CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon distinguished ladies and gentlemen, we resume our discussions on the Programme of Work and Budget 1996-97 which is Item 16 of our Agenda.
Patrick K. LUKHELE (Swaziland): May I, on behalf of my delegation, thank the Secretariat for producing and introducing the document before us, C 95/3.
First, I wish to commend the Director-General and his Secretariat for introducing a high element of consultation with various organs of the Organization, including us, the membership, in undertaking major activities of the FAO. My delegation also appreciates the Director-General's adherence to advice and recommendations of the Programme and Finance Committees and the FAO Council in preparing this Programme of Work and Budget for 1996-97 biennium.
I wish to express my delegation's endorsement of the main priority areas outlined in this document. In particular, we support the Special Programme on Food Production in Support of Food Security, the Emergency Prevention System and the Conservation of Plant and Animal Genetic Resources as outlined in paragraph 36.
My delegation further wishes to reaffirm its full support for the Technical Cooperation Programme. The timely response of the Secretariat in TCP support to our urgent requests is commended.
May I request clarification on a specific issue in Chapter 2? This is sub-programme 2.1.2.3 relating to seed and planting material development as contained in paragraph 36.3 and the table entitled Programme 2.1.2 on page 114 of document C 95/3. These two references indicate a very significant cut in the financial resources of the seed programme in favour of sub-programme 2.1.2.1 which is the conservation and management of plant genetic resources. My delegation's concern, therefore, is the future of the seed and planting material development. In other words, are we to see progressive erosion of the resources of this sub-programme until it is eventually eliminated? My delegation would like to believe that this is not the intention of the FAO Secretariat. I say this because we strongly believe that seed security is a vital condition for achieving food security.
Having said this, we wish to suggest that the priority programme of conservation of genetic resources and seed development should be mutually supportive.
On the issue of the budget level, my delegation firmly believes that the current proposal by the Director-General is the barest minimum that should be accepted. Furthermore, my delegation also supports the Director-General's efforts to absorb most of the cost increases and to increase efficiency. It is, therefore, my delegation's wish and hope that the current problem of divergent views on this issue will be amicably resolved to the benefit of the millions of poor and hungry people that are and will be serviced by this Organization.
Last, I wish to appeal to those countries in serious arrears problems to make an effort to pay. My delegation commends both developed and developing countries who are fulfilling their financial commitments to the Organization.
Waheed KHAN (Bangladesh): Allow me to express the appreciation of my delegation to the Director-General for presenting a balanced Programme of Work and Budget for the 1996-97 biennium.
In view of the very limited flexibility that the Director-General had in making adequate provisions in priority areas of need due to resource constraints, the programme priorities embodied in the Programme of Work are realistic and cover important basic areas of FAO's mandate. The Director-General and his colleagues in the Secretariat have made vigorous efforts in bringing considerable changes and improvements in the Programme of Work and Budget in response to the guidance and recommendations of the 108th Session of the Council. We recognize that it has been a difficult task, particularly in view of the divergent expectations of Member Nations on the budget level as well as the level of assessments.
We endorse the overall approach of zero real growth in the budget with absorption of cost increases to the maximum extent possible. We believe that the Director-General will find it possible to explore some more areas where administrative and other expenditures could be further curtailed by adopting stringent economy measures, keeping in view the suggestions of the Programme and Finance Committees.
In this context may I cite one or two examples through which substantive savings are likely to generate? We should give more emphasis on TCDC programmes substituting expatriates by the NPOs in those countries where this has not yet been implemented. Consideration should also be given to whether the posts of Service Chiefs and other top level posts should be curtailed or not. This will also help reduce travel costs.
Since the budget will be basically funded by assessments on Member Nations, generation of some additional savings will be extremely helpful in reducing to a further extent the estimated level of assessments. We would, however, like to emphasize that the search for further measures for lowering the level of assessments should not adversely affect the programme activities of the Organization for the coming biennium.
We recognize the Director-General's commendable efforts in redirecting resources to reflect major policy orientations endorsed by the Council at its 106th Session. The Programme of Work and Budget reflects the impact of the process of restructuring initiated last year and the savings generated by the streamlined structures, including leaner management arrangements, reduction in the overall cost of publications, further savings in governance arrangements, reduction of General Service and other staff and expansion of the decentralized technical capacity of the Organization.
The proposed Programme of Work for the 1996-97 biennium is very reasonable and based on pragmatic assumptions. In our view, the proposed programme activities covering agricultural production and the support system, food and agriculture policy and development, fisheries, forestry, technical cooperation programmes and development services to Member Nations constitute the most essential package of assistance and support that FAO can provide to Member Nations in order to do justice to its mandate. We believe that the Conference will keep in mind the resource requirement of the proposed Programme of Work while deciding the level of the budget.
As we have mentioned earlier, my delegation strongly feels that the level of the budget should be sufficient to implement fully the programme activities incorporated in the proposed Programme of Work. Further reduction of any programmes and sub-programmes will negatively affect FAO's technical capacity and the genuine needs of the developing Member Nations will suffer a great deal.
Everyone agrees that FAO must have a sound and assured resource base to carry out its operations effectively and efficiently. In consideration to the overall global contraction of resources, the Programme of Work and Budget has had to retain the zero real growth framework, although this will mean that many deserving needs of developing Member Nations will not be met. This is a reality we recognize fully. Nevertheless, we feel that the entire membership of FAO will make the utmost effort to reach a consensus on a budget level that will allow smooth implementation of the proposed Programme of Work. The Director-General, we believe, has made serious efforts to reduce cost increases. We do not know to what extent further absorption of cost increases is possible without programme cuts. However, we hope the Secretariat will explore additional ways and means for cost absorption and efficiency gains in the interests of facilitating a consensus on the programme and budget level that can be unanimously adopted by the Conference.
Adel Mahmoud ABOUL-NAGA (Egypt) (Original language Arabic): Allow me first to wish you, Sir, and your colleagues in the bureau of this Commission, success towards your goals, namely achieving a consensus on the Programme of Work and Budget for the biennium 1996-97 and, more specifically, on the budget level, which the majority of us at least, consider the necessary level for this Organization to fulfil its programme of work, a programme which we have all approved. Furthermore, we find that this would enable us to achieve the goals sought.
I had postponed my statement until a meeting of the Group of 77 was held and also in order to listen to a sufficient number of members of this Commission. I would like to welcome positive clarifications about the position of a number of colleagues and partners from the developed countries. I am confident that this will enable us to facilitate the achievement of a consensus under your guidance and that of your colleagues in the bureau of the Commission.
I wish to reaffirm what was stated by Ambassador Laureau this morning at the end of meeting, namely that we have reached an agreement as to the need to maintain the programmes of this Organization so that it will achieve its required goals and tasks.
On behalf of the Group of 77, I wish here to reiterate our stand which I can summarize in the following points:
1. First, our full support to the Director-General's Programme of Work and Budget as prepared, that is to say on the basisof zero real growth, and full implementation of the Council's Resolution on the substance as well as the level of the budget therein proposed.
2. We welcome the efforts made by the Secretariat to absorb a great deal of the increased costs which have amounted to more than US$43 million. We also welcome the statement made by the Director-General, namely that FAO would be ready to further absorb cost increases arising after the publication of the Summary Programme of Work and Budget or the outline of the Programme of Work and Budget.
3. We welcome the efforts made by the Secretariat to achieve further savings in a number of areas or sectors which have been agreed to in the Programme and Finance Committees with a view to absorbing further amounts of increased costs.
4. We fully support the priorities outlined in the Programme of Work and Budget.
5. We consider it impossible to exclude or reduce any of the programmes set forth. Further, we require added attention to certain areas such as post-harvest losses, women in rural development and use of marginal lands.
6. Our full support to the two Special Programmes which were listed as no. 106 by the Programme and accorded a special priority by the Council, namely to increase food production and to increase food security in least developed countries, which we consider the least possible effort that must be provided by the Organization in favour of these countries. The other is the EMPRES Programme more specifically bovine fever and desert locust, as these represent a special interest and a great danger for a number of the member countries of our Group.
7. We are fully convinced of our position. Nevertheless, we are quite aware that we are working in an international, intergovernmental Organization where we all seek and endeavour to work in an atmosphere of partnership to achieve a consensus between Member Countries. This has been reflected in our response to the initiative by the Chairman of the Commission in forming an unofficial group of a balanced representation of the various groups as well as the major contributors to this Organization.
I would like to stress here that all the members of our group fully support your efforts and your colleagues' efforts in the Bureau of the Commission to achieve a consensus on the level of the budget that would enable the Organization to implement the programme, goals and purposes that we have agreed to.
