allow for an extract to be ready, specially prepared documents, anticipating to the maximum extent possible on the contents of respective sections of the SPWB (i.e. with closely similar narratives and tabular information on proposed budgetary allocations).

7. At their last round of sessions in 2001, in line with the revised arrangements endorsed by the Conference³, these Committees were invited to comment on the relevant extracts of the Medium Term Plan 2002-07⁴ (MTP) document. However, some Members expressed dissatisfaction at this, hinting at the resumption of the practice of submitting to these Technical Committees either the pertinent (Summary) PWB extracts - or specially prepared documents anticipating on the contents of the SPWB - hence, the Council's request to the Programme Committee to study the matter at its present session.

ISSUES

8. The resumption of past practice mentioned above would obviously satisfy those Members who have stated their expectation that the Technical Committees should have a role in advising Council also on the budgetary aspects of proposals for the next biennium. In this regard, it must be recognised that, in conformity with its intended scope, the MTP document does not contain the type of more precise budgetary information which the Summary (and full) PWB would contain, in particular the proposed net changes in resources by constituent programmes and entities for the next biennium.

9. The submission of SPWB-type information to the Technical Committees would, however, create practical problems. For instance, in the light of planned dates for sessions in 2003, the first of these Committees, COFI, is to meet on 24 February 2003, which would imply a document with budget proposals consistent with the more comprehensive SPWB proposal to be ready for translation and processing in the first half of January. This would not be possible without a very radical change to the budget calendar, as presently conceived. It would require that the preparations for the next PWB start in earnest well before the MTP has been considered and endorsed by the Council at its November session - something which most Members would see as negating the value of Members' participation in the review of the MTP.

10. The option of postponing the Technical Committees' sessions later in the year just for the sake of having SPWB information ready, would undoubtedly lead to "bunching" of too many meetings in a short period, involving also the Programme and Finance Committees, the Committee on Constitutional and Legal Matters, the Committee on World Food Security and the Council itself (and possibly meetings of other Rome-based Organizations), which Members might consider unacceptable.

PROPOSAL

11. The Director-General wishes to stress that he is open to ideas as regards solution to this problem so long as the logical sequence and inter-dependencies of the Strategic Framework, the Medium Term Plan and the Programme of Work and Budget are maintained. He is prepared to respond to any information requirement which can be met in a practical and cost-effective manner, and of which productive use can be made.

12. Therefore, in addition to considering the relevant portions of the MTP document as was done by them in 2001, the Programme Committee may wish to consider the compromise solution of giving to COAG, COFI and COFO specially prepared documents of the SPWB type including:

1. similar budgetary tables showing changes in resources from the approved budget for 2002-03 to the proposed level for 2004-05, based on the assumptions in the MTP; and
2. narratives on planned outputs.

13. As this approach will involve a significant additional task for technical units, it is recommended that it be implemented on a trial basis during 2002-03, and that the costs and benefits be evaluated in early 2004 so that a more permanent decision can be made at that time.

Annex I

Dates of past Committees' sessions since the 1986-87 biennium, and dates foreseen for the current 2002-03 biennium

____________________________________

1 CL 120/REP, paragraph 71

2 General Rules XXX, XXXI and XXXII

3 Strategic Framework 2000-2015, paragraph 175

4 CL 119/17