LE PRESIDENT: Nous avons eu hier soir une réunion informelle très intéressante où les différents points de vue ont pu s'exprimer de façon franche et directe et compte tenu du fait qu'il régnait une ambiance d'amitié et non pas de langue de bois, il me semble que nous avons établi un contact utile en cherchant à harmoniser les différentes positions qui avaient été exprimées au Conseil. Je remercie tous ceux qui ont participé à ce groupe et je pense qu'il serait utile de le réunir à nouveau ce soir étant entendu que le Représentant de l'Egypte M. Adel Aboul-Naga en parlera au Groupe des 77 de manière à ce qu'il y ait une représentation plus équilibrée qu'hier soir.
Je demanderai à M. Wade s'il a bien indiqué la liste des programmes qui n'ont pas été exécutés en 1994-95, comme il nous l'avait promis lors de la première réunion qui a porté sur le programme. Vous deviez distribuer le commentaire que vous avez fait hier relatif à la limite, selon vous, des économies possibles.
T. WADE (Officer-in-Charge, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): On the first point, which concerns the items which were either cancelled or postponed in the implementation of 1994-95, we have arranged for those to be included in the verbatim, which should have now been published. It should be in the Conference verbatim. I did not realise it was not in there. We will arrange for that to be corrected and I will come back to you as soon as possible with the timing of the correction.
On the second point, which concerns the introduction made last night, I confirm we have made arrangements that at least the verbatim of my introduction, if necessary as an extract, will be produced this morning and published so that you will have all it this morning.
LE PRESIDENT: Je vais encore poser deux questions à M. Wade de manière à faciliter le débat. Il est clair, d'après nos contacts informels de couloir, que le niveau budgétaire sera vraisemblablement inférieur au niveau proposé pour que le programme de travail soit fmançable, c'est-à-dire que le niveau des ressources sera malheureusement réduit - et vous connaissez le jugement politique que certains pays portent sur cette affaire, mais il faut être réaliste.
Par conséquent, il y a un problème technique qui se pose: celui de la réduction progressive des moyens donnés à la FAO pour travailler; en effet, cette réduction ne peut pas être brutale car on ne peut pas passer, du jour au lendemain, d'un budget théorique de 697,8 millions de dollars E.U. à n'importe quel chiffre inférieur. Cela ne peut se faire que d'une manière progressive. C'est pour cela que la documentation que nous demandons sur le premier point est importante.
A cet égard, nous voudrions savoir quel serait le niveau exact d'exécution budgétaire du programme pour 1994-95 car cela pourrait peut-être être le point de départ d'une diminution réaliste.
Il y a donc deux aspects: premièrement, la progressivité en cas de baisse du niveau budgétaire, parce que toutes les mesures d'économie proposées nécessitent du temps; et deuxièmement, l'état des dépenses prévues pour l'exercice biennal 1994-95 afin de savoir si le niveau n'est pas légèrement plus bas que celui qui nous a été proposé.
Je ne pose pas ces questions dans le but de gêner M. Wade mais dans celui de posséder des éléments réels pour raisonner. Une fois que nous aurons ces deux éléments, j'ouvrirai le débat.
T. WADE (Officer-in-Charge, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): I will start with the second question because it is easier. The current forecast of total implementation for 1994-95 is US$653 million, that is, US$20 million less than the approved level. I should say that there are a couple of caveats. The first is that it includes approximately US$4 million for the procurement of the new package for FINSYS PERSYS. That is not certain expenditure because we have to be satisfied with the tender process that we are now going through, and the timing is fairly tight. That is reflected in the Report of the Programme and Finance Committees to the Council. However, it is a reasonable estimate of the figure.
The second question, which was more of a statement, concerns how one would approach a gradual reduction. I hope you are not asking me for a figure on the gradual reduction because I am not in a position to give that. There are two technical problems. The first is that the appropriation is designed at the moment for a budget of US$697 million and if you decide not to approve a budget of US$697 million, you have to find some way of reflecting it in the appropriation. Given the time that is available between now and the day of the vote, the only way to do that will be to show it as a one-line adjustment and then create a clause in the appropriation regulation to say that the Director-General will come back to the Programme and Finance Committees and the Council with the consequences of whatever reduction is eventually approved.
The way in which a gradual reduction would occur I do not see as being a problem except in the sense of the absolute amount involved. If the absolute amount involved is something manageable, then the approval of a biennial budget would be sufficient for the Director-General to scale down operations over a biennial period. It will tend to mean that expenditures will be higher in the earlier part of the biennium than in the latter part of the biennium. That is inevitable. However, he has taken certain precautionary steps because of his concern that certain Member Nations were speaking of rather draconian cuts. As you know, a lot of posts have been held vacant, so there is some flexibility in the system enabling us to respond, but not without damage to the programme, of course. These are posts such as the Assistant Director-General for Fisheries, and the Director of Statistics post was vacant although it has now been filled. From a purely financial point of view, there is a capacity in the system at the moment to slow down expenditures.
That is my response to the questions, Chairman. I am not sure it answers what you asked.
LE PRESIDENT: C'est exactement la réponse que j'avais imaginée. Ces points ayant été éclaircis, je vais maintenant ouvrir le débat. Les représentants qui désirent prendre la parole sont ceux des pays suivants: l'Australie, l'Angola, le Japon, la Belgique, l'Espagne, les Etats-Unis d'Amérique, le Venezuela, le Royaume-Uni, l'Iran, le Mexique, la Syrie, la Chine, le Tchad, les Philippines, la Mauritanie, l'Autriche, l'Italie, Trinité-et-Tobago, la Tunisie, la Norvège et Madagascar.
Bien entendu, cette liste n'est pas close. Je vais donner immédiatement la parole au représentant de l'Australie et je vous demanderai, dans vos interventions, de ne pas forcément répéter ce qui a été dit au Conseil mais d'essayer d'avoir une vue dynamique de la manière dont nous pouvons sortir de la situation dans laquelle nous nous trouvons.
John Bruce SHARPE (Australia): In the current economic climate the all- important issue here is what the increase in the assessed Member Nation contributions towards this budget will be. What is being proposed is an increase of US$66 million or 10.67 percent. Many member countries, both developing and developed, will have difficulty in meeting their assessed percentage of this increase. This comes at a time of increasing and competing international demands on limited national resources. Trying to do more with limited or decreasing resources is a challenge many governments, including my own, are facing. The reality is that there will be insufficient money to implement this proposed Programme of Work unless further economies can be made.
We appreciate that this is the Director-General's first Programme of Work and Budget and recognize that in coining to office he inherited a difficult financial situation. We fully appreciate that an organization as large as FAO cannot be turned around overnight. We commend the efforts already made by the Director-General as set out in the agenda document regarding costs and savings. It has been Australia's position right across the UN System that cost increases be minimized to the maximum extent possible. Nobody doubts that a genuine effort has been made to cut costs, streamline the Organization and restructure it so as to make it operate more efficiently. However, the sums involved will obviously not be enough. As members of the Programme
Committee, we urged the Director-General to explore the areas of possible further costs savings identified in the September reports of the Programme and Finance Committees. If we are to be really serious, we need to look at where the larger pockets of money are located.
The first place to look is at the level of arrears. If countries both developed and developing were to meet their financial obligation to the Organization, the monies received would go a long way towards the implementation of the proposed budget.
The equity considerations in a situation which continues on year after year are very real. There is always a shortfall in the total of what should be received and the actual level of contributions made by members. This means that those countries who regularly meet their financial obligations to the Organization carry a disproportionate share of the cost of the programmes carried out, in many cases in countries who have made no effort to meet theirs. While my comments apply equally to developed as to developing countries, there is particular inequity for those developing countries who do not meet their obligation in part or in full, despite facing the same problems in doing so, as others who do not.
In reporting to this Conference, the Programme and Finance Committees have outlined for consideration a number of areas of possible savings, some of them involving the large pockets of money referred to earlier. It is these areas in particular which will determine whether and to what extent the work of the Technical and Economic Programmes and the priorities contained within will be able to be carried out in the forthcoming biennium.
One such area is Support Cost Funding whereby the Organization, from its Regular Programme Budget subsidizes the Field Programme. From the figures provided by Mr Wade, this involves a minimumUS$9 million. This money should be available to the Regular Programme. I have commented elsewhere when discussing the Programme Implementation Report what Australia's views are on this subsidization. We oppose it.
The special programme Food Security for Low-Income Food-Deficit Countries is another area involving a significant amount of funding. It has increased from US$3.3 million to some US$10 million. There are other associated costs involved, and we would like the Secretariat to provide these, so we are able to ascertain the total cost of this programme. While Australia has given its support to this special programme and continues to do so, perhaps at this time it may be too ambitious in terms of its scope and the number of countries involved.
The question was raised in the Programme Committee as to why portions of the cost involved could not be met from the TCP which stands at a considerable US$82 million. Given the financial conditions we face this seems to be a very sensible suggestion.
On the question of the proposed supplementary Appropriation Resolution at paragraph 55, my country cannot support it as it stands. The membership would have many and varied priorities for the use of additional moneys which may become available and the three purposes proposed are either too limiting or include areas to which some of the members would not be able to give their support. The Programme and Finance Committees also recognized this when the matter was discussed and the Report stresses the difficulties of achieving consensus.
On the question of possible borrowing by the Organization, our delegation continues, as it has in the past, to be strongly opposed to any suggestion of borrowing by the Organization. An organization such as FAO should budget within its available funds and expected receipts. Again, an inequitable situation arises for those members who meet their financial obligations to this Organization but have to meet the additional cost of interest resulting from the actions of those who do not.
A working group has been established to try and work towards a consensus on the level of the budget over the next few days. Hopefully that consensus will be achieved. My delegation feels that in reaching that consensus, and indeed as part of it, the membership needs to receive reassurances as regards the future of the Organization and what it faces. We need undertakings from the Director-General that certain issues will be addressed, and, where that is already happening, that efforts in these directions will continue. Firstly, we need improved accounting procedures and increased transparency so that the membership is kept aware of actual
expenditure taking place. Each meeting of the Finance Committee should be informed of the Organization's actual financial situation and the exact amount of expenditure at that time. That expenditure should not exceed the availability or expected availability of funds. Secondly, we need improved project evaluation whereby the least efficient elements of FAO's work are readily identified, given low priority status or, better still, removed from the Programme of Work. The limited available funds should be directed at areas of work where there is a proved record of success or where FAO's comparative advantage is self-evident. Thirdly, we need reassurance that the recognized efforts as regards cost efficiencies will continue, that they remain a permanent feature of FAO's financial administration and that they are not merely an exercise carried out in association only with the determination of a particular budget level. The fourth point is the need to increase, wherever possible, the miscellaneous income of this Organization. I think the $11 million that is referred to in the document is very low. I realize there may be difficulties in increasing that level but every effort should be made to see that it is maximized as much as possible.
I would like to turn to the Programme of the Work now. As always, Australia is pleased to see prioritization in FAO's Programme of Work and Budget. This is the only way to make the best use of limited resources available. We are in general agreement with the priorities outlined in the programme framework. There are, of course, areas we would have wished to see get a higher priority, but we fully understand that it is not possible to include all the priorities of all of the members. Those that are listed, however, appear to reflect the wishes of a broad cross-section of the membership.
We would like to make some brief comment on those priorities listed. FAO is familiar with the high priority Australia gives to FAO's work in the facilitation of trade in agricultural products. It is an important means of improving the economies of both developing and developed countries and most importantly making a significant contribution to global food security. In this regard, the Sub-programme 2.2.4.2 is important as regards its work on improving the functioning of and access to agricultural commodity markets, as is the emphasis mentioned at paragraph 37.4 to be given to assisting developing countries in assessing the national and regional implications of the Uruguay Round Agreements in preparation for the WTO discussions on furthering the process of agricultural trade reform. We also attribute a high priority to FAO's work on Codex Alimentarius.
In the area of crop protection and quarantine, we feel that in the case of the Secretariat to the International Plant Protection Convention, FAO should be congratulated on the Standards Development Programme it has undertaken. We strongly support this as an ongoing component of the Crop Protection Programme.
Under the EMPRES Trans Boundary Animal Disease Programme, we note with satisfaction the reference to the expansion to other diseases such as foot-and-mouth. We remind FAO of the view of the last Regional Conference for Asia and the Pacific that FAO's work on this disease should target that region. We see agricultural research as a major contributor to food security and as benefitting the rural sectors of both developed and developing countries. We again give priority to FAO's research work.
On the question of fisheries, this Programme of Work and Budget registers a decline in allocation to the Fisheries Programme of US$1.5 million in real terms. I would like to express my country's disappointment in that decline. We refer again to the importance of this industry to the economies of many of the small island Member States of the South-West Pacific. We are, however, pleased to see that the Programme of Work and Budget includes in this area the development of a Fisheries Programme for Small Island Developing States, and ask that this include the small island nations of the South-West Pacific. We support FAO's work under Programme 2.5.5, Coordination and Promotion of Sustainable Development.
Other areas on which my delegation places priority include PGR, Forestry, and Women in Development.
Finally, Mr Chairman, I would like to comment favourably on the display of advanced technology we have seen in the foyer to this Conference Hall over the last week. This is an area in which FAO will have to keep up if it is to remain effective, and we applaud its efforts in that regard.
Pedro Agostinho KANGA (Angola): Je voudrais tout d'abord féliciter Mr Wade de la présentation claire et qualitative du document intitulé Programme de travail et budget 1996-97.
Le Programme de travail et budget soumis à l'examen a été préparé selon les recommandations de la 108ème session du Conseil, sur la base d'une croissance 0 en valeur réelle, avec une absorption maximale des accroissements des coûts supplémentaires par rapport au Sommaire du Programme de travail et budget.
Nous nous félicitons des mesures de rationalisation prises par le Directeur Général, qui contribueront certainement à l'accroissement d'une organisation efficace.
Nous pensons que le Directeur Général a fait le maximum possible pour donner satisfaction aux exigences des uns et des autres.
Nous sommes attachés aux programmes qu'il nous a proposés, et approuvés par les deux comités, car nous ne trouvons aucun programme dans lequel il faille effectuer des coupures. Dans ces conditions, le Programme de travail et budget doit être exécuté tel que proposé.
A cet égard, notre délégation appuie le niveau de 698 millions de dollars qui est le minimum acceptable, car nous savons que le budget de certaines organisations du Système des Nations-Unies ont enregistré une hausse nettement supérieure à celle du budget de la FAO, sans qu'il y ait désapprobation de la part de ces mêmes Etats Membres qui prônent le principe de la croissance O de la FAO.
A titre d'exemple, nous pouvons citer l'OIT dont le budget a progressé de 24,2 pour cent, l'OMS de 2,45 pour cent, l'OAC de 3,7 à 7,7 pour cent par rapport à la période précédente pour ne citer que celles-ci parmi tant d'autres, et l'IICA a approuvé un budget égal à celui de la période précédente.
Il est à souligner aussi qu'au cours des 6 dernières années, la FAO a connu le plus faible taux d'augmentation de la contribution des Etats Membres. Le pourcentage de l'OIT a progressé de 41,60 pour cent, de l'OMS de 32,23 pour cent et de 11,49 pour cent seulement pour la FAO.
A cet égard, il est vraiment incompréhensible et inacceptable que l'on punisse une organisation aussi importante, sinon la plus importante du Système des Nations Unies, à qui nous demandons tous de résoudre la situation de 800 millions d'êtres humains pauvres et affamés, mais à laquelle en contrepartie on refuse d'octroyer les moyens nécessaires pour venir en aide à ces millions de deshérités de la terre.
Je crois que nous devons méditer sur une phrase du Directeur Général lors de sa déclaration; "A l'heure où vous prendrez des décisions qui seront lourdes de sens, pensez surtout à ces images d'enfants affamés et d'adultes faméliques qui ne cessent de hanter nos consciences."
D'une manière générale, nous souscrivons aux propositions contenues dans le grand Programme agricole et système de soutien consacré à des éléments essentiels du mandat FAO, et le grand Programme politique et développement alimentaire et agricole, en particulier l'assistance aux pays pour la mise en oeuvre de leurs plans nationaux d'action pour la nutrition, et l'importance qui doit être accordée aux travaux du Codex Alimentaire, notamment en ce qui concerne l'application des accords de l'OMC sur les mesures sanitaires et phytosanitaires, et sur les obstacles techniques du commerce.
S'agissant du grand Programme Pêches, nous appuyons les conclusions en matière de pêche identifiées lors de la 21ème session du Comité des pêches et de la réunion ministérielle. Une priorité doit être accordée pour la mise en oeuvre du Code de conduite pour la pêche responsable, ainsi que la pêche artisanale et l'aménagement intégré des zones côtières.
Pour les forêts, nous nous félicitons de l'augmentation des ressources par rapport au Sommaire du Programme de travail et budget. Nous souscrivons aussi aux mesures proposées pour la production alimentaire, à l'appui de la sécurité alimentaire dans les pays à faible revenu et déficit vivrier; parmi les initiatives celles visant à utiliser davantage les compétences nationales, chaque fois que cela s'avère nécessaire. Comme on peut le constater, ce budget ne peut pas appuyer de façon importante ce programme et l'essor agricole des pays en développement, notamment ceux qui, pour des raisons d'ordre naturel ou autres, se trouvent dans les situations les plus graves.
C'est aussi dans ce contexte que nous réiterons notre appui au budget qui nous est proposé, conscients du fait que la situation actuelle n'offre pas d'autres alternatives.
Kenji SEIMIZU (Japan): Thank you, Mr Chairman. Some views on the PWB have been stated in the Agenda Items 10 and 12 of the 109th Session of Council held just before this Conference. Therefore I do not wish to repeat them again here. I just want to stress the importance to work out a mutually acceptable budget for 1996-97 as early as possible. This would enable us to start the work to establish the sound financial base of this Organization under the continuously limited resources with a view to revitalizing this Organization truly as a centre of excellence.
Having said that, Mr Chairman, I wish to make some specific observations on the PWB contained in the document C 95/3. This statement should be read together with the statements at the last Council session and the suggestions contained in those statements would be reflected in the work ahead, I hope.
First, about the Draft Resolution on the supplementary appropriation contained on the page 32 of the document C 95/3. Generally it may be premature to consider the resolution under the growing uncertainty of the financial situation of this Organization. Specifically my delegation has a great caution with the FINSYS/PERSYS replacement scheme and the increase of the appropriation level of TCP. I wish to elaborate further about the FINSYS/PERSYS system at a later stage.
On arrears, it is a basic obligation for any Member Nation to pay the assessed contribution. The situation however, is deplorable. US$120 million is outstanding. Early payment or settlements of arrears by Member States concerned is strongly urged. The prompt actions to establish a sound financial base and at least the contributions for 1994-95 as agreed at the last Conference should be paid by all countries concerned.
Chapter 1, on the process of FINSYS/PERSYS replacement, my delegation is extremely concerned about the replacement scheme in light of the huge amount of loss involved so far and lack of information on its cause, responsibility and measures taken. The loss is a serious damage to our Organization. The replacement programme if necessary should be implemented with extreme care and full preparation. The experience and lessons should be fully reflected in the replacement programme. Its transparency and accountability should also be fully secured.
My delegation needs assurance about the success of the programme. If the Secretariat just replaces the old with the new computer system, it would be totally a repeat of the failure. This lesson is a good example to justify the need to conduct the management review as recommended by the last session of the Council just held before this Conference.
Chapter 2, Fisheries. Paragraph 747 says the programme had to reduce its involvement in the interactions between marine mammals and fisheries. In this respect, fishing itself is questioned by some people in the world. Fisheries is a very useful source of food, traditionally and it will be more important in the future under the possible development of food insecurity in the 21st century. Therefore we must look into all potential areas to be developed and the activity on interactions is one of the areas. This activity should be considered from its contribution to the food security.
Programme 2.3.3 about the reduction of post-harvest loss and the use of fishery resources. This activity is equally useful and it should be further promoted like the activities on responsible fishing and the development of aquaculture. On Fisheries Policy and Planning, my delegation welcomes the assistance in the implementation of the Declaration of the Kyoto Conference on Sustainable Contribution of Fisheries to Food Security as contained in the paragraph 805. To recall, the last 1994-95 Programme Implementation Report said that FAO established the FAO Advisory Committee on Fishery Research (ACFR). My delegation urged at the last COFI Meeting to the effect that ACFR should make a technical development as well as study on research conducive to the balance between demand and supply addressing towards the year 2050, and that was supported at the meeting. My delegation does wish that ACFR will positively consider, as necessary, the related activities in response to the Kyoto Declaration.
Mr Chairman, last year at the meeting of CITES, the decision was adopted and it requested the relevant organizations including FAO to collect and provide information on sharks. My delegation considers that FAO should positively respond to the request as it would contribute to sustainable and reasonable use of fishery resources as well as to the food supply. FAO should appropriate the necessary funds for the information collection activities requested by the CITES.
Recently, Mr Chairman, there is a trend of globalizing the fishery problems such as large-scale gill-net fishing or mix-catching of fisheries. My delegation is of the view that there is no organization like FAO with its expertise that is able to positively contribute to the solution of fishing problems. FAO should take a lead actively before the problems on international fishing are specifically raised by others.
About the country offices, my comments made already in relation to the relevant parts of the Programme Implementation Report should be referred to here also. Technical Cooperation Programme contained in Chapter 4, the Director-General has a discretion on the project to be funded under this scheme based on the TCP criteria as described in the paragraph 1077, as my delegation has occasionally stressed the importance to enhance transparency on the TCP. The criteria is a useful instrument but that is not complete. It still needs further improvement in particular by an appropriate arrangement at an intergovernmental level because the project cost is fully financed from the regular budget consisting of assessed contributions. This is a particular concern to Japan as one of the major contributors.
Chapters 5 and 6, Support Services and Common Services. These two services are provided by the two departments, namely the Administration and Finance Department and General Affairs and Information Department. The reform measures for those departments were not included in the Director-General's first initiative. The reform of the two departments is still awaited. My delegation feels that the improvement of performances and procedures is necessary but not enough. As my delegation suggested at the last Council meeting, the two departments could be possibly merged into one. If that is difficult, one of the two ADG posts could be graded down to a D level post. In short, this Organization may need a review of the structure in other areas also from the post-wise point of view in particular its senior posts. This exercise would further streamline and rationalize the structure of this Organization. The current restructuring process would be a more meaningful one in terms of efficiency and effectiveness.