In conclusion, I wish to thank all the developing countries and especially those which, despite their financial difficulties, have fulfilled their financial commitments to the Organization. We would call upon all the other developing and developed countries to do the same.
Jean Robert GOULONGANA (Gabon): Intervenant après le délégué de l'Egypte, Président du Groupe
des 77, ma délégation sera très brève.
Je voudrais tout d'abord féliciter le Directeur général et le Secrétariat de l'Organisation pour la clarté du document C 95-3 qui est soumis à notre examen. Je voudrais aussi répéter la position de mon pays concernant le Programme et en particulier les programmes spéciaux pour les appuyer. Nous estimons que ces programmes, dans la mesure où l'on vise à aider les pays à déficit vivrier à parvenir à mettre un terme à ce déficit et à lutter contre les maladies transfrontalières des animaux et des plantes, méritent notre appui.
Je voudrais aussi réitérer le soutien de mon pays aux choix et aux priorités arrêtés par le Directeur général pour ce qui concerne le Programme de travail même si nous regrettons des réductions envisagées sur certains sous-programmes mais nous comprenons que la situation de l'Organisation est telle que les sacrifices doivent être consentis. S'agissant du budget, ma délégation appuie le niveau de budget proposé par le Directeur général dans la mesure où c'est un budget fondé sur une croissance réelle nulle et où toute réduction de ce niveau aurait pour effet en réalité d'adopter un budget inférieur par rapport au budget du Biennium antérieur.
Je voudrais également dire que nous soutenons toute recherche d'absorption de coûts qui pourrait nous être proposée par le Directeur général et nous l'encourageons à rechercher toute possibilité qui s'offrirait à lui. Nous pensons cependant que de telles réductions ne devraient pas avoir pour effet une réduction des programmes, notamment des programmes prioritaires, ni porter atteinte à l'efficacité de l'Organisation.
Je voudrais également, pour ce qui concerne la procédure d'adoption du budget, dire que mon pays souhaite que le budget soit un budget consensuel et qu'il respecte les mécanismes d'adoption du budget de telle sorte que nous n'approuvions pas un précédent qui pourrait s'avérer fâcheux pour les années et les exercices à venir.
Voilà la déclaration que je voulais faire en réaffirmant mon appui à la déclaration qui vient d'être faite précédemment par le délégué de l'Egypte.
Jan E. NYHEIM (Norway): I would like to start by thanking the Secretariat for a clear introduction of the proposed Programme of Work and Budget for 1996-97. We acknowledge and appreciate the extensive and difficult work behind the elaboration of the programme and budget proposal. I would also like to commend the Secretariat for the format and presentation of the document.
Our basic point of view of the Programme of Work and Budget coincides with the orientations just expressed by the European Union Chair. The proposed Programme of Work and Budget is put forward at a time when the United Nations as a whole is facing new challenges and is entrusted with an enlarged range of activities, while at the same time it is experiencing deep economic crises.
The grave economic situation is brought about by both the increased demands on the UN and by the fact that many countries do not honour their obligations to the UN system. Thus, the necessity for efficiency in the UN system as a whole, including FAO of course, is more acute than ever. More will have to be done with the same or even less resources. Reforms to further increase FAO's efficiency, including the working methods of the Governing Bodies, must therefore be pursued.
FAO has for several years been facing a difficult financial situation. For several consecutive periods the Organization has approved a budget which not all member countries have felt obliged to abide by. The result is an approved programme of work which cannot be implemented. We commend the Director-General for applying a rigorous financial management, not spending more than the resources available. We are confident that he will stick to this sound principle also in the future.
It is most regrettable that about half of the Member States of this Organization are not able to keep up to date with their assessed contributions. It is imperative that the member countries of FAO compensate the Organization for the services it offers.
At the meeting of the Council in June this year, there was no consensus on the Summary of the Programme of Work and Budget. It is not only desirable to reach a consensus here at the Conference, it is critical for the function and future of FAO.
It would be most regrettable if members were not ready to honour agreed obligations and subsequently at a later stage not be able to participate in the work of FAO. It should not be expected that due to a decline in regular funds, other countries are willing or able to take over the responsibility through increased extrabudgetary funding.
It is imperative to reach a consensus on the budget. This will call for a spirit of compromise on all parts. The normative work of FAO is totally dependent on the participation of all countries for achieving common goals and for the formulation of common guidelines on policies, laws and strategies.
As opinions were diversified at the Council meeting in June of this year, we had hoped to receive a new proposal which could show us a way out of this situation. At the Council meeting it was possible to identify at least three broad clusters of opinions.
My delegation must therefore express a certain disappointment that the Secretariat did not, based on the various views of the Council members, put forward to this Conference scenarios for a revised proposed Programme of Work and Budget in the spirit of reaching consensus. We feel that it is the task of a Secretariat to listen to the different opinions of the members and try to find a practical solution that can give the base for negotiating a Programme of Work and Budget.
My delegation must again, as was done during the Council meeting earlier this year, remind the Secretariat of the Nordic position on this mater during the Conference in 1993. We pointed out that the Nordic countries were opposed to establishing a deliberate gap between the Programme of Work and Budget and the assessed contributions of member countries. We went on to say that such a gap will have to be closed at a later stage and that we will be faced with the difficulty of bridging this gap at the 1995 Conference. Unfortunately, we are experiencing the consequences now.
Mr Chairman, turning to specific aspects of the Programme of Work and Budget, we appreciate the efforts made in giving priorities and reducing some costs.
We would like to point out that decentralization also has its costs, and that there is a danger of creating units that do not have the necessary critical mass expertise to carry out the normative and operative tasks.
At the same time we want to state that we support the activities of FAO in the European Region, particularly concerning the countries in transition of central and eastern Europe. We believe that these countries should also benefit from the service of FAO in areas where the Organization has a comparative advantage.
We also endorse the increased attention given to forestry as a follow-up of UNCED and in support of the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests established by the CSD. The significance of the Organization in the international community makes it important that it maintains the active role it has played as the task manager of UN agencies in the preparation of the CSD session on forestry matters, and we appreciate the efforts already made. Further, we agree on the priority given to nutrition and normative activities related to the World Trade Organization.
We also support the priority of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and aquaculture. The Code is an important document setting out principles for global acceptable practices which will ensure the sustainable development of all our living marine resources. We see an increased role for regional fisheries organizations.
FAO should, upon request, be prepared to assist the least-developed member countries in their deliberations to establish mechanisms to follow up the Code of Conduct in their own countries, and should also be prepared to assist regional cooperation for the same purpose. This assistance should include support to the organization of
activities and studies on possible options for mobilizing the necessary resources for implementation. Proposals for action should be prepared for consideration by the next session of the Committee on Fisheries.
We are however concerned by the disappearance of the women in development posts. We would like to point out that secondment of experts for capacity building in gender issues are made with the prospect of the organizations themselves gradually taking over the responsibility for these areas of work.
We still have to maintain, for a long time, the priority given to gender aspects in development. Gender issues must not only be à priority only as long as there are extrabudgetary funds available.
The Beijing Conference ended only couple of months ago. It is now that we should again highlight that all forms of discrimination against women must be stopped, in terms of access to land and productive assets, credit, income and services.
Mr Chairman, there is a need to give top priority to the role of FAO as a leading global agency in food and agriculture, including nutrition, fisheries and forestry. FAO must concentrate its work on areas and tasks within its mandate where it has a clear comparative advantage, and thereby strengthen the mutual reinforcement between operational activities and general professional competence.
We perceive the Medium-term Plan as an important mechanism in improving the dialogue among member countries on the priorities of the Organization. In our view the priorities in the Medium-term Plan for 1996-2001 could form the basis for further and more thorough discussions regarding the priorities of various programmes and sub-programmes. We appreciate that the plan identifies two major themes, food security and nutrition and sustainable agriculture and rural development. However, we would like to stress the importance of forestry in the Organization. The preparation of a Programme of Work and Budget should then take the agreed priority activities as its point of departure.
My delegation agrees to the Director-General's proposal to base the budget on a zero real growth in the Programme of Work and Budget. We agree, in a situation where there is a lack of ability and will to contribute to the Organization, that there is no room for budget increases. This does not mean that we would advocate zero growth as a matter of principle, but at the moment realism is called for in all international organizations.
The budget approved in 1993 was underfunded by US$38 million. The basis for calculation of cost increases must therefore too be based on the funded part of the budget only. The Programme of Work and Budget takes an unfinanced budget as its point of departure. Cost increases need to be kept to a minimum and should, to the extent possible, be absorbed in the budget.