Fernando GERBASI (Venezuela): Si bien es cierto que las dificultades financieras nos hacen estar muy atentos sobre el contenido, alcance y forma del programa de trabajo, también es cierto que no sería conveniente en estos momentos y con la presión que ocasiona la aprobación del Programa de Labores y Presupuesto iniciar un proceso de eliminación o recortes de programas que podría ser contraproducente al efectuarse de manera intempestiva.
No creemos conveniente que se supriman programas y subprogramas con la sola intención de reducir costos. Las reducciones y recortes deben basarse más bien en un análisis detallado de los programas y proyectos y la decisión de suprimirlos debería ser ocasionada más por la no vigencia o relativa ineficacia de proyectos y/o programas que por la falta o escasez de recursos. Un trabajo de tal envergadura no debe ser realizado por la propia Organización, pues no arrojaría, necesariamente, un resultado totalmente objetivo. Por tal motivo, sugerimos que un trabajo de tal naturaleza sea ejecutado por un pequeño grupo de consultores externos, escogidos a título personal y capaces de evaluar la vigencia e impacto, en el marco de los objetivos de la Organización, de los programas y proyectos que ejecuta, de los métodos de trabajo, de los medios de difusión. Para ello se requiere una auditoría, pero no de los recursos financieros sino de lo sustantivo, para poder convenir a futuro cuáles recursos financieros serán necesarios para llevar adelante la Organización.
Lo que nos debe-preocupar en esta ocasión son las actividades que contribuyen a fortalecer el papel de la FAO como centro de excelencia en el sector de la agricultura y la alimentación, sus funciones de información y de asesoramiento en políticas y asistencia técnica.
Venezuela es partidaria de la coordinación de esfuerzos para reestructurar y vigorizar la FAO, y consideramos viables las propuestas contenidas en el Programa de Labores y Presupuesto para 1996-97, por lo que el nivel del presupuesto de la Organización debe reflejar los requerimientos financieros para ejecutar todos los programas adoptados.
Asimismo, nuestro país está consciente de las dificultades financieras por las que está atravesando la Organización, lo cual, sin lugar a dudas, exige una seria reflexión sobre los compromisos adquiridos por los Estados Miembros para cancelar sus contribuciones pendientes, pues los atrasos son debidos y deben ser pagados lo más pronto posible, y su liquidación no puede estar condicionada a una reducción del presupuesto. Sin embargo, no se pueden obviar al propio tiempo los factores que hoy en día están afectando la economía
de muchos países en desarrollo, obligándolos a aceptar el criterio de crecimiento cero del presupuesto de la Organización.
Si bien es cierto que la carencia de recursos por parte de la FAO limita su acción al momento de atender sus programas, no es menos cierto que nuestros países confrontan situaciones económicas y sociales adversas y apremiantes que restringen el pago oportuno de sus cuotas, hecho que no puede ser soslayado al realizarse el examen de esta cuestión.
Por otra parte, conviene evaluar las dimensiones y la situación financiera de la Organización a fin de mantener el papel de la misma en torno a las actividades que promueve en favor del desarrollo social y económico de los pueblos, objetivos prioritarios y no menos urgentes para la humanidad. Sin embargo, debería estudiarse en profundidad la capacidad real de pago de los países, con el propósito de lograr una distribución equitativa y proporcional a las verdaderas y nuevas realidades económicas de los Estados, lo cual podría constituir un enfoque apropiado para enfrentar las insuficiencias financieras de la Organización.
Si bien estamos de acuerdo con el porcentaje que le corresponde a Venezuela dentro de la escala de cuotas; consideramos necesario actuar sobre la base de criterios objetivos que reflejen de manera adecuada la situación de los países en desarrollo que, como el nuestro, han visto su ingreso per cápita decaer vertiginosamente, afectando nuestra capacidad de cumplir con nuestras obligaciones en distintos foros internacionales. Consideramos oportuno que se tomen en cuenta otros indicadores del bienestar de la población para el cálculo de la escala de cuotas, y no tan sólo el ingreso per cápita, pues éste puede esconder la situación real de un país.
Somos del criterio que se hace necesario que la Organización continúe realizando ahorros adicionales compatibles con los esfuerzos de disminución del gasto público que adelantan muchos países miembros, incluido Venezuela. Confiamos en que se pueda acordar a través del grupo informal, que usted ha convocado, un nivel de presupuesto que permita atender adecuadamente el Programa de Labores y que la Conferencia lo adopte por consenso.
En relación a la sección "Líneas generales del Programa", vemos con beneplácito el aumento de las consignaciones en algunos sectores y programas de la Organización, tales como los recursos fitogenéticos y los zootécnicos, el Programa Principal de Montes, la aplicación del Código de Conducta para la Pesca Responsable y el fortalecimiento del Sistema Mundial de Información y Alerta (SMIA). Respaldamos en especial el punto referente al Código de Conducta para la Pesca Responsable, pues aun cuando el Programa Principal de Pesca ha sufrido una reducción neta en relación con el bienio anterior, dicha reducción se debe principalmente a una mejora en la eficiencia, y confiamos en que estas situaciones se repitan y repercutan sobre otros programas.
No obstante, despiertan preocupación las disminuciones y/o eliminaciones sufridas en otras esferas. Tal es el caso de la eliminación de subprogramas separados sobre el mantenimiento del potencial de los recursos naturales y de la gestión post-cosecha: vemos que algunas de las actividades contenidas en el mantenimiento del potencial de los recursos han sido mantenidas, incorporándolas a los subprogramas de evaluación de los recursos de tierras y aguas y el de ordenación, conservación y saneamiento de suelos.
También nos preocupa la reducción de las actividades de distribución y el intercambio de semillas y material de plantación, los cultivos industriales y la horticultura, la función del sector primario en la industria y la estructura de almacenamiento, así como también la reducción de los trabajos relacionados con los aspectos ambientales del sector pesquero, los mamíferos marinos y las investigaciones básicas sobre la tecnología pesquera. Confiamos en que una ulterior optimización de las actividades de la FAO, tal y como se ha producido en diversos sectores de la misma durante el proceso de reestructuración, permita la reconsideración de estos recortes.
Carlos ARANDA MARTIN (España): Me complace expresarme sobre este punto de importancia capital para la Organización en nombre de la Unión Europea y de sus 15 Estados miembros.
La Unión Europea y sus Estados miembros han estudiado atentamente el documento C 95/3 y desean, por medio de su Presidencia, hacerle llegar una serie de observaciones que son su posición común. Con base en ésta, varios Estados miembros intervendrán más tarde en el debate para comunicar observaciones adicionales.
Quisiéramos en primer lugar recordar la posición de la Comunidad en lo que se refiere al presupuesto de la Organización y a su financiación, que había sido presentada al Consejo del mes de junio por medio de la Presidencia en ejercicio de la Unión, a la sazón el Embajador de Francia, señor Laureau.
Estamos de acuerdo con el principio de sana gestión presupuestaria, que consiste en suprimir los atrasos de financiación del Programa de Trabajo y del Presupuesto.
El presupuesto 1996-97 debería ser el resultado de la absorción máxima de las variaciones de los costos con cargo a las contribuciones ordinarias establecidas para el período 1994-95, es decir, 620,8 millones de dólares, de la supresión de la provisión de 38 millones de dólares de atrasos, y de ingresos accesorios.
Quisiéramos manifestar nuestra adhesión al principio de diálogo y negociación, así como nuestra preocupación por la toma de posiciones unilaterales que pueden comprometer no sólo el funcionamiento de la Organización, sino también su futuro. La Comunidad Europea y sus Estados miembros quieren hacer saber que no estarán en condiciones ni cubrirán cualquier tipo de déficit de financiación que resulte de la lamentable reducción de la contribución de los Estados Unidos.
No podemos apoyar el acusado aumento de las contribuciones ordinarias que propone el Director General y que llega al menos al 10,6 por ciento con relación al bienio actual.
La lógica y la prudencia instan a favor de velar para que los gastos no superen a los ingresos.
Asimismo quisiéramos manifestar la importancia que damos a que los Estados Unidos sigan siendo un socio activo dentro de la FAO.
En estas circunstancias reiteramos la petición que habíamos hecho a la Secretaría de revisar su propuesta de financiación del Programa y de reducir el presupuesto de la Organización, de manera que las contribuciones ordinarias de los miembros puedan hacerse sin aumentar todavía más los atrasos debidos a la Organización.
Quisiéramos en esta ocasión manifestar nuestra viva preocupación por los efectos de los atrasos sobre la Organización, que van bastante más allá de las implicaciones financieras, ya muy gravosas por sí mismas. Los atrasos son, en cierta manera, un reflejo de la importancia que sus Estados miembros dan a esta Organización. Hemos mostrado siempre nuestra adhesión a la FAO satisfaciendo nuestros compromisos financieros de la forma debida. La situación actual plantea cada vez más dudas en nuestras capitales sobre la importancia real que sus miembros dan a la Organización Mundial para la Agricultura y la Alimentación.
Agradecemos sinceramente los esfuerzos emprendidos por el Director General para reducir los aumentos de costos, para tomar las medidas adicionales de ahorro ya realizadas y las medidas de racionalización estructurales adoptadas. Por desgracia, esto no es suficiente, y es necesario hacer esfuerzos adicionales. Estamos íntimamente convencidos de que pueden conseguirse ahorros sustanciales sin poner en peligro el Programa de trabajo que ha sido presentado.
El Comité de Finanzas ha indicado ámbitos en los que pueden hacerse ahorros sin afectar el contenido de las actividades previstas en el Programa. Solicitamos a la Secretaría que profundice en estas posibilidades, sobre todo en lo que se refiere:
- los gastos administrativos y de personal; una reducción en este ámbito supone esfuerzos adicionales de racionalización de las estructuras y en particular la fijación de objetivos de trabajo con el fin de mejorar la productividad del personal;
- los gastos de viajes;
- los gastos relacionados con la publicación y distribución de documentos;
- los gastos relacionados con la descentralización; la descentralización es un ejercicio que da lugar tradicionalmente a un aumento de los presupuestos de las administraciones que ponen en marcha este proceso. La FAO está obligada a desmentirlo. La descentralización deberá ir seguida de una reducción paralela de las actividades ejecutadas en la sede; toda duplicación deberá evitarse.
Las informaciones que la Secretaría nos ha dado relativas al nivel de ahorro que puede hacerse sin afectar al Programa nos han decepcionado. Hubiéramos deseado también disponer de estimaciones de la Secretaría acerca del impacto sobre el Programa de los diferentes niveles presupuestarios que pueden preverse. Esta información nos parece indispensable para llegar a un consenso sobre el presupuesto de la Organización y por ello solicitamos a la Secretaría que nos proporcione estas informaciones.
En lo que se refiere al Programa, nos limitaremos en esta fase a confirmar nuestra declaración del mes de jumio en el Consejo de la FAO y a recordar algunos principios de base relativos al papel que, a nuestro entender, debe desempeñar la Organización.
La Comunidad Europea y sus Estados Miembros consideran que conviene favorecer las actividades de la FAO que contribuyen a fortalecer su papel de centro de excelencia en el sector de la agricultura y de la alimentación. "Centro de excelencia" no quiere decir que la FAO dispone de competencias universales, sino que debe trabajar en asociación con otras instituciones. Se trata principalmente de la importancia del papel normativo de la Organización como foro internacional de discusión y de negociación, de su función de información, de los Estados miembros, de su función de asesoramiento en políticas y, por último, de su función de asistencia técnica, que debe articularse según las orientaciones del Programa Ordinario.
Se trata de velar por la sinergia de este último con el programa sobre el terreno y de optimizar la utilización de los recursos extrapresupuestarios. Las actividades sobre el terreno de la FAO deberían concentrarse en programas o proyectos con carácter innovador, para desembocar en soluciones de desarrollo duradero en los ámbitos propios del mandato de la Organización.
LE PRESIDENT: Je tiens à vous rappeler que la FAO n'est pas compétente pour définir son barème de contributions car ces barèmes sont définis à New York. Donc c'est à New York qu'il faut agir si vous souhaitez vous exprimer sur cette question des critères de barèmes.
Mme Régine DE CLERCQ (Belgique): Je voudrais une fois de plus remercier le Secrétariat de son Projet de budget qui fait preuve d'efforts sérieux afin de rencontrer les impératifs d'austérité qui s'imposent actuellement. Néanmoins, elle estime qu'il convient d'envisager des mesures supplémentaires en vue de réduire encore davantage le montant total du budget proposé.
En termes généraux, la position belge relative au Projet de budget soumis par le Secrétariat est basée sur les réflexions suivantes:
A ces actions s'ajoutent encore quelques mesures d'accompagnement tel que le renforcement des contrôles internes, des initiatives de privatisation de certaines activités qui ne touchent pas à la prise de décisions politiques de l'Organisation. Nous nous réjouissons de voir que le Secrétariat a entamé cet exercice dont tous les effets budgétaires ne sont pas connus à ce jour et dont nous attendons beaucoup pour le futur de la FAO. Nous espérons aussi que cette approche sera de nature à rassurer certains Etats Membres qui ont exprimé leur préoccupation à l'égard de la rentabilité de la FAO. En termes plus concrets, la Belgique voudrait insister pour que le Secrétariat prenne des mesures supplémentaires à court et à moyen terme dans les différents domaines indiqués auparavant.
En ce qui concerne le budget ordinaire de l'exercice biennal que nous discutons, nous préconisons un niveau de 645 à 655 millions de dollars, qui nous semblerait approprié. En même temps, nous voulons trouver les moyens pour que l'exécution du programme ne soit pas paralysée par l'obligation de consultations supplémentaires - et je dirai, peut-être, à moyen terme, l'année prochaine - des organes exécutifs de la FAO.
Les paragraphes 124 et 125 du document présenté par le Secrétariat indiquent que celui-ci est parvenu à dégager une quarantaine de millions de dollars d'économie par des gains d'efficacité sans que les programmes afférents ne soient mis à mal. Nous l'en félicitons. Toutefois, nous ne pouvons pas marquer notre accord pour que la quasi totalité de ces économies soit réaffectée aussitôt, qui plus est à des chapitres qui, à nos yeux, ne bénéficient pas d'une réelle priorité. Le Programme spécial de production alimentaire nous semble trop largement pourvu à ce stade, de même que le Programme EMPRES. Nous insistons pour que la décentralisation se fasse en synergie avec les autres agences des Nations Unies et espérons que cela puisse se faire à moindre coût que celui qui est proposé.
Par contre, le système FINSYS devra recevoir des moyens qui permettent de résoudre ce problème lancinant une fois pour toutes; et nous attendons de la FAO qu'elle s'efforce d'obtenir, par la voie d'adjudication, la meilleure proposition, en termes qualitatifs, au prix le plus compétitif possible.
S'agissant des augmentations potentielles de coût rélevées lors de la 109ème session du Conseil de la FAO et qui totalisent quelque 30 millions de dollars - 16,3 millions d'augmentation de frais de personnel, 3 millions non liés aux salaires et l'effet de change lire-dollar qui reste à préciser - nous saluons l'effort du Secrétariat qui prend l'engagement de l'absorber. Nous estimons que cet effort doit avoir comme contre-partie l'engagement des Etats Membres de s'acquitter de leurs obligations financières dès le moment ou elles sont exigibles et en totalité.
En ce qui concerne, en particulier, la reformulation sélective des priorités, nous pensons que le Secrétariat doit jouer un rôle crucial. Nous voudrions en effet proposer qu'il élabore une série de critères de sélection généraux et spécifiques, qui nous permettent de supprimer un certain nombre d'activités qui revêtent une valeur moindre ou négligeable à la lumière des objectifs primordiaux de l'Organisation. M. Wade a d'ailleurs déjà fait allusion, lors de la dernière session du Conseil, à certains critères pertinents dans ce contexte.
Dans l'application de ces critères, nous sommes d'avis que le secteur normatif ne doit pas se développer au dépens de l'assistance technique car ces deux volets du mandat de l'Organisation contribuent à en faire un centre d'excellence dont tous les Membres, dans leur grande diversité, tirent bénéfice.
La Belgique est consciente des dimensions de la problématique financière de la FAO - et même du système des Nations Unies - et s'efforcera de contribuer effectivement et positivement, ici et au sein du groupe de travail qui a été mis sur pied, à la sauvegarde des grands mérites de l'Organisation, plus précisément en participant activement à la recherche d'une solution globale susceptible de réconcilier les soucis financiers des Etats Membres, d'une part, et les exigences d'une opérationalité optimale de la FAO, d'autre part.
Mrs Melinda L. KIMBLE (United States of America): The United States delegation would particularly like to thank Mr Wade for his comments, which give us much food for thought as we proceed with the debate of the Programme of Work and Budget.
It is no secret that the United States is facing major cutbacks for contributions to multilateral organizations. As a result of broad national support for budget reduction, spending for both domestic and international programmes will rapidly decline. Even deeper cuts are envisaged than those foreseen at the June Council
Session. The Clinton Administration requested US$923.1 million for contributions to international organizations in the fiscal year 1996. Our calendar year contribution to FAO was included in that amount. Congress, which mandates all Federal Government spending in the United States, has proposed cuts ranging from about US$100 million to US$400 million below the US$923.1 million request. The House of Representatives approved an US$858 million level while the Senate approved only US$550 million. Given the current status of budget negotiations, we may not have final appropriations for international organizations before the end of the year. Whatever the outcome, we will have far less than is required to meet all our assessments. Moreover, unlike the shortfalls experienced in the last decade, this is a long-term situation that we are facing. Nonetheless, as President Clinton said in New York on Sunday, the Clinton Administration remains committed to full funding for international organizations. We are engaged in frank discussions with members of Congress to achieve this end, but we believe that finding a viable solution may require several years.
We would like to fully associate ourselves with the comments made by Japan regarding FINSYS/PERSYS. Of UN assessed agencies, FAO has the largest percentage of unprogrammed resources to supplement its regular budget allocations. The current authorized level of the working capital fund amounts to US$25 million, while the authorized level of the special reserve account amounts to nearly US$34 million. These unprogrammed resources, when combined, total nearly 9 percent of the 1994-95 budget. Such large unprogrammed sums do not foster bugetary discipline, and can, in fact, result in over-programming of resources. We continue to believe that once FAO's finances are stabilized, the special reserve account could be eliminated, given the now proven efficacy of the use of lira forward purchase contracts. We also remain convinced that most TCP resources could be programmed - much of this in support of the Director-General's Special Programme on Food Production - and reduce the carryover of TCP funds to the next biennium.
FAO must establish a more realistic personnel ceiling. We commend the Director-General's initiation of a process to downgrade vacant posts and eliminate unnecessary middle management positions. However, we are unclear about the net effect of cost savings derived from such measures. Paragraph 121 of the Programme of Work and Budget refers to the "financial" effect of a number of personnel actions. Are we to conclude that the elimination of 41 posts in FAO's Regular Programme for 1996-97 and other steps have resulted in net savings of US$15.6 million? We believe that more can be done. At the end of June, about 20 percent of professional posts were unfilled, while 10 percent of general service posts were unfilled, Curtailment and, in many instances, abolishment of non-essential posts would generate more savings. In the long run Member States simply cannot ignore the spiralling wage and benefit costs.
Technological advances call into question FAO's continuing need for such high numbers of general service staff. Expanded use of privatization or "outsourcing", especially in servicing of conferences, translation services and publishing, should be explored. We strongly favour FAO's recent move to contract out accounting and auditing services in the field to private sector firms. In the long run this effort will certainly produce savings in overheads.
Other Member States face fiscal situations that are causing a similar impact on FAO. As of October 16, 85 countries had made no payment toward the 1995 budget and 76 countries were in arrears. The proposed budget level of US$697.8 million can only exacerbate the payment situation. What can we do in the face of this dilemma? We believe that some difficult decisions can be made without undercutting FAO's core mandate.
We are at a critical point in our ongoing debate on FAO's 1996-97 budget. Like many others, we consider this budget to be essential for FAO's future. Our mutual commitment to achieving food security and improving the quality of life of people everywhere can only be attained if we manage scarce resources effectively. The Director-General has demonstrated his commitment to a more efficient and reorganized FAO. He has strengthened internal controls and changed key field personnel. In any institution, however, change needs time to be assimilated and more remains to be done to complete the restructuring. As we reform, it is essential to improve our budget process and to contain the budget level.
FAO proposes to limit cost increases to 3.7 percent. In the past, such cost containment would have been commendable. Today, however, we no longer have the luxury of accepting any cost increases. In the US, public agencies are required to take real programme reductions and absorb all costs. In the UN system, and indeed, all multilateral organizations, we are asking that the same standards be met.
- 98 -
In 1995, the United States voted against an unprecedented number of UN system budgets where a realistic budget level was not met. The consequence of these votes cannot be and is not business as usual. All these agencies are now facing current and prospective deficits that demand urgent efforts to cut costs, programme staff, and assessments to bring the programmes in line with fiscal reality. FAO can choose now to set a realistic budget or find itself pursuing a budget reduction exercise as soon as this budget is adopted. Adopting an unfinanced budget and then spending our time adjusting it, rather than setting a realistic course and spending our future effort planning for a new, more business-like and revenue-based budget process, seems inconsistent with our pursuit of efficiency.
We strongly support FAO's cooperative links with the World Bank. Trade-related activities, including assessing the impact of the Uruguay Round Agreement and standard-setting under the Codex Alimentarius and the International Plant Protection Convention should continue to be accorded high priority, given FAO's premier role in these areas. Similarly, agricultural genetic resources, integrated management of pests and diseases and work on global forestry, especially support to the ad-hoc Intergovernmental Panel on Forests, should be given greater weight than many other programmes. We seriously question the Secretariat's recent proposal to reduce programmes on post harvest losses, given FAO's proven comparative advantage in this area. The WAICENT display is a visible demonstration of a valuable asset and most important FAO product: current informational databases. New, low-cost technologies will make this information available to more people than we could have imagined a decade ago. Such current, accurate information and analysis is at the heart of our efforts to attain 21st century food security.