We realize that the number of issues and problems of an international character in the food and agriculture sector are still considerable and we are particularly concerned about the persisting difficulties in sub-Saharan Africa. At the same time, the severe budget restrictions in many countries make it perfectly obvious that the times of ever-increasing budgets for international organizations are over. Therefore, priority-setting based on cost-efficiency is more important than ever before. Although there is probably no activity within the Organization without member countries' support, choices will have to be made.
To conclude, let me again stress that it is imperative that we reach a consensus during this Conference on the budget. We believe it should be possible to reach consensus on a budget level around US$640 million. We put this figure forth in an effort to reach a compromise and we should not leave Rome without an approved budget. This statement has been prepared in consultation with the other Nordic countries, Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Sweden.
Lyle VANCLIEF (Canada): I will begin my intervention with some contextual comments.
Canada's point of departure is based upon an unremitting commitment to the multilateral system, and on the honouring of all our obligations. FAO is an integral, important and vital part of that system. But like all national and multilateral entities, FAO is in the highly competitive market for funds from a limited and shrinking public purse. Success in this competition demands effective and efficient targeting, and accountable
management of resources and activities. It also requires a clear demonstration of utilities, value added and sustainable results.
For several years many governments have not increased their spending, not even to compensate for cost increases beyond their control. Rather, downsizing, rationalizations and real cumulative programme cuts have been the order of the day - this certainly is true of Canada.
To illustrate, the budget passed by my government this year featured a comprehensive attack on budget deficit reduction. It dictated cutbacks, in real terms and over the next three years, of 15 and 20 percent, respectively, for the Departments of Foreign Affairs and of Agriculture, and of 21 percent in international development assistance. This trend is not expected to be reversed in the foreseeable future. For the current fiscal year, contributions to multilateral agencies have been sheltered at the absolute level of the previous year - this is viewed as a best-case scenario in respect to future budgets.
Concerning FAO, we fully recognize the formidable task we and the Organization face, and the difficult choices required in respect to financial resources availabilities. Such choices would have been more difficult were it not for the significant and successful efforts of the Director-General to capture efficiency gains. But, notwithstanding the enormity of FAO's mission and stated resource needs, these cannot be divorced from the constraints and limitations of fiscal and financial objectivity. It is this context, and a realistic assessment of anticipated receipts against a framework born of past performance, that must inform our deliberations.
The membership have expressed widely divergent views on the question of resources. The reconciliation and bridging of these differences on the budget level must proceed in a manner that protects the viability of our Organization. This requires - first and foremost - the securing of FAO's core normative work against possible erosion. It also requires of us to produce a wholly reliable and predictable flow of resources for the Organization. This means a budget level that we are certain can and will be financed in full - for Canada nothing less is acceptable, as it should not be for the membersip as a whole.
To meet this uncompromising criterion of a fully funded PWB, we submit that the budget level must be considerably lower than that proposed in the PWB document before us - a stark reality recognized by the Director-General himself.
In addressing this task, it is essential to recall that the delivery capacity of the Organization has been protected against erosion - a fact attested to by actual outturns of 99.9 percent and 99.4 percent, respectively, in the two most recent biennia against a budget level sheltered against cost increases. Indeed, this capacity will progressively have improved by virtue of the capture of productivity gains. Thus, our starting point is decidedly positive relative to that facing most public and private institutions within member countries. (I note, in parenthesis, the projected shortfall in delivery in the current biennium, which hosts its own object lesson for responsible budgeting).
Mr Chairman, this leads me to an important apparent misconception respecting this budget. This fallacy is born of a fixation with the "zero real growth" - conventionally, but mistakenly, interpreted to mean no more and no less relative to FAO's pre-existing capacity to produce. However, a reading of paragraph 125 reveals that US$37.4 million in programme growth or expansion is anticipated, as a result of efficiencies, within a static budget level in real terms. Similarly, we learn in paragraph 99 that the output capacity of the Technical Divisions concerned is expected to increase by 15.3 percent - both of these, without detracting from other programmes. We also know that, consistent with past performance, this proposed PWB features at least US$31 million in new, restructured and enhanced programmes attributable to resources shifts. Thus, what is imputed to be a zero sum game, actually hosts at least 12.5 percent in programme enhancements. Surely such a positive coincidence of effects would argue for some accommodation of the fiscal and financial realities of the membership?
Mr Chairman, I would also recall that multilateral democracy comes complete with both rights and obligations. Among the latter is the obligation to pay assessed contributions on time - that is within 30 days of receipt of notice. If all members scrupulously honoured this obligation - as do Canada and a selected few others - then FAO's capable cash managers would have the possibility - for example in the coming biennium -of earning a probable US$30-35 million in investment income. The effect of this could be to reduce the proposed budget level by some US$25 million - major contribution to narrowing gap. But, of course, we
know a different reality, and so the prodigal majority effectively disenfranchises the paying minority by taxing responsible behaviour. The conclusion is compelling, Mr Chairman, simply to honour scrupulously our obligations to pay will reduce significantly the proposed budget level - and I, therefore, challenge this Assembly to so explicitly undertake.
As stated elsewhere by Canada and by others, we believe there remain significant efficiency gains to be realized within our Organization - a fact recognized by the Director-General. This will include shifts in programme priorities entailing the termination of programmes and priorities that have fulfilled their mandates or proved to be inèffective. Such changes must remain a perennial objective of any exercise aimed at a budget that is publicly defensible on the basis of a demonstrably effective performance in finding solutions to the global problems we have tasked FAO to address. Our thoughts on these are captured in the full range of suggestions contained in the report of the Programme Committee which we hold to remain valid.
Essentially, these suggestions call for efficiencies in the way FAO does what it does. This entails further streamlining of administrative and managerial structures, procedures and practices focused on value-added within each level, and empowerment via devolution of decision-making, all within a clearly defined system of result-oriented accountabilities.
Object lessons respecting the need for such efficiencies are contained in paragraphs 266, 292, 292 and 297 of the Programme Evaluation Report. We also recall a disquieting disclosure to the Programme Committee respecting the fact that, on a full cost recovery basis, our Organization is not competitive with the private sector in the area of project preparation for the World Bank. This is important because of the fact that this flagship programme, concerning which we affirm a clear comparative advantage, seemingly is viable only via the provision of a 25 percent subsidy. Meanwhile, the competition currently captures some two-thirds of the business - clearly, this suggests that we must look vigorously and unsentimentally at our cost structure across the full range of organizational activities.
Further in this regard, we believe staffing levels to merit particular attention. At least since the 1980-81 biennium, professional staff operational levels have been characterized by an average vacancy rate in excess of 17 percent. As well, and even with the Director-General's important improvements factored in, FAO's ratio of General Service to Professional staff remains considerably higher than that of other major specialized agencies. Finally, and again acknowledging the Director-General's successful past efforts and future intentions, we believe the grade structure of the Organization to require further re-balancing. These factors combine to lead me to underscore our strong support for the management review of staffing and of associated structures and procedures as recommended by the 109th Council.
Turning to support cost recoveries, we believe that the financial situation of the Organization urgently demands action on this point. The Secretariat has detailed its reasoning of why the feasible potential of such recoveries is limited. But we remain doubtful because of the logical conviction that administrative and operational support and technical support services are essential to programme and project delivery. Accordingly, we do not understand how those who request these services could possibly refuse to accept the full financial responsibilities thereby implied - and in saying this I recognize our collective responsibility for imposing, and changing, a recoveries structures in respect of extrabudgetary funds from other UN agencies.
The importance of this subsidy is that, in a context of increasing budgetary constraint, there is a growing danger that the core activities of the Organization may be sacrificed to maintain a given level of trust fund activity. This relationship is particularly of concern given FAO's stated determination to increase its capture of extrabudgetary resources. Accordingly, we repeat our call for the membership, and particularly for trust fund donors, to consider this issue prospectively and comprehensively, and to take the lead in assuming the full responsibilities inherent to their generosity.
I also note, Mr Chairman, the Director-General's intention to absorb, to the maximum extent possible, an additional US$19.5 million in potential cost increases contingent upon an ICSC decision. We would expect that, to the extent that these cost increases will not materialize, FAO will be in a position to deliver the proposed programme of work at a correspondingly lower cost.
All this, Mr Chairman, suggests the potential for a considerably lower budget level that provides maximum protection to the programme of work, while realistically addressing the capacity of the membership to pay
based upon a sober appreciation of fiscal and financial limiations and of proven past performance. We believe this to be the only feasible approach if we are to achieve consensus on the programme directions that FAO is to embark upon in the coming biennium. And it is the cumulative effects of these factors that make it impossible for us to agree to the 10.64 percent increase in assessed contributions proposed in this PWB.