Sustainable fisheries-related activities will permit implementation of the objectives of the "compliance agreement", the "straddling stocks" agreement and the FAO Code of Conduct. We believe, however, that inland fisheries resources-related work must concentrate on institutionalizing conservation measures and addressing management problems. Many aspects of GLOBEFISH, however, can and should be handled commercially.
FAO's sustainable agriculture initiatives in developing the SARD information system and promoting best practices are of high priority. Overall, however, we have reservations about FAO's more generalized rural development work where it has no comparative advantage over other agencies and national institutions. Rural extension and agrarian reform activities and the Subcommittee on Fish Trade are examples of programmes where FAO has not made a significant contribution. FAO should terminate those programmes that have achieved their objectives or outlived their usefulness.
US concerns about FAO's country representatives have been raised in Deputy Secretary Rominger's address to the Conference and in our statement on the Medium-term Plan. We support merging FAO and IICA country offices to eliminate overlap and duplication. We also believe that there is significant overlap and duplication between FAO and UNDP field offices and would urge that steps be taken to remedy this situation by combining a number of UNDP and FAO offices and allowing UNDP in some instances to take the lead at country level. In other instances, especially where programme levels are small, national correspondents could replace existing country offices. We are opposed to the establishment of new country offices.
We note with concern that FAO's organizational structure remains top-heavy with nearly 180 work units, each with its own chief and supporting staff. Offices attached to the Director-General alone are proposed to cost US$45.8 million and represent the highest percentage increase from the Summary Programme of Work and Budget (SPWB). Such increases should be scaled back, particularly to control short-term personnel costs. FAO should continue to vigorously pursue ways of reducing its numerous bureaucratic layers and continue to revamp its personnel structure. We encourage FAO's creative and innovative staff to explore cost-savings to address these issues, and believe that an external management review as proposed by the Programme and Finance Committee must be an essential element of this process.
Meetings, with their attendant costs for translation, interpretation and printing services, must continue to be reduced. As many here would agree, technological advances across the globe have greatly diminished the need for huge resources devoted to meetings. With regard to the FAO Conference itself we have made excellent progress in reducing the duration of this biennial meeting. But more needs to be done to enable FAO staff to focus greater attention on delivering programmes and less on servicing meetings. As a start, we fully support the proposals made at the 109th Council for a working group on governance reform. We would urge a more streamlined budget process. The SPWB could be eliminated and the Programme and Finance Committees
-99 -
could meet jointly in the Spring to review the draft PWB to assess programme priorities and their attendant financial implications. The Director-General may wish to consider other measures such as moving to a four-year budget cycle and even more streamlined Councils and Conferences.
Given existing financing constraints, we strongly supported the Director-General's decision to hold back expenditures by more than US$20 million in the current biennium, rather than increase the existing deficit. Since budget exigencies are not disappearing, we believe that the starting point for discussion of the 1996-97 resource needs should be the level of member resources provided in 1994-95, with additional savings made in other areas. Priority-setting for 1996-97 could then be determined based upon actual experience. In yesterday's introductory remarks, Mr Wade helpfully underscored the degree of estimation incorporated in budget planning and cost projections. We all struggle with this predicament. That is why it is all the more imperative that actual revenue and expenditure data be integrated in the 1996-97 and future budget proposals to enhance transparency and meaningful debate on programme priorities. Some agencies are already providing actual data and others are committed to doing so in the forthcoming biennium.
Accordingly, we believe that a budget level in the range of US$550-600 million offers the only solution to addressing the budget challenges that lie ahead. To achieve the higher end of this range, FAO should absorb all cost increases, including the exchange rate adjustment. The United States is willing to work cooperatively with Member States and FAO to achieve this result and we look forward to the Director-General's proposals being submitted early next year to the Programme and Finance Committees for review and ratification. We are not advocating cuts for the sake of cuts, but rather, to equip FAO for an unpredictable future where flexibility is essential. Old solutions to today's problems are not the answer. Though we readily admit that this cost-cutting process will be challenging, we believe that it will result, in the longer run, in an effective, relevant and more focused FAO which will serve the entire membership well.
David SANDS SMITH (United Kingdom): I should like to start by saying we believe it is essential to understand that reference to a figure of US$698 million as being a 3.7 percent increase on the previous biennium figure is not a matter of talking about real money because the previous budget figure will not be achieved. I am slightly surprised by the figure Mr Wade provided this morning. We had earlier understood that the level of underfunding would be considerably larger. I look forward to hearing further from Mr Wade on this point.
I would stress (as I have done before) that the United Kingdom believes strongly it is necessary to set the budget at a level that will be fully funded and that to do anything else is not only irresponsible but unsound. To produce a budget that meets this aim, we believe we can identify savings that would limit the effect on programmes and improve the efficiency of the Organization. I should like to give some examples.
The first of these areas is the reform of governance structure - a matter that must be of direct concern to all of us who comprise governance of this Organization. We question why the Organization needs such an elaborate and duplicative governing machinery when agencies - and I would give two examples - like UNDP and UNICEF - which have larger budgets, can manage with short board meetings rather than the panoply that we have for this Organization. If we look at the arrangements that we have we find that US$18 million is identified in the proposed PWB to be set aside for our governance procedures. Four hundred and nine professional staff are hired (as we understand) it on temporary contracts for Council and Conference and this does not include the general service staff, the messengers, the typists and others.
Chairman, another area in the Budget that needs to be reconsidered is the US$15 million identified for external relations. What is the measurable output of this activity? Liaison and attendance at meetings can quickly become ends in themselves and this provision needs radical reduction and the methods of liaising with others needs to be completely reviewed.
We must also guard against misleading impressions of savings. The PWB indicates a saving of over US$8 million through the use of national programme officers. We should like to know how this figure is arrived at. It is our understanding that the international professional officers who have been replaced by national professional officers have been reassigned. This means the national professional officers are in addition to these staff and not replacements for them. The saving may indicate that it is very much cheaper to employ local staff in jobs previously done by international staff but it can hardly be a real saving if the people
replaced are still within the system. The PWB makes a number of claims about reductions in posts but is unclear about the distinction between posts and people. How many of these posts were filled? If all we are looking at is the suppression of unfilled posts (perhaps unfilled due to the underfunding of the Budget) then how is this a saving when the money was not there to pay for the posts being filled in the first place?
Staffing costs constitute the lion's share of the proposed PWB. Much of the high cost of this provision is due to the need for centralized staffing. We believe that this is right. FAO's normative functions require considerable numbers of staff to be centrally located but do they all have to be located in Rome? It is that which adds so very much to the cost of running this Organization. My delegation believes not, and that functions should be reallocated.
I would like to go on to another point. US$18 million is identified in the PWB for building maintenance. That is what this building costs to keep it going. Almost US$5 million is allocated for the security staff - that is what it costs to keep the building secure. The cost of personnel services is US$16.4 million - that is what it costs to administer the staff in Rome. It is not true to say that savings cannot be found without cutting programmes. Further savings can be identified but to achieve them means a radical review of how FAO does its business and where it does its business.
I should now like to turn to the question of FINSYS and the resolution before us to endorse the proposal that FINSYS should be replaced through extrabudgetary resources. UNGA resolutions on the reform of the System have emphasized the requirements for greater accountability and transparency in UN affairs. The provision of financial information is crucial to the exercise of oversight. We must include the cost of the replacement system within the regular budget even if this means cutting something else, and even if it means spreading the cost over to biennia.
I should also like to say a brief word about savings under the technical, economic and development programmes. I must emphasize that in referring to lower priority programmes we do not mean to imply that these are areas that are unimportant in development terms, but simply that, in the present resource climate and given FAO's core areas of expertise, they are areas where this Organization should look very hard for savings. We would like to give two or three examples. The programme covering economic aspects of fertilizer use and plant nutrition systems, where these do not clearly require an input from FAO to stand alongside the private sector and public sector capacity, needs to be looked at. Also work on seed production again looking at what is being done in the private sector and elsewhere in the public sector. Work on agricultural support systems, but not (as is suggested in the documentation) work on post harvest management, which we believe to be important should also be reviewed. We also believe that work on isotopes and biotechnology should be examined very closely. There is some danger that this work may become supply driven. Further, we believe that a careful review should be undertaken of the non-normative elements of FAO's livestock programme to look realistically at the resources available in other institutions to carry out such work and the resultant need for a programme of this size and coverage at FAO.
These are one or two examples. Our overall concern is to see a situation where we avoid overlap and duplication and focus firmly on areas of FAO's comparative advantage. By taking the steps I have indicated, we are clear we can maintain the key roles of the Organization as set out in its constitution and indeed increase their impact by making them more focused. For us the principles are clear: first, the Budget must be set at a level where we can be assured that the necessary financial resources will be forthcoming. Second, traditional burden sharing must be maintained. Third, activities should be limited to core tasks in areas where FAO has a clear comparative advantage and fourth (and arguably most important in order to achieve this), further significant efficiency improvements must be made. When my delegation spoke in the Council the independent Chairman asked for clarification of whether the United Kingdom was proposing setting the Budget and then deciding what could be afforded instead of the other way round. My answer to that is very certainly "yes". Indeed, this is the only way to proceed in the real world. You find out what you can afford and you tailor your expenditure accordingly. If you have decided you need US$14 million for public information services but you only have a fraction of that amount, you quickly find out what are your essential services. These might not be magazines publicizing the work of FAO to a wider audience. They might be concentrating on vital information services to the Member States.
To conclude we believe there is scope for considerable further savings and that we must give FAO a budget that reflects the means we expect to be able to make available. We believe that a budget of
US$620-630 million would meet both of these essential requirements. The temptation for some may be to consider what might appear to be the easy way out and to seek to adopt to a budget at a higher level knowing that a considerable part of the finance required would not be forthcoming but let us be clear: it would mean that the Organization was, frankly, headed for major disaster and the fault would be ours - the Member States. However, there is no need for this if we adopt the only prudent course of sound financial management and governance. Only if we behave responsibly will the Organization earn respect and merit support. If we value the Organization we have no alternative.
LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie le Représentant de la Grande-Bretagne pour ses commentaires détaillés, notamment sur les mesures d'économies. Evidemment, il ne les a pas mesurées en termes chiffrés. Je ne ferai pas de commentaires pour l'instant.
Saeed NOURI-NEENI (Iran, Islamic Republic of): My delegation very much agrees with the Director-General, among other things, on the following points:
First, we should not address the level of resources required for 1996-97 solely in terms of crude percentages and figures without reference to the challenges FAO seeks to meet in the biennium.
Second, considering pervasive malnutrition and the prospects of an additional 3 000 million people needing to be fed within the next generation on the one hand and the mandate of FAO to shoulder this duty on the other, one can easily conclude that a Budget with zero real growth far from meets even the minimum requirements.
Third, we all know that the Organization is in a delicate phase of transition and we all know that the Director-General has gone very far in areas of servings and cost absorbtion. Therefore, I express my delegation's deep concern over the damage which might be inflicted on FAO's programmes and on the minimum level of assistance needed by developing Member States if any real reduction in the Budget level were to be enforced.
Mr Chairman, if you permit me I would like to make a few observations on more detailed issues: on Major Programme 2.2, paragraph 37.4, regarding assisting developing countries in assessing the national and regional implications of the Uruguay Round Agreement, while we welcome this initiation I should like to remind the Secretariat that net food import countries need more assistance and support in dealing with the negative aspects of the implementation of the Uruguay Final Act.