Similarly, we cannot agree to engage in a budgetary exercise that inflates nominal budget levels to compensate for the anticipated delinquencies of others. Thus, we need to rethink the proposed budget before us in order to arrive at a level that reflects actual capacity to pay and avoids any inducement to further arrears by virtue of its departure from this priciple. We believe this objective to be achievable without sacrifice to the essential programmes that the membership expects our Organization to deliver. In our judgement, we thus, would situate a do-able, all-in, budget level at an amount that would leave unchanged the present level of assessed contributions.
Mr Chairman, I should like to conclude by offering some brief comments on the programme of work. But before doing so, I would like to recall and endorse the recommendation of the 109th Council that Conference instruct it, (the Council), to systematically pursue further efforts to achieve savings and efficiencies in governance beginning with its 110th session. As well, I should like to affirm that Canada cannot agree to the proposed supplementary appropriation resolution.
Concerning the programme of work, it is our strong view that the normative work of the FAO constitutes the irreducible core that guarantees its continued viability and relevance, because it addresses the interests of all members. This core requires constant nurturing, renewal and strengthening because it guarantees the qualitative nature of the technical work tha earns for FAO the justifiable label of "centre of excellence". Thus, FAO must protect its normative work if it is to play effectively its mandated role in world agriculture, forestry and fisheries.
It follows that vigilance and careful management are required to avoid risk to this core. For this reason, we would reject any indiscriminate, across-the-board restraint proposals which might compromise the effectiveness of high priority programmes, and penalize the smallest, such as forestry and fisheries, that have but a minimum margin of manoeuvre compared to other, far larger, programmes. In effect, we would insist on a rational and vigorous priority-setting exercise that would lay bare objectives, expected results, and measurable indicators of outputs as guidelines against which to render informed judgements, thus protecting the membership's highest priorities. Particularly critical, in this regard, is forestry, where the challenges and demands are both enormous and urgent, and where the need for a strengthened and expanded FAO capacity to respond to pressing global forest issues is especially insistent.
Mr Chairman, we are in substantial agreement with the priority areas chosen in the programme framework section. Further refinements should be done in the light of a more realistic budget level to be proposed. Although we support the idea of the Special Programme in Support of Food Production in LIFDCS, we continue to have reservations about some of the details. Some of the questions remaining include the role of production-based food security strategies in a context where access, distribution and stability may be the key constraint, the choice of pilot projects, and the difficulty of monitoring and evaluating the degree of project achievements. In view of these reservations, it may be preferable to make haste slowly before expansion.
With regard to the streamlining of the Special Action Programmes, we are in agreement with the proposed reduction to four. If these SAPS are to continue to be used by FAO in the future, it would be beneficial to have an analysis of their impact on the actual raising of the profile of the issues they address, on the capture of funds, and on improved implementation of projects.
Canada has consistently asked for the inclusion of output indicators, and we note the promising start with this innovation in the current document. Future PWB documents also should contain actual expenditure figures by object of expenditure and by sub-programmes for the preceding biennium, so that comparisons might be made with estimates for the next biennium.
On Programme 2.1, agricultural production and support systems, we recognize many priorities that Canada has espoused. In particular, we support the programmes on Plan (2.1.2) and Animal Genetic Resources (2.1.3). On Programme 2.1.2.4, we support the revision of the International Plant Protection Convention. Concerning the revision of the Prior Informed Consent Clause into a legally-binding instrument, we would like to see the work proceed subject only to the availability of extrabudgetary funds, and taking into account the lessons of experience gained through the voluntary code. In view of the trade implications associated with any potential convention, we would like to see the World Trade Organziation fully involved in the preparations.
In Programme 2.2, Food and Agricultural Policy and Development, we see Canadian priorities reflected in the programmes which are at the heart of FAO's normative role. Strengthening food control, consumer protection and collaboration with the WTO receive our full support, and are essential to encouraging the further expansion of trade in a rules-based environment. Follow-up to the ICN plan of action, and to the Codex Alimentarius are particulary strong priorities. WAICENT and the Global Information and Early Warning System are mainstays of the work of the programme. The publication of the Commodity Review and Outlook, and of all other publications in electronic format is, for us, preferable to hard copy. It is regrettable that the publication of the State of Food Agriculture is delayed, and we hope that the new publication will be analytical and forward-looking as requested in previous meeting. The review of the operations of the Consultative Sub-Committee on Surplus Disposal is welcome and should be consistent with ongoing work on credit in the OECD, and in the WTO itself.
Canada supports the FAO's implementation of an International Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing as an important step in the international standardization of responsible approaches to fishing. Canada has been a leader in the development of this code. FAO continues to develop in its important role as a central hub of information regarding fish species, world fisheries, aquaculture, and fishing and vessel technology. The development of FAO information systems such as InfoFish is an important part of this task. Furthermore, continued research in GIS applications in fisheries holds much promise as an important tool in future fisheries management.
We continue to be very concerned with the limited resources provided to forestry. COF raised this issue in March, and called for continued increases in regular budget resources within the 1996-97 biennium in order to adequately support forestry activities. Ministers responsible for forests endorsed this position in the Rome Statement on Forests in March, 1995. We expect that: 1) given the disproportionately small allocation of funds provided to the forestry programme relative to its needs and to the major programmes, that in a time of budgetary restraint, there will not be any across-the-board budget cut which would adversely impact on the small forestry programme; and 2) that the forestry budget will be maintained and even increased in keeping with this sector's global importance, and the need to protect FAO's credibility as the lead agency for forests. We believe this to be an urgent priority for the Organization.
With respect to major Programme 2.5, Sustainable Development and Special Programme Trusts, we support the formation of this major programme as if reflects urgent and growing demands upon FAO, especially in the areas of sustainable development and women in development. We support the follow-up identified in the meetings on land issues of the Commission on Sustainable Development. However, with regard to Programme 2.5.6, Food Production in Support of food Security in Low Income Food Deficit Countries, we would like to see more concrete results from existing programmes before expansion on the scale foreseen. Moreover, if we add in contributions from other areas such as Programme 2.2.4.3 and 3.2, the expansion of budget for this programme is very significant, and, in the current financial situation facing the Organization, this expansion or its means of financing may warrant re-consideration.
With regard to Programme 3.2, support to investment, this is a prime way to boost investment in developing countries and we support it. The involvement with the private sector and NGOs is a prime way to develop strategic alliances and partnerships that are necessary to increase investment in rural areas.
Finally, the Director-General has asked for our agreement to proceed with implementation of reforms in the Administration and Finance and General Affairs and Information Departments subject to current budgetary provisions. We are prepared to agree in the context of a lower budget level. We would also like to see the
adoption of service standards such as so many days to approve a contract or so many days to hire a person, as these services standards could constitute useful performance indicators leading to important efficiencies for FAO as a whole.
Pinit KORSIEPORN (Thailand): As a member of the FAO Council, my delegation already expressed its position only last week during the FAO Council II on the programme and budget for 1996-97. At this stage, therefore, I do not wish to repeat it again. I only want to repeat that my government supports the principle of zero real growth budget for 1996-97.
As indicated in the document C 95/3, the Council urged the FAO to continue its efforts to reduce cost without adversely affecting the Technical and Economic Programmes. My delegation fully supports the Council in this regard. I know it is not an easy task, but I trust the Director-General and his staff could do it in order to make the Organization more efficient. However, we all know that FAO's main emphasis in 1996-97 is food security achieved by increasing food production. My delegation recognizes that among other FAO activities which are related to food production, it seems that agricultural engineering is to be forgotten. This sub-programme is in the document C 95/3, paragraph 493-499. We believe that the improvement of land and labour productivity through application of engineering in foods is very important - not only in Asian countries but also in other regions, especially in developing countries.
We further believe that agricultural labour is becoming scarce because of rapid economic development of the non-agricultural sectors, therefore I expect that agricultural engineering will play a very important role in relation to food production. In view of the need to increase food production, we feel that post-harvest technology is equally important to other factors. In addition, the effective application of pesticides should be considered as another activity that increases food production. My delegation therefore urges FAO not to lower the financial resources of this sub-programme but rather to see the increase of the resources.
Finally, my delegation would like to support the statement made by Egypt on behalf of the Chairman of G 77.
Jacques Laureau, Chairman of Commission II, took the Chair
Jacques Laureau, Président de la Commission II, assume la présidence
Ocupa la presidencia Jacques Laureau, Presidente de la Comisión II
Igor MARINCEK (Suisse): J'aimerais commencer par aborder les questions du budget et, ensuite, celles du Programme de travail. D'emblée, j'aimerais préciser que la position de mon pays est très similaire à celle exprimée par la Présidence de l'Union européenne. Comment parvenir à un consensus budgétaire quand les positions sont tellement éloignées les unes des autres?
S'il y a un chemin vers le consensus, il passe sans doute par une meilleure information et compréhension des conséquences de tel ou tel niveau budgétaire pour le Programme. Il nous paraît clair qu'à la longue, il y aura une situation malsaine pour l'Organisation si ceux qui sont appelés à financer la majeure partie du budget et ceux qui représentent la majorité des voix des pays ont des idées trop éloignées les unes des autres.
Permettez-moi de rappeler que nous ne connaîtrions pas ces difficultés budgétaires et financières si chaque Membre remplissait ses obligations quant à sa contribution. A ce sujet, je trouve très intéressante l'information que nous a donnée le délégué du Canada sur l'augmentation nette des revenus accessoires si chaque pays payait à temps: il a parlé de 30 à 35 millions de dollars E.-U. et je pense que c'est vraiment une somme que nous devrions retenir.
J'aimerais examiner la proposition budgétaire en fonction de quatre questions:
Premièrement, quelle est la place du budget ordinaire de la FAO dans les ressources mobilisées annuellement par la communauté internationale dans les domaines de son mandat?
Deuxièmement, comment comparer le budget proposé à celui de l'exercice biennal en cours?
Troisièmement, quelles sont les possibilités de faire des économies?
Quatrièmement, comment se présente la question du financement et comment faut-il aborder la résolution budgétaire?
J'en viens à la première question. Si la FAO était la seule organisation, le seul effort de la communauté internationale, pour s'attaquer au fléau de la faim et pour soutenir le développement agricole et rural dans le monde, l'idée de limiter son budget à quelque 700 millions de dollars E.-U, ou même moins, serait franchement indécente. Heureusement, la FAO n'est pas notre seule arme contre la faim et la pauvreté dans le monde. L'aide publique au développement des pays de l'OCDE, qui représente l'essentiel de l'aide multilatérale et bilatérale, se chiffre à quelque 50 à 60 milliards de dollars E.-U. par an. Le budget ordinaire de la FAO ne représente qu'un demi pour cent de ce chiffre et les ressources totales de la FAO environ un pour cent de cette somme. Le budget et les activités de la FAO doivent être utilisés de façon à améliorer l'efficience de l'ensemble des efforts multilatéraux.
En ce qui concerne le budget ordinaire de la FAO, rappelons aussi qu'une petite partie seulement de ce budget, principalement le PCT, représente une aide directe pour les pays en développement. Ne nous trompons donc pas de débat.
J'en viens à ma deuxième question budgétaire, celle de la comparaison avec le budget en cours.
Le Directeur général est de l'avis, et nous partageons ce point de vue, que c'était une erreur d'inclure il y a deux ans, dans le financement du budget en cours, 38 millions de revenus provenant d'une réduction des arriérés. Cette source de revenus s'est révélée fictive. Au contraire, les arriérés ont continué à s'accumuler.
Le niveau du budget actuel de 673,1 millions de dollars ne constitue donc pas une base budgétaire très réaliste.
Une autre référence utile serait les dépenses effectives dans le biennium en cours. Nous avons posé au Conseil la question de savoir combien avait été dépensé jusqu'à ce jour pour le Programme ordinaire, et quelles sont les dépenses estimées jusqu'à la fin de l'année. Cette question reste toujours sans réponse. L'information de M. Wade selon laquelle le Secrétariat prévoit un niveau de dépenses de 653 millions de dollars ne répond pas à la question des dépenses effectives.
Permettez-moi de rappeler que fin juin de cette année, les dépenses pour le Programme ordinaire étaient de plus de 40 millions de dollars en retard par rapport au biennium 1992/93, et comme nous le savons ce biennium s'est terminé avec des dépenses budgétaires aux alentours de 670 millions de dollars.
Est-ce que le Secrétariat envisage d'accélérer ses dépenses pour la deuxième partie de cette année? Avec quels moyens?
Les paragraphes 124 et 125 nous apprennent que la proposition budgétaire comprend des économies totalisant 43,3 millions de dollars et des Programmes additionnels pour un montant de 37,4 millions de dollars. La FAO a donc su réduire les coûts budgétaires du programme actuel de 673 millions de dollars à 630 millions de dollars, ceci avant l'augmentation des coûts et avant l'augmentation nette proposée du programme de 37,4 millions de dollars.
J'en viens à la troisième question, les possibilités d'économie. Comme je viens de le dire, le Directeur général a déjà trouvé des économies de l'ordre de 43,3 millions de dollars. Nous comprenons la difficulté politique pour le Directeur général de présenter des économies, sans recevoir en récompense une partie des sommes économisées pour renforcer les programmes. Malheureusement la situation des contributions ne permet pas ce genre de récompense ou d'encouragement pendant cette période.
Ma délégation est convaincue qu'il est encore possible de faire des économies sensibles dans les dépenses de la FAO. Nous comprenons que changer une organisation comme la FAO nécessite forcément un certain temps. Nous pensons cependant que des économies supplémentaires sont possibles, principalement dans le domaine des voyages, des publications, des réunions et qu'une plus grande délégation de compétence et une responsabilisation des cadres du niveau moyen permettraient de raccourcir la chaîne des décisions et de faire
des économies supplémentaires. Toutes les décisions ne doivent pas à notre avis remonter au niveau le plus haut. Nous invitons le Secrétariat à nous donner des informations plus concrètes sur le potentiel d'économies supplémentaires.
J'en viens à la quatrième question budgétaire, celle du financement et celle de la résolution budgétaire.
Nous avons les déclarations des Etats-Unis sur leur incapacité de contribuer pleinement à un budget dépassant une certaine limite. Nous avons aussi le fait que seul un peu plus d'un tiers des membres se sont acquittés entièrement de leurs obligations de contribution. Il n'est à notre avis pas sain de construire un budget sur un espoir irréaliste de financement.
Ceci m'amène à dire que nous devons faire deux choses à la fois:
En premier lieu, nous devons prendre des mesures plus déterminées pour réduire les arriérés, pour améliorer la discipline de contribution. Les bons contributeurs doivent être encouragés à rester de bons contributeurs, et les mauvais contributeurs doivent subir une plus grande pression pour payer à temps.
En second lieu, nous devons adopter un budget qui ne nous éloigne pas de la réalité financière, qui ne rend pas l'amélioration des contributions illusoires.
Nous proposons pour cette raison seulement une légère augmentation du niveau des contributions. Actuellement, ce niveau de contributions à payer, mais qui malheureusement n'est pas payé entièrement, s'élève à 620,8 millions de dollars. A notre avis, le niveau de contributions ne devrait pas augmenter de plus de 10 à 20 millions de dollars.
Le Directeur général a proposé une résolution budgétaire financière pour financer quelques activités qu'il juge nécessaires mais moins prioritaires. Vu les difficultés que nous avons déjà pour trouver les fonds nécessaires pour financer un budget réduit, nous ne pouvons pas entrer dans le mérite de cette proposition. L'instrument d'une résolution supplémentaire pourrait cependant éventuellement servir à trouver une solution de compromis et de consensus pour le budget, sans pour autant augmenter les contributions actuelles ou futures.
Après avoir examiné la question budgétaire, le Gouvernement suisse est arrivé à la conclusion qu'il soutient un budget de 640 millions de dollars. Cela dit, je tiens à souligner que mon pays maintient le niveau de son aide au développement. J'aimerais aussi souligner que nous avons toujours payé ponctuellement notre contribution à la FAO.
Permettez-moi de dire quelques mots au sujet du programme.
Nous sommes pour une concentration sur les activités normatives de la FAO. C'est là que cette organisation a des avantages comparatifs. Pour les activités opérationnelles il y a d'autres organisations et programmes. Cela dit, nous pensons qu'un minimum d'activités opérationnelles de la FAO est nécessaire pour avoir l'expérience directe du terrain.
Nous sommes en faveur d'un accent fort sur la sécurité alimentaire qui doit cependant être plus équilibré entre les différentes zones agro-écologiques.
Nous sommes favorables à l'organisation du Sommet mondial de l'alimentation tout en encourageant la FAO à tenir les coûts le plus bas possible.
Le futur des ressources disponibles pour la FAO dépend en large partie du soutien de l'opinion publique pour les activités de notre organisation. C'est l'opinion publique qui influence les politiciens, et ce sont eux qui déterminent la marge de manoeuvre des gouvernements. Les activités et les réussites de la FAO doivent être mieux connues par l'opinion publique, en particulier dans les pays sur lesquels reposent la charge principale du budget. Nous encourageons la FAO à donner une grande priorité à ces activités d'information.