Paragraph 37.5 is considered by my delegation as a very high priority, especially the parts which aim at maintaining FAO's standing as a centre of excellence and concentrates on research analysis and studies of agriculture and rural development.
Paragraph 37.7 dealing with World Food Summit is strongly supported by my delegation.
On Major Programme 2.3, paragraph 38.2. Support of aquaculture development in areas of highest potential or critical need is a high priority issue especially with regard to its potential as a major source of animal protein in food security of most of the developing world.
On Major Programme 2.4, paragraph 40 receives the strong support of my delegation especially part 2, dealing with community forestry and forestry capacity building.
On Major Programme 2.5, my delegation extends its full support to paragraph 42.1, the Special Programme for Food Production in Support of Food Security in Low-Income Food-Deficit Countries and its increased provision. This Programme is not only the most related assistance to Food Production in Food-Secure countries, but it would bring self confidence and self reliance to these countries which is of equal importance.
Activities mentioned in paragraph 42.2 which would be carried out by the new Sustainable Development Department are among highest priorities in most developing countries. Applicability of research results to effective farming conditions is an activity that we believe could lead to a major breakthrough in most of the developing countries. Therefore urging the Secretariat to pay special attention to it.
- 102 -
Chapter 4, Technical Cooperation Programmes. TCP projects are those which are tailor-made to the special needs of developing Member States. The provision for TCP projects is about US$41 million per annum seems far short of the real needs of the countries, but considering the tight financial situation of FAO in 1996-97 we hope at least in the future budgets, more can be allocated to this very important programme.
Mr Chairman, finally I would like to joint others who emphasized the importance of payment of the arrears in reducing the existing financial pressure on the Organization. In this regard, in spite of existing financial difficulties we have made a payment equal to more than 30 percent of our arrears just two days ago and we will do our best to pay the rest by the end of 1996.
Mr Chairman, my government fully and strongly supports the Director-General's Programme of Work and Budget for 1996-97 as proposed and appeals to others for its unanimous adoption.
José ROBLES AGUDLAR (México): Sin duda éste es el tema de mayor transcendencia. A lo largo de los últimos meses, los miembros de esta Organización hemos tratado de alcanzar un consenso basado en la buena voluntad y en el respaldo político sobre el nivel de presupuesto del próximo bienio. La versión realizada que presentara el Director General al 109° período del Consejo consideramos establece un nivel adecuado de gastos. La reciente reunión de Quebec sirvió para evaluar la transcendencia de la labor que realiza la FAO, particularmente en favor de los países en desarrollo. Estimamos que se debe mantener una coherencia entre el respaldo político y el respaldo financiero. El discurso del Dr Diouf, al inicio de la presente Conferencia, fue ilustrativo y contundente sobre los riesgos que conllevarían reducciones adicionales en la cifra propuesta de 698 millones de dólares EE.UU.
Mi país, como la mayoría de los que participamos en esta Organización, se opone a que se realicen recortes a los programas y subprogramas que actualmente lleva a cabo la FAO. Reconocemos los esfuerzos realizados por el Director General en este sentido en relación con los ahorros y reducciones de costos realizados no sólo en la parte operativa sino también en la parte propositiva. Reducciones adicionales podrían socavar seriamente la labor y cumplimiento de los objetivos de la Organización. Es evidente que el problema central radica en los atrasos en el pago de varios contribuyentes, muy especialmente del principal de ellos. En este sentido consideramos que ninguna nación que integra esta Organización puede substraerse de sus responsabilidades financieras asumidas al adherirse a ésta. En razón de lo anterior, esperamos que el anuncio que habría formulado el pasado fin de semana en la sede de las Naciones Unidas el Jefe de Estado del principal contribuyente, respecto al pago de sus atrasos, se haga extensivo también a la FAO.
Permítame, señor Presidente, hacer algunos comentarios en relación al proyecto del Programa de Labores de esta Organización.
En primer lugar queremos respaldar las prioridades establecidas por el documento. Queremos, en este sentido, enfatizar nuestro pleno respaldo al Capítulo 4 respecto del Programa de Cooperación Técnica.
Consideramos que las funciones en este renglón son un aspecto central de la labor que debe continuar realizando la FAO, sin detrimento de sus actividades normativas. Queremos de igual manera respaldar nuestro apoyo a las actividades y a los programas particulares sobre recursos fitogenéticos y programas de producción alimentaria. Una mención especial queremos realizar en relación al Programa 2.3.3, en concreto, al párrafo 770, que prevé un programa para la instrumentación del Código de Conducta para la Pesca Responsable, que esta Conferencia deberá aprobar.
Mohamad Walid AL-TAWIL (Syria) (Original language Arabic): Thank you Mr Chairman. I would like to thank the Secretariat for its laudable efforts in preparing Document C 95/3, Programme of Work and Budget.
All Member States, without any exception, are held to honour their financial obligations to the Organization whether it be a question of paying assessed contributions or arrears. The developing countries and poor countries have very substantial needs as far as concerns the efforts made by FAO and its technical programmes.
- 103 -
This Organization has a time worn history and has done remarkable work. It is one of the main bodies of the United Nations system where it is advisable to step up efforts made for the poor countries and the developing countries. I think that we have to give this Organization the means to carry its policies and allow it to carry out its programmes with a view to ironing out some of the main problems that mankind will have to grapple with on the eve of the twenty-first century and that is towards food security. This is a universal problem because all states are in some form of fashion confronted with this problem. If it is inevitable to cut back on budget something which puts us in a very tight spot but we have to at least ensure that that does not have an impact on the important programmes of the Organization. Thus I think we should try and go back and look for the items in the budget that can be cut back so that we do not down size the main activities of the Organization.
Of course it is up to the Organization to look for other means of rationalizing its expenditures and to continue its laudable work done along this line. It is just a question of how we are going to determine the activities that are not important and which are not priorities and that just might likely get hit with cut backs. In this respect I think that it is necessary that consultations be opened up with the Member States based on a realistic evaluation of the programmes and projects.
We support the Programme of Work and Budget submitted by the Director-General. We feel that this Organization should be allowed to make strides and go forward. Furthermore, we are well aware of how important or meaningful population growth is as well as the importance of other development problems. We would like to stress upon priorities in this framework of the Programme of Work and Budget.
First, the need to flush out activities that have to do with agriculture production, activities that have to do with strengthening scientific research and the training of national human resources of Member States.
Second, agricultural extension for the benefit of farmers.
Third, the conservation of phytogenetic and zoogenetic resources, as well as other resources, water and soils, rational development techniques, particularly as concerns pasture management and arid land management programmes for desertification control, national assistance and plant health programmes with a view to knowing developing resources but to ensuring exchange of information.
Fourth, we back activities with regard to agricultural policies particularly those that concern studies on the repercussions of the implementation of the Uruguay Round.
Fifth, the integrated pest management and respect of the environment: we also back cooperation among developing countries and regional cooperation which might play a role in the forefront. We feel that a detailed study has to be carried out, one which is thorough and exhaustive which should allow us to assess the negative ramifications which will have an impact on the programmes and a possible cutback of the budget. These kinds of implications are inevitable, as far as I can see, and thus it is a question of determining the scope and the magnitude of all of that. On the other hand, we also have to take into account the cost-benefit aspects with regards to the fight against hunger and other areas in the developing countries.
XU NANSHAN (China) (Original language Chinese): On behalf of the Chinese delegation, I would like to thank the Conference Secretariat for preparing the documents for our Conference. I would like to thank Mr Wade for his introduction to this item.
I would like to present our views on this item. We have noticed the draft Programme of Work and Budget 1996-97 has been discussed during many relevant meetings and Member States have so far not reached agreement on it. In spite of this, Member States in general agreed with the view that FAO, as the largest body within the UN system in charge of food and agriculture, has a very important role in the field of food and agriculture worldwide and that this role should be strengthened further in the future. This view was echoed during the recent ministerial meeting on World Food Security in Quebec and at the celebrations of the 50th Anniversary of FAO.
Since the world food security situation in recent years has become ever more grave, it is necessary to strengthen the role of FAO. In view of the above, our delegation believes that, first, in order that FAO can
better meet its objectives and carry out its functions, the existing level of activities and its capacity should be maintained. In particular, the Special Action Plan for assisting low-income food-deficit countries to attain food security should be ensured. The priorities, such as technical cooperation programmes to assist developing countries, should not be weakened. The fact of the implementation of the budget level with zero real growth within the FAO Programme of Work should be guaranteed.
Second, FAO should achieve savings through restructuring, improving efficiency, cutting out conferences and unnecessary publications and recruiting more local experts. The budget should become compressed as far as possible and the financial burden of Member States should be lessened.
Third, FAO should strengthen and enlarge this cooperation with the relevant UN bodies and NGOs, expand its sources of funds and strengthen its own position to'meet the future challenges and facilitate the implementation of food security programmes for developing countries.
Fourth, FAO's savings and other measures should bring about real benefits to the Member States without, at the same time, causing extra financial burdens on developing countries.
Fifth, all Member States should fulfil their financial obligations and pay their contributions so as to lessen the financial difficulties faced by FAO.
Sixth, we are in favour of regional consensus by all Member States on the level of the budget for 1996-97.
Bananga Abbas MALLOUM (Tchad): Ma délégation remercie le Secrétariat pour la production de documents clairs et concis relatifs au Programme de travail et budget pour le prochain exercice biennal. Je voudrais également remercier M.Wade de son excellente introduction.
Ma délégation se réjouit des efforts accomplis par le Directeur général pour présenter un budget à croissance réelle zéro avec absorption maximum des coûts. C'est là un travail louable qui mérite d'être reconnu par les Etats Membres de l'Organisation.
Mon pays, qui se trouve parmi les pays redevables de la FAO, s'est déjà engagé à honorer ses engagements, malgré les difficultés financières qu'il rencontre, afin de permettre au Directeur général de mener à bien la restructuration et la redynamisation de la FAO.
Après une lecture minutieuse des documents qui nous sont soumis et après avoir entendu les explications claires et transparentes de M. Wade, nous nous rendons compte de la difficulté des exercices faits pour dégager de nouvelles économies, conformément aux recommandations du Comité du Programme, du Comité financier et du Conseil.
C'est ainsi que le Secrétariat a pris des mesures pour rationaliser la structure et les procédures administratives, supprimer 158 postes, décentraliser les services techniques et adopter de nouvelles modalités de fonctionnement qui permettront d'économiser 43 millions de dollars E.U. sur le budget de 1996-97.
Au budget de base pour 1994-95, soit 673,1 millions de dollars E.U, il faut ajouter dans le budget actuel les coûts suivants:
- le taux d'inflation sur deux ans pour les biens et services;
- l'augmentation des traitements des échelons d'ancienneté du personnel;
- deux programmes prioritaires: Production alimentaire à l'appui de la sécurité alimentaire dans les pays à faible revenu et à déficit vivrier et EMPRES;
- le Sommet mondial de l'alimentation;
- le remplacement de FINSYS/PERSYS (augmentation des traitements FPI décidée à l'Assemblée générale de l'ONU et risques liés aux fluctuations du taux de change dollar-lire).
Nous félicitons le Secrétariat pour ses efforts.