J'aimerais souligner l'importance que nous accordons aux activités européennes de la FAO, en particulier celles intéressant les pays en transition. Plus vite ces pays progresseront, plus rapidement pourront-ils, nous espérons, rejoindre les rangs des pays donateurs.
Julian Alexis THOMAS (South Africa): As a relatively new Member with little first hand experience of FAO, our comments on the PWB will be more general than specific.
To begin with however, we would like to thank the Secretariat for the high quality of documents presented to us at this Commission and we are also grateful for the insightful comments that have been made by many delegations which have helped us to grasp essentials of what we are discussing here today. We have however also been struck by the similarity between many of the challenges presently facing FAO and the obstacles having to be overcome while restructuring South African agriculture and the rural economy of our country.
Regarding the Programme of Work we find it easy to identify with and support major thrusts of the Medium-term Plan as well as the Major Programme and Special Programmes described in the Programme of Work and Budget. Because of our particular needs and circumstances some of these programmes interest us more than others. I however will not dwell on this now. I would prefer to highlight a few areas and issues in the PWB which have caught our attention.
In pursuing food security and sustainable agriculture we recognize the fundamental importance of sound policy formulation and the associated institutional restructuring which needs to be invariably accompanied by training and orientation. The need for FAO to devote its attention to these aspects through its normative and operational programme to assist countries in this regard is emphasized. This is one area in which we are extremely interested in, given the state of things in South Africa.
Secondly, the TCP and other mechanisms to convey technical assistance to countries and to facilitate technical exchange between them is obviously important as has been emphasized by many other delegations. We would like to support the plea that these mechanisms be expanded rather than contracted. There is still great need for technical assistance in Africa.
Thirdly, although not exactly in the same vein, my delegation views the World Food Summit as an opportunity to focus on the importance of food security in the world and an opportunity for countries to exchange information and experience on this issue. Our fear is that should the Summit be diminished in status or time, it may not provide sufficient incentive for countries to go through an adequate preparation process for the Summit which is just as important as the Summit itself. We thus support the World Food Summit as presently proposed.
When considering priorities and possible budgetary cuts, we would like to warn against the danger of sacrificing the human dimensions of development. In our experience these are first to suffer when planners and financiers start cutting corners. What we have in mind here are issues such as training and orientation, capacity building, institutional development, particularly local level institutions, the whole issue of gender and structuring projects to target specific beneficiaries and perhaps last but not least the approach of people centred development. These issues we believe are essential to development; this has been proved over and over again and it would be tragic if its importance would be downgraded.
Another area we would like to support is the question of FAO seeking new development partnerships and partners, not only with other international agencies and national public institutions but also with the private sector. South Africa may have a particular economic structure in this regard but we feel that we have made a certain amount of progress as far as this is concerned, mainly in the area of employment creation.
Mr Chairman, it is obvious, and we have heard it many times today, that if we are going to implement a programme of work one needs money to do this, one needs a budget. We would encourage and support all efforts to reduce costs in the running of the Organization and ways of increasing FAO's efficiency. I think that is a basic approach that has been emphasized many times here today.
We do not believe that implementing immediate drastic cuts is the best way of achieving such an objective. We should remember that development is a slow and laborious progressive process which costs money. There are no shortcuts in development. There would appear to be a contradiction between this and the objective of trying to turn FAO into a lean and mean development agency overnight. There is incongruity here.
As far as savings are concerned within the Organization, as we have said, we would support any effort to pursue such savings and cut costs. We are, however, a little less optimistic than others may be about possible
savings that may accrue from the restructuring of the Organization. We, of course, take the Secretariat's word on this but, from our experience, savings generated from institutional restructuring take time to manifest themselves. We also warn against sacrificing productivity and development impact in the interests of saving money.
We would like to express our support for the level of budget proposed by the Director-General. We believe that serious efforts have been made to effect savings and cut costs and that further efficiency should be pursued by deliberate, systematic and responsible improvements to the Organization rather than through drastic, sudden reductions in its finances.
A concomitant to this is the question of arrears. We believe all Members should honour their financial obligations. Obviously, if we persist along the same route that we are going on at the moment we are heading for trouble. There is, therefore, a need to approach this issue in the systematic and logical manner that was explained by the honourable delegate from Switzerland.
In trying to achieve this, we also, like many other delegations, believe in trying to achieve consensus. In fact, we believe that this is the only way that the integrity and harmony of this institution will be preserved. It would be tragic if we had to seek other ways of finding a solution to what is obviously a very major dilemma that we face.
Perhaps in a lighter vein, Mr Chairman, I could suggest that we consider one of the principles that is sometimes invoked in the process in South Africa when we are confronted with an issue where we cannot find consensus or where there is difficulty in finding it. We have a term or principle that we have developed called "sufficient consensus". Perhaps we already have sufficient consensus around the table here today.
We are looking forward to grappling with these problems together with the Organization. We hope in the future to be able to make a more specific input.
Ahmad Rusli JOHARIE (Malaysia): My delegation would like to commend the Secretariat for coming up with an innovative Programme of Work and Budget for the 1996-97 period. In addition, we appreciate the diligent and untiring efforts of the Director-General to rationalize and restructure FAO in order to save costs and make the Organization a viable and effective institution.
In the last Council meeting we voiced our support for the Programme of Work and Budget for 1996-97 at US$673 million at zero real growth rate. This amount, my delegation believes, is the minimum necessary for FAO to carry out its mandate effectively. We have also made detailed comments on the Programme of Work and Budget. I do not wish to repeat those points. However, I would like to make some additional comments for consideration.
First, much more earnest efforts must be made to collect arrears and innovative ideas explored to overcome problems of non-payment. This is necessary to ensure that funds are readily available to FAO to assist the poor countries.
Second, more savings must be attempted on uneconomic, less relevant and non-priority areas. In this regard, transparent and objective criteria must be determined to effect this exercise.
Third, programmes and projects to address the acute problems facing the low-income, food-deficit countries must be expanded and enhanced. This must be FAO's priority area.
Fourth, in the light of budgetary constraints, resort must be made to extrabudgetary means from third parties or for FAO to generate its own income stream. However, the modalities must be approved by the Conference first.
Fifth, FAO must set a realistic target to determine at what percentage and in what timeframe the problems facing the 800 million people who are malnourished and underprivileged can be resolved satisfactorily. Can this be achieved at the end of 10 years, 20 years or 50 years? Is there no light at the end of the tunnel?
Having determined a target, Members will be able to judge whether FAO has been successful or has failed to discharge its responsibilities.
Lastly, we must realize the heavy responsibility with which both the Member Nations and FAO have been burdened. We have no choice but to face them squarely and give them our best shot. We cannot do less.
George APOSTOIU (Roumanie): Il nous paraît évident que le Programme de travail et de budget pour 1996-1997 présente un grand nombre de pistes de réflexion en vue d'améliorer le fonctionnement de la FAO. Depuis hier, nous assistons à un effort soutenu en quête de solutions. Dans un certain sens le Programme propose à nos Etats de veiller à l'avenir de notre Organisation.
La Roumanie apprécie positivement les propositions du Directeur général pour le Programme et le budget. Nous saluons les mesures du Directeur général pour rationaliser les structures et les procédures administratives, et l'adoption de nouvelles modalités de fonctionnement qui permettront d'économiser 43 millions de dollars. D'autres mesures peuvent être envisagées et imaginées à l'avenir dans le secteur de la gestion. La Roumanie se prononce pour l'adoption d'un programme ainsi qu'il a été proposé par le Directeur général. Nous apprécions d'une façon positive également les priorités fixées dans le Programme en espérant qu'à l'intérieur des mesures envisagées les pays en transition pourront trouver leur place dans les activités futures de la FAO.
Je saisis l'occasion pour remercier les honorables représentants de la Norvège et de la Suisse qui viennent d'apprécier la nécessité d'une politique de notre Organisation en Europe centrale et de l'Est.
Pour conclure, nous partageons entièrement les opinions des délégués qui ont recommandé l'adoption d'un budget suffisant et nécessaire pour le Programme soumis à notre examen et pour le fonctionnement de notre Organisation.
Hadiono BADJURI (Indonesia): My delegation would like to share a few comments on the draft Programme of Work and Budget from 1996-97.
We understand that this draft has been prepared after long and intensive consideration. A significant change has been made as to its presentation towards a greater clarity and precision, with particular attention to output-orientation. My delegation welcomes the efforts made by the Director-General to continue to adopt zero growth principle, while maintaining the need to assure resources to be able to operate effectively and increase efficiency, as well as to encourage overall budgetary restraint.
We take note of the steps taken by the Director-General to increase the efficiency of the Organization, among others with the reduction of the number of established posts at Headquarters and outposting staff to the regional offices, as part of decentralization policy.
With regard to the priority setting, my delegation welcomes the approach to priority selection which, in my delegation's view, reflects the wish of the member countries. However, we would like to express our concern at the decrease of the provision under Major Programme 2.3 Fisheries on the implementation of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. We hope that an appropriate supplement can be made in order to implement the programme effectively.
Moreover, we would like to refer to sub-programme Agriculture Engineering, which, in our view, should be given high priority. These programmes are now being undertaken in countries, including Indonesia, and have provided the Government of Indonesia with excellent advice on our important farm input.
We acknowledge that the programmes concerning the utilization of experts for technical cooperation between developing countries (TCDC), have suffered from budgetary restriction. Therefore, Mr Chairman, my delegation is of the view that the appropriate priorities should be given to this programme.
Finally, we would like to draw the attention of this meeting to the fact that the Director-General has made every effort to economize the Programme of Work and Budget for 1996-97.
More streamlining of the budget will have serious consequences on the implementation of the Programme of Work, which is, in our view, already streamline.
Having said that, my delegation would like to support the Programme of Work and Budget 1996-97 as proposed by the Director-General.
Larry FERGUSSON (New Zealand): We have already expressed concern about the capacity of this Organization to supply member countries with information and assurances that will enable them to make informed and rational budgetary decisions. In the absence of such information, questions around the budget are always going to be more difficult than they need to be.
We reiterate that the Secretariat must get itself into the position where it describes within a strategic context what it believes needs to be achieved within a budgetary period and why. It must show the true costs of its proposals and it must put itself into a position to demonstrate that it provides to its members value for money.
Resource constraints are a reality. I am sure that none of us is ever in a position where we can say that we have sufficient resources to achieve all that we believe needs to be achieved. The fact that resources are scarce is underlined by the level of arrears owed by Member Nations. It is unrealistic to establish a budget which would simply compound that situation. That brings me to the point that any budget approved must be real; it must be fully funded.
We have no desire to fund overtime contributions that should be funded by others. In this regard we expect members to meet their funding obligations.
Experience shows that the organization that cannot find efficiency gains does not exist. Our own public service has been required in recent years to take real reductions in baselines and absorb cost increases while maintaining current programmes. Consequently Member States have the right to expect that the Secretariat will be able to deliver significant efficiency gains. Mr Wade has indicated a number of initiatives that are being pursued by the Organization and other delegates have pointed to yet further areas where they believe efficiency gains can be made. The other alternative for the Organization is to pursue new sources of revenue. Again many Member States have gone through the process of considering who benefits from the services they provide, the capacity of those beneficiaries to contribute to those costs, and moved on to impose cost recovery. Our own experience in New Zealand shows not only that delivery of those cost-recovered services becomes more efficient but also that those who pay for the services they receive are more likely to make better use of them.
If after pursuing these types of considerations the Organization faces a deficit, it must in the current situation pull back to those activities where it produces the maximum return to its members. If the Organization truly believes that this is the position it faces then it must identify clearly and unequivocally to its Member States those programmes and projects which provide lower value and are outside the core activities and competencies of the Organization.
It will then be up to us as members to decide what we are prepared to give up. That is our obligation.
Aldo PUGLIESE (Italy): Mr Chairman, the Italian delegation wishes first of all to express its full support for the statement made by the Permanent Representative of Spain on behalf of the European Union and its member states on this Agenda item.
I would like to make a few additional comments. First of all FAO budget, like those of other United Nations Agencies, must be the result of a multilateral decision taken by the institutional bodies of the Organization - in our case the Finance and Programme Committees, then the Council and finally the Conference.
Consequently, any Member State which has considerable reservations about the amount of the budget should make concrete proposals for reducing programmes by submitting them to the Finance and Programme Committees, then to the next session of the Council and finally to the Conference. As a matter of fact many
member countries did so. Any other procedure cannot be considered to be a correct procedure in a multilateral organization of the United Nations system.
For the biennium 1996-97, the Conference has to consider the proposal of FAO Director-General of a budget for an amount of US$697 million. For this purpose we would like to suggest some principles which we consider are very important. First, there is the need to resume the practice of sound financial management in accordance with which the arrears of contributions have not to be taken into account for the calculation of the amount of the regular budget.
Secondly, we consider that the efforts made by the Director-General to reduce the amount of cost increase caused by inflation (from US$31.8 million foreseen in the Summary of Programme of Work and Budget submitted to the 108th Session of the Council in June 1995 to the current amount of US$24.7 million) are going in the right direction. Still we have to request FAO Secretariat to explore the possibility of further savings and reductions of costs in the areas identified by FAO Finance Committee, on condition that the savings which might be identified do not affect negatively the Programme of Work of the next biennium. We cannot impose cuts which may have negative consequences on both the Regular and Field Programmes, taking into consideration also that there was not a consensus of FAO institutional bodies to proceed in this direction.
We should also authorize the Director-General by an ad hoc resolution to allocate any additional fund which might be collected from the arrears of contributions for financing activities of high priority whose financial requirements are not covered by the regular budget.
We should also encourage FAO Secretariat to pursue the process of rationalization of the special programmes of action which have been reduced from 12 to 4 (integrated protection, plant nutrition, seed production and water) and which have been better integrated with the Special Programme in Support of Food Security in Low-Income Food-Deficit Countries. We think that this process of rationalization is very important, as it aims to avoid duplication and overlap among programmes.
We would now like to make some comments on document C 95/3 dedicated to the programmes. First of all we would like to express again our interest in the Special Programme in support of Food Security which constitutes a very important initiative aimed at increasing food security both at country and regional level. Furthermore, the Italian authorities attach great importance to the Major Programme 2.4 on forestry owing to the fact that forests contribute directly to the supply of food for people and fodder for domestic animals and because the inter-links between forestry and food security are becoming more and more evident.
We are aware also that in many areas of low-income food-deficit countries people depend for more than 50 percent on non-wood forest products. Italy ranks amongst the most important contributors to the Mediterranean Forest Plan of Action and gives considerable financial support to the other forest programmes. We would therefore like to express our satisfaction that forestry programmes have not suffered budgetary reductions.
We would also like to express support for Programmes 2.4 and 2.3 concerning the improvement of seed production for ensuring the security of seeds. We think that this programme will certainly provide a great contribution to food security in the poorest countries as it aims both at facilitating a variety of selected seeds and stimulating the conservation of genetic diversity.
We would like to give particular support to another programme, such as Programme 2.5 aimed at improving the condition of women in agriculture and in rural development. As regards this programme, we are aware that the improvement of the condition of women in rural areas depends to a large extent on the level of direct funds in rural areas and on the introduction of legal and institutional reforms aimed at improving the status of women.
In conclusion, Mr Chairman, we would like to stress the importance of this Conference approving a budget for the biennium 1996-97 which can allow the Organization to implement with effectiveness the programmes already approved by the Council and by the other institutional bodies.
Shahid RASHID (Pakistan): We are acutely aware of the grave responsibilities that this Commission bears in respect of its deliberations on the Programme of Work and Budget for 1996-97. In view of the seriousness of the special and far-reaching impact of our debate, we are all duty bound to approach the subject with due care and caution. The proposal of the Director-General is for a zero real growth budget level on the basis of the figure of US$673.1 million approved at the last Conference. This figure provides a logical point of reference for proceeding further. Needless to say our wish was to proceed upwards from this level not only on account of the enlarged membership of this Organization but because of the acute realization that there is so much to be done for so many who are in need, but the harshness of reality has ensured that we harbor no illusions. We have ‘to be practical and realistic, and it is this realism that has forced us to come out in defence of the concept of no growth for the budget of this Organization - yes, Mr Chairman, no growth. We, the developing countries are advocating a no growth budget. The irony of the situation is too stark to warrant any further elaboration.
We are concerned with attempts to reinterpret the base of the budget level. Some speak of a fully funded budget level, some speak of an implemented level, others speak of an implementable level, but let us be logical and fair, let us be rational. The supreme Governing Body of this Organization approved a budget level for 1994-95. If some Member Nations subsequently fail to live up to their obligation, they cannot be allowed to use their own failings to the detriment of the Organization and the overall membership. We are here in a multilateral contact with mutual obligations and responsibilities and cannot allow any unilateral actions which force the fate of all to hang in the balance. At the same time we want FAO to maintain and preserve its universal character and would like to stress that it remains an all-encompassing partnership between all its Member Nations.