Tout en réitérant son appui au budget proposé, ma délégation lance un appel aux Etats Membres afin qu'un consensus soit dégagé pour permettre au Directeur général de mener à bien les réformes engagées.
En ce qui concerne le Programme, ma délégation apporte son soutien au sous-programme 2.5.6 "Production alimentaire à l'appui de la sécurité alimentaire dans les pays à faible revenu et à déficit vivrier" et au programme 2.5.2 "Les femmes dans le développement et la participation populaire".
En ce qui concerne le Grand Programme 3.1 "Assistance aux politiques", ma délégation apporte son appui aux objectifs définis par celui-ci, notamment le renforcement des capacités nationales d'analyse et de formulation des politiques alimentaires et agricoles grâce à une assistance technique et une formation dans ces domaines.
Sy ADAMA (Mauritanie): La FAO ne doit pas être victime de ses efforts de rationalisation, ses efforts de meilleure gestion, ses efforts de révision, pour nous présenter, comme cela a été fait, des ambitions raisonnables et réalistes conformes à sa mission.
Qu'il me soit permis de féliciter le Secrétariat pour les explications claires et dépassionnées qu'il nous a présentées au sujet des économies pouvant être réalisées et des ajustements nécessités par la situation. Cela représente un tour de force qu'il n'est pas commun d'observer au niveau des différentes institutions internationales connexes. Aussi ma délégation souscrit-elle au Programme de travail et budget qui nous est soumis, et invite les différentes délégations à l'adopter pour plusieurs raisons.
La première raison serait de reconnaître la franchise et la rigueur qui ont été à la base de sa confection et de sa présentation.
La deuxième raison serait simplement l'équité et la justice au regard des différents budgets des institutions consoeurs des Nations Unies qui ont été adoptés et qui sont loin de correspondre à la croissance zéro.
La troisième raison, c'est le discours unanime et combien éloquent de différents pays au Cinquantième anniversaire de la FAO au Canada, qui a mis en exergue les performances de l'Organisation, la justesse de ses orientations et sa problématique de base qui reste d'actualité.
La quatrième raison, et non des moindres, est le constat qu'à l'aube du troisième millénaire, le problème de l'alimentation et de la sécurité alimentaire demeure d'actualité. Au regard de millions d'hommes, de femmes et d'enfants qui souffrent - et comme l'a dit le Directeur général de la FAO - quel contraste lorsque l'on sait que le niveau du budget proposé équivaut à la dépense encourue, dans certains pays développés, pour nourrir pendant six jours des chiens et des chats! Je n'ai rien contre les chiens et les chats, ce sont des animaux adorables, mais je ne peux pas les comparer à ma fille ou à mon fils. Ce constat doit rester révélateur pour toutes les consciences. Bien d'autres raisons subsistent qu'il n'est pas besoin d'évoquer.
Ma délégation souscrit pleinement à ce Programme de travail et budget et, pour être plus concret, mon Gouvernement a joint l'acte à la parole en honorant ses obligations.
S'agissant du Programme, ma délégation réitère ses préoccupations relatives aux différents fléaux qui continuent d'hypothéquer les efforts visant à améliorer la production alimentaire. Nous souhaitons un renforcement du Programme spécial sur l'augmentation de la production alimentaire et de la sécurité alimentaire et de celui de l'EMPRES. En ce qui concerne ce dernier, ma délégation demande son extension durant l'exercice biennal 1996-97 à la zone occidentale englobant l'Afrique de l'Ouest et l'Afrique du Nord, cela pour tenir compte de la précarité des moyens dont on dispose et de la faiblesse des organisations sous-régionales qui sont en place dans cette zone.
Enfin, ma délégation, tout en étant reconnaissante aux différents pays partenaires dans le développement, invite à l'exploration du contexte international favorable - l'après-guerre froide - pour envisager une réelle relance des activités de nos organisations internationales et régionales, et de la FAO en particulier. Certes, beaucoup a été fait mais beaucoup reste à faire. Mais selon notre point de vue, ce n'est là qu'un crédit à accorder à l'humanité toute entière.
Horacio M. CARANDANG (Philippines): The Philippines delegation wishes to express its readiness to support the programmes and priorities presented in the budget. This is the result of deliberations in the Technical Committees, Council and its sub-committees.
The Philippine delegation also wishes to indicate its support for a real zero growth budget level. The head of the Philippine delegation, His Excellency Roberto S. Sebastian, Secretary of Agriculture in the Philippines, clearly indicated this in his statement to Plenary.
It appears, however, in the light of the ongoing debate, that a consensus on such a basis may not be feasible. Delegates are now asking how much of the cuts can be reasonably sustained in the budget level.
We, who work in the governments, know that there is always some waste in bureaucracies. It is our duty in governments and managements to seek out and fight such waste.
We are also aware that there are limits to budgetary cuts if we are not going to damage the efficiency and capability of that Organization to deliver the required services to its members.
Mr Chairman, the Secretariat has pointed out several areas where possible economies can be achieved. Mr Wade has referred to economies in travel, economies in support costs for Trust Funds, regrading of professional posts to enable young professionals with state of the art qualifications to come into the Organization. We believe that there is room for this, because while we believe that there is wisdom and experience in old age, we also believe that the enthusiasm of qualified youth will be able to bring new blood to the Organization.
In relation to the new arrangement for the modalities to contract outside expertise, it appears that the arrangement for retirees from the UN System is functioning very well, and we are glad to hear about this. It seems, however, that the arrangements for TCDC have not yet taken off very well. It seems therefore that we have to probably streamline this arrangement so that we can get more mileage out of it.
With regard to arrangements with research institutions and universities, I would like to know why only the developed country institutions are indicated there. Is this a policy or is there something else behind this?
Our delegation is willing to enter into a dialogue with all the other delegations in order to find an acceptable solution to the problems that we are now facing in the Programme of Work and Budget. However, I would express great concern that we are now experiencing, in the face of the lower priority that is being given to agriculture, a great challenge which faces the nations of Asia and Africa and many other regions in relation to how to provide adequate food for their growing populations. A recent study in the expert consultation on the wheat and rice systems of Asia has indicated that present levels of growth cannot be sustained. The harvests, the potentials of existing technologies have now reached a plateau. We no longer have the possibility of extending our existing cultivated areas because all the lands that are remaining are marginal, and to do so would probably harm the environment. Yet we know that in the international community there is less and less priority being given to agriculture. Mr Chairman, I think that this Conference should express concern about that.
If we look at investments in agriculture from the international lending institutions, the World Bank and Asia Bank, we know that investments in agriculture are going down and so are many donors cutting their investments in agriculture. If we look at the international research institutions, we do not see any new technology coming out which would be able to sustain a growth rate comparable to those that have been given to us in the Green Revolution.
Mr Chairman, if we really believe in the need to prevent a catastrophe in the future with regard to food security, all the Member Nations must be willing to play their part in order to contribute towards the furtherance of food security and the objectives of this Organization. My own country, although we have many domestic problems, tries its best to pay its contributions on time.
Ms Hedwig WÖGERBAUER (Austria): First of all I want to thank the Secretariat for the introduction in the working Programme and Budget 1996-97 now on hand. As you know the Council of the FAO dealt with the first draft of the working Programme 1996-97 submitted by the Director-General as early as in the course of the Session of the FAO Council in June. Moreover, I can state that Austria fully supports the comments of the European Union on the document in question. In the following the Austrian position is explained in detail.
Austria welcomes the priorities for the budget 1996-97 as laid down in document C 95/3, such as in particular the Special Programme for Food Production to support the food supply in low-income food-deficit countries, the activities for the World Food Summit, the continuation of the works in the fields of emergency preventions systems and diseases; also activities with respect to the International Conference of Plant and Animal Genetic Resources in Leipzig in 1996 as well as the follow-up measures and the implementing measures of national forest action plans are attributed great importance by Austria.
A consent to the working Programme and Budget of the FAO means that my country will fulfil its financial obligations in due time, as it did in the past and as stipulated by the Statutes of the FAO. Steps seem to be necessary in order to define areas of possible economies but the agreed budget level should enable the Organization to implement the proposed priorities to which we agreed. The Programme of Work and Budget for 1996/97 also has to be seen in close relation to the Medium-term Plan.
Austria welcomes the follow-up measures envisaged by the FAO in connection with the Rio Conference as well as the Helsinki and Montreal Resolutions on the Protection of Forests and in view of the promotion of a sustainable forest management. It would go too far to go into detail with the special importance of agriculture in the course of the budget consultations. However, we do hope that there will be a close cooperation also with other international organizations, and in particular with the OECD and the CGIAR.
May I now make a few remarks on the field of forestry ? It seems necessary to me that more attention is paid to an environmentally benign exploitation of forests within the framework of a sustainable forest management, in order to achieve a full valorization of forests. In this context adequate technologies are to be applied in order to integrate the rural population in the best possible way in the processes of forest preservation, management and use.
We are of the opinion that the model code on forest harvesting practice developed by the FAO can be a valuable help in many cases in order to introduce an environmentally benign, sustainable forest management.
As it did in the past, Austria will support the training programmes for forest experts planned by the FAO, in particular for countries in transition to market economies, also in the future. We also think that it is not only necessary to continue with the Global Forest Resources Assessment, but also to improve its quality in order to get a more exact idea about the extent and the condition of forests in the various regions of the world. In view of the limited financial resources available, it seems to be necessary to define the priorities in the field of forestry more clearly and in particular to carry out such measures in which the FAO has a clear advantage compared to bilateral or other international organizations.
Mr Chairman, as a representative of a European country may I say a few words on the work of the FAO in the region of Europe. We support the activities in Europe as laid down in the working programme of the FAO. In particular I would like to refer to the priority "cooperation with the European countries in a state of transition". It seems to be necessary to Austria that the needs of this region are particularly taken into consideration in future work in the region of Europe. The recent results of these efforts were presented impressively at the Conference of the European Commission on Agriculture in Bled.
We also welcome the fact that the cooperation with the ECE in Geneva has been successful in the last few years. We think that this cooperation will become even closer in the future. This applies to the field of agriculture as well as to the field of forestry.
The fields of education, training, and further training in agriculture and forestry deserve our full support. When we are talking about the work in Europe and its special importance, we should not forget about the work of the FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission.
In this context not only do I want to refer to the special importance of the work of the Coordinating Committee for Europe but also to the work of the FAO Codex Alimentarius on a global scale. Special importance will have to be attributed to these works in cooperation with the WTO activities in the future. The International Conference of the FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission which took place in Rome in July dealt profoundly with this topic.
As to the works of the Fertilizer Commission of the FAO, I would like to add that we particularly appreciate these activities. We believe that the work of the Fertilizer Commission deserves our full support, as these activities are of particular benefit to developing countries.
Mme Fatima LARBI (Tunisie): Ma délégation voudrait se joindre aux délégations qui l'ont précédées pour appuyer la proposition du Directeur général du Programme du travail et budget 1996-97 préparé sur la base d'une croissance réelle O qui, à notre avis, est d'un niveau acceptable.
Je saisis cette occasion pour faire référence au paragraphe 8 (a) du rapport de la 109ème session du Conseil.
Je voudrais souligner l'intérêt que porte ma délégation pour que les programmes fondamentaux jugés très prioritaires puissent être réalisés. Je citerai à titre indicatif et non limitatif les programmes suivants:
-appui au Programme spécial relatif à la sécurité alimentaire dans les pays à déficit vivrier, notamment dans la région Afrique;
- Programme EMPRES et notamment le Programme de lutte contre le criquet pèlerin en Afrique;
- renforcement des programmes de conservation des ressources phyto et zoo génétiques dans les pays;
- promotion de la lutte intégrée des cultures, le Programme de lutte biologique et l'élaboration des normes phytosanitaires;
- assister les pays en développement pour promouvoir le commerce des produits agricoles dans le cadre des négociations d'Uruguay;
- assister les pays en développement pour une conduite responsable de la pêche et la préservation des ressources halieutiques;
- renforcer les programmes relatifs à la conservation des eaux et du sol, la gestion rationnelle, l'économie de l'eau et la lutte contre la désertification;
- promotion et accroissement des programmes destinés aux femmes et aux populations rurales pour un développement agricole durable;
- renforcer le Programme de coopération technique et maintien de l'objectif de 17 pour cent du Programme.
Dans ce cadre l'idée d'affecter une partie des fonds du TCP au Programme spécial sur la sécurité alimentaire des pays à déficit vivrier ne nous semble pas indiquée.
Si tous les Etats Membres faisaient un effort pour s'aquitter de leurs obligations financières vis-à-vis de la FAO, notre Organisation ne se trouverait pas dans une situation financière difficile.
Il est du droit de ces Etats d'exiger du Secrétariat et des organes directeurs des mesures permettant d'accroître l'efficacité des programmes techniques et économiques, d'améliorer leur gestion et de réaliser des économies.
Ma délégation est convaincue que la Direction générale et le Secrétariat n'épargneront aucun effort pour tenir compte des remarques pertinentes et des recommandations constrictives des Etats Membres pour réduire les coûts de certaines rubriques, éviter le double emploi et améliorer la gestion et l'exécution des programmes approuvés.
Mais il ne faut pas se faire d'illusions, la qualité des services et la compétence des expertises demandées exigent que des ressources financières soient disponibles.
Nous faisons confiance à la Direction générale et aux organes directeurs de la FAO, composés de membres élus et compétents, pour veiller à la bonne exécution du Programme et assurer un suivi minutieux et une évaluation continue des actions de la FAO au siège, dans les régions et dans les pays.
La délégation lance un appel à tous les Etats Membres pour soutenir le Directeur Général et le Secrétariat dans leurs efforts de revitalisation de notre Organisation et son perfectionnement en tant que centre d'excellence du Système des Nations Unies.
Pour celà, un consensus devrait être obtenu dans notre commission pour approuver le Programme de travail et budget 1996-97.
Raphael RABE (Madagascar): L'intervention de ma délégation se concentrera sur l'opportunité, la possibilité et la logique de fixer au cours de cette session de la Conférence un niveau de budget sensiblement différent du niveau proposé par le Directeur Général.
Pour cela, j'aimerais d'entrée de jeu partager la préoccupation du Directeur Général, manifestée dans son discours d'ouverture:
"On ne peut faire de coupe drastique immédiate dans les ressources de notre Organisation sans mettre en péril les efforts méthodiques et systématiques engagés depuis le Conseil de juin 1994".
Le Président du Conseil également, lorsqu'il a pris la parole en séance plénière, a recommandé d'éviter toute précipitation, mais de procéder avec méthode et rationalité, tel que le prescrit d'ailleurs l'Acte Constitutif de notre Organisation.
Toutes les délégations sans exception sont parfaitement au courant du fait que le Programme de travail et budget présenté à la Conférence est le résultat d'un long processus au cours duquel les Etats ont eu la possibilité, mais aussi le devoir, de faire part de leurs suggestions.
Exiger des réductions au stade actuel ne serait pas responsable, pour utiliser un euphémisme. Si le budget de la FAO était celui d'un simple service administratif qui n'exécute aucune opération ou projet, on aurait pu procéder de la sorte. La réalisation ou non des services à lui prescrits n'aurait pas en fait de conséquences néfastes.
Mais pour la FAO c'est autre chose. Ses ressources servent à réaliser des programmes arrêtés par les Etats Membres eux-mêmes. Ce sont des coûts d'exécution, fruits de longues expériences et correspondant à des performances appréciées par nous, Etats Membres, car jouissant d'avantages comparatifs indéniables.
Bien entendu, la FAO peut encore améliorer ses performances, et doit les améliorer. Il suffit de se reporter aux documents produits par le Secrétariat, à savoir le PTB lui-même, l'exécution du Programme ordinaire et du Programme de terrain, le Plan à moyen terme, et bien entendu, les discours du Directeur Général, pour constater que des mesures draconiennes ont déjà été prises pour faire des économies, que nous avons le devoir d'apprécier. J'ai entendu toutes les interventions qui appréciaient les économies faites.
Si nous regardons le niveau des budgets antérieurs et les augmentations de coût qui ont été votées, ces augmentations s'élevaient de 70 à 80 millions de dollars. Maintenant on nous demande une augmentation de 24 millions de dollars. On est arrivé à ce niveau après des réductions successives demandées par les Etats Membres.
On nous annonce que les effectifs ont été réduits de 158 postes par rapport au 1er janvier 1994, cela après une longue et profonde analyse de gestion et de changements importants dans le modus operandi de l'Organisation, nous dit-on dans le discours du Directeur Général.
D'autres mesures sont annoncées, dont plusieurs nécessitent les décisions des Etats Membres eux-mêmes. Certaines délégations les ont citées. Je suis certain qu'elles savent qu'elles ne peuvent être prises qu'après la décision des Etats Membres. Dans le paragraphe 44 du Plan à moyen terme, on trouve quelques-unes de ces mesures qui doivent être prises et elles nécessitent la décision du Comité, du Conseil, c'est-à-dire de nous, Etats Membres. On dit en outre que des économies ont été réalisées et continueront à l'être, aussi bien au niveau du siège, que dans les bureaux décentralisés.
Durant la session du Conseil, on a dit que le Comité du Programme et surtout le Comité financier devront, lors de leur prochaine session, se pencher plus à fond sur les normes appliquées jusqu'à présent pour chiffrer les sous-programmes. Il faudra s'entendre sur des normes pour affirmer que telle depense est exorbitante. Il faut avoir des normes raisonnables et justifiées. Nous avons des comités spécialisés dans ces matières. Il n'y a pas de raison de ne pas les inviter à travailler sur ces points.
Nous sommes convaincus que les années 1996-97 seront très précieuses, dans la mesure où les Etats Membres et le Secrétariat examineront ensemble et en profondeur toutes les propositions pertinentes formulées aussi bien par les Etats Membres eux-mêmes que par le Secrétariat pour la fixation des priorités, pour améliorer les performances et pour ne retenir que les dépenses absolument indispensables quant au fonctionnement administratif.
Des sacrifices douloureux ont été consentis. Pour ne citer que quelques-uns, nous déplorons la suspension du sous-programme: réduction des pertes après récolte. Nous apprécions que des délégations aient aussi déploré ces réductions, parce que nous savons combien la réduction des pertes après récolte améliore la sécurité alimentaire. Ces pertes sont considérables dans nos pays et je pense qu'il ne serait pas logique de réduire ou de suspendre de tels programmes.
Nous regrettons aussi la suppression du sous-programme: recherche sur les pêches, sur les semences, parce que si l'on veut améliorer la production agricole, il faudrait au moins disposer de semences valables.
On devrait s'inquiéter de l'insuffisance de financements attribués au remplacement des systèmes FINSYS et PERSYS, alors que c'est un outil indispensable à une gestion efficace d'une organisation telle que la FAO.
Nous nous posons la question de savoir s'il est encore opportun de regretter le bas niveau des ressources attribuées au PCT. Nous pensons que le moment n'est pas approprié pour insister sur ce point, mais nous y reviendrons en d'autres occasions et dans d'autres situations.
Ma délégation n'éprouve aucune difficulté à appuyer la priorité accordée au Programme ci-après: Programme spécial de sécurité alimentaire, le Sommet mondial de l'alimentation, l'EMPRES, les Ressources génétiques végétales, et bien entendu, la Conférence technique internationale sur les ressources phytogénétiques (tout en remerciant l'effort fait par le Gouvernement allemand pour faire de cette conférence un succès, et pour les annonces, déjà faites au cours du Conseil, d'aide attribuée aux pays en développement pour permettre la participation de délégués de ce pays), l'inventaire forestier et le Programme d'action forestier national, le système mondial d'information et d'alerte rapide.
Les Etats Membres souhaitent, pour ne pas dire exigent, que le Secrétariat exécute ces programmes avec le maximum d'efficacité, étant convaincus par ailleurs que ce sont des domaines pour lesquels la FAO possède des avantages comparatifs incontestables.
Voilà quelques sujets de réflexion. Nous souhaitons que notre contribution puisse aider à sortir de cette situation très difficile.
LE PRESIDENT: Je tiens à vous dire que votre Président est très content de voir que nous commençons à sortir de la période des discours convenus pour essayer de trouver une solution. J'ai noté des évolutions dans les positions. Un certain nombre de chiffres ont été mentionnés au cours de la discussion. M. Wade nous a informés qu'en réalité le Biennium 1994-95 serait vraisemblablement exécuté à hauteur de 653 millions et il nous a également indiqué que le montant des économies serait d'environ 14,9 millions. Ce chiffre ne tient pas compte de l'augmentation des coûts prévisibles de la masse salariale ni du risque de change. Donc il ne s'agit là que d'une réflexion.
D'autres ont présenté certains niveaux mais sans les justifier. Les Etats-Unis ont parlé de 556 millions. Cela s'explique par le fait que l'on ramènerait le niveau du budget à quatre fois le niveau possible de leur contribution, ce qui est quand même une opération assez simple mais qui entraîne évidemment la nécessité d'économiser. La Belgique a parlé de 655 millions, je crois que ce n'est pas non plus fondé. Ce que je retiens d'une façon générale c'est que tout le monde tient à préserver le Programme de travail. Je crois qu'il s'agit là d'une donnée importante qui a d'ailleurs été soulignée par le Comité du Programme. En revanche, tout le monde semble accepter l'idée qu'il convient de faire des économies progressives sur le fonctionnement de l'Organisation. Je ne répéterai pas les rubriques qui ont été mentionnées.
J'ai été très intéressé par un exposé qui a été élaboré sur ce sujet et je propose à celui qui a présenté cette analyse de se rapprocher de M. Wade pour vérifier la consistance des possibilités d'économie qui en ressortiraient. Je crois qu'à partir de ce moment-là, le débat se clarifierait progressivement, car pour l'instant aucun chiffre ne semble justifié d'une manière réelle. Je ne pense pas qu'il soit bon pour l'Organisation ni pour sa survie de voter un budget qui ne serait pas financé. En même temps il ne faut pas toucher au Programme. Il s'agit donc de problèmes de frais de fonctionnement et je propose que M. Wade prenne contact avec ce délégué pour voir s'ils peuvent avancer ensemble leurs réflexions.
The meeting rose at 12.35 hours.
La séance est levée à 12 h 35.
Se levanta la sesión a las 12.35 horas.