FAO remains an organization with a valid mandate and the entire membership has repeatedly reaffirmed its faith in and support for it. If we recognize the vital role of FAO and the indispensable contribution that FAO has made and must make to improve the lot of the rural poor and food insecure, then we must guard against any action that would undermine or erode the capacity of this Organization.
Of course, we agree that FAO should manage its affairs more efficiently and effect greater savings. By savings we do not mean programme cuts. In fact, we believe that management has made a tremendous effort by indicating savings of about US$43 million. This is certainly no mean achievement. We hope that scope for further savings has not been exhausted and we would urge management to continue striving towards seeking additional savings without sacrificing FAO's capabilities. We therefore believe that we must at least maintain a zero real growth budget level as proposed. Anything below such a level would be a most unfortunate signal at a time when we are not only celebrating our 50th Anniversary but also preparing for the first ever World Food Summit. We therefore urge that as we all stand committed to FAO, let us also provide it with the necessary means to be able at least to maintain its current level of activities. This is absolutely essential.
Briefly on the question of programmes, we endorse in general the priorities assigned to the different programmes and sub-programmes. Given the resource constraints, we believe that the allocation of the priorities identified are quite judicious. We therefore give our endorsement to the proposed Programme of Work.
P. MTUY (Tanzania): Mr Chairman, my delegation would like to commend the Director-General and his able staff for a clear and current Programme of Work and Budget for 1996-97. My delegation has viewed the Programme of Work and Budget in relation to its efforts to restructure the Organization and reduce costs. His efforts are highly commendable and we feel that he is capable of bringing more efficiency and cost-effective measures if only we support his efforts.
To this end, we support his Programme of Work and Budget on the understanding that he will continue in his efforts to restructure the Organization and reduce costs. He needs more time to look into areas where he can further reduce costs. He is new to the Organization and he has to move slowly but surely. Approval of his proposed Programme of Work and Budget will give him the assurance and support that he requires from Member States. Payment of our contributions and dues on time will go a long way to make his work much easier and more enjoyable.
In fact, the budget hinges on prompt payment of contributions and dues.
My delegation endorses the Special Programme on Food Production in support of food security in low-income food-deficit countries. This programme holds the key to food security and as such it deserves unwavering support. Furthermore, my delegation supports EMPRES, TCDC and the other priority programmes listed by the Director-General. Mr Chairman, we share the concern on seed raised by Swaziland and we welcome the programme on improved farm seed production and seed security. We believe that this programme will assist and enable smallholders to improve farm seed production and conservation.
As regards fisheries, Mr Chairman, we welcome and endorse the code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, as this is the cornerstone of sustainable exploitation of fisheries. As regards forestry, we single out the work on forest resource assessment as the most important part of the programme. A knowledge of what exists in the forests is a pre-requisite for sustainable exploitation, management and conservation of forests and forest resources. Most of our developing countries are lacking this important information and FAO has a long way to go to make this a reality.
Lastly, Mr Chairman, my delegation reiterates its support for the Programme of Work and Budget for 1996-97 and has high expectations regarding the greater efficiency and cost effectiveness of the Organization.
Moussa Bocar LY (Sénégal): Monsieur le Président, je crois que ma délégation n'a pas encore eu l'occasion de vous féliciter. C'est avec plaisir que nous vous voyons diriger les travaux de cette importante Commission.
Le nouveau Directeur général a hérité d'une lourde situation, à savoir que lorsqu'il y a deux ans, la Conférence a adopté le budget 1994-95, elle lui a donné la possibilité de faire des propositions de restructuration et de rationalisation mais dans le cadre du niveau de budget adopté. C'était là, conviendrez-vous avec moi, un handicap de départ.
Le Directeur général, dans sa sagesse, a relevé ce défi en adoptant des mesures de réforme et de restructuration qui ont été entérinées par l'organe directeur que constitue le Conseil de la FAO et qui se sont traduites, notamment, par l'adoption de ces deux programmes prioritaires que mon pays appuie de toute force, à savoir le Programme spécial de la Production alimentaire à l'appui de la sécurité alimentaire dans les pays à faible revenu et à déficit vivrier et le Programme EMPRES.
Ne voilà-t-il pas qu'ensuite le Directeur général, à la suite des différentes suggestions faites par le Comité financier et le Comité du Programme, a pu réaliser une performance? En effet, il a pu faire des économies dépassant 40 millions de dollars E.-U. Peut-être, à cause de ces mesures d'excellence, attendons-nous trop de cette Organisation. Peut-être, à cause de ces mesures de gestion saine et vigoureuse, pensons-nous que l'Organisation peut tout faire.
Or, en répondant déjà aux questions des Etats Membres, le Secrétariat a fait savoir qu'en absorbant au maximum l'accroissement des coûts supplémentaires et en se tenant également prêt à faire des efforts supplémentaires si besoin en était, des économies supplémentaires ne pourraient point être faites sans toucher aux programmes. Cela pose un problème de responsabilité.
Le Secrétariat a répondu aux questions posées. Tout à l'heure, le représentant de la Nouvelle Zélande a posé la même question et le Secrétariat avait déjà répondu en disant que des économies supplémentaires affecteraient directement les programmes. Il revient donc maintenant aux Etats Membres de décider quels programmes on devrait couper pour que ces économies puissent être réalisées.
Et c'est là le paradoxe de cette réunion et de ces discussions car nous, qui connaissons le système des Nations Unies, nous savons que, là-bas, certains grands pays ont proposé des réformes mais que ces pays ont adopté la démarche logique qui consiste à dire: "Nous avons examiné les programmes de l'Organisation des Nations Unies. Voilà ce que nous suggérons comme réduction, comme coupe dans les différents programmes pour que l'Organisation puisse faire des économies et puisse être efficace". Et voilà qu'au niveau d'une agence des Nations Unies, on demande au Secrétariat de faire ce travail que les Etats Membres devraient eux-mêmes faire. Or les Etats Membres se sont dotés d'organes bien précis: j'ai parlé tout à l'heure du Comité du Programme et du Comité financier; il y a également le Conseil de la FAO. Ce sont des organes qui devraient permettre à la Conférence de prendre des décisions idoines et opportunes, en toute connaissance
de cause. Il serait peut-être malvenu et en tous cas illogique de laisser cette responsabilité au Secrétariat quand celle-ci incombe aux Etats Membres.
Pour tout dire, nous pensons que des efforts de rationalisation et de décentralisation ont été amplement faits pour démontrer la volonté du Secrétariat d'aller de l'avant et ce, pour répondre aux attentes des Etats Membres en cette période où nous venons de célébrer, au Québec, le Cinquantième anniversaire de notre Organisation commune. Donc, le niveau des propositions budgétaires faites par le Directeur général rencontre notre agrément en ce que, partant de la croissance réelle zéro, que nous avons acceptée à contrecoeur car elle se traduit nécessairement par une réduction sensible des programmes et de l'assistance de la FAO dont les pays en développement sont en droit d'attendre beaucoup, tout le monde a dit que nous voulons faire de cette Organisation un centre d'excellence.
Mais un centre d'excellence coûte et les pays africains, qui le savent, ont fait des efforts dans le cadre de la démarche de proximité que le Directeur général a adoptée en se rendant sur le terrain et en discutant avec les Etats Membres. Les pays africains, en ce qui les concerne, ont accepté, malgré les difficultés, de faire des efforts pour honorer leurs arriérés de contributions; et je crois que les documents en font foi et que le Conseil en a déjà la preuve avec les données fournies par le Secrétariat. Le Président du Groupe africain et le représentant de l'Egypte, au nom du Groupe des 77, ont d'ores et déjà fait connaître la position de leurs groupes, auxquels mon pays appartient, et nous souscrivons entièrement à cette position. Nous appuyons dans leur ensemble les propositions budgétaires faites par le Directeur général.
Nous voudrions à présent faire quelques remarques. Certains ont dit qu'en fait, il faudrait partir d'un niveau de budget pleinement financé ou applicable. Or il me souvient que c'est le représentant de la Norvège qui disait que, lors de la 27ème session de la Conférence de la FAO, son pays avait mis la Conférence en garde contre le fait qu'on allait droit vers une erreur qui serait fatale, à savoir inclure ces 38 millions de dollars E.-U. d'arriérés dans le budget prévisionnel. Il y a un principe de droit en vertu duquel nul ne puisse se prévaloir de sa propre turpitude; et je crois que les juristes présents doivent le savoir.
On a dit, par ailleurs, que la FAO n'était pas la seule organisation en matière d'alimentation et d'agriculture. Mais nous devons dire que la FAO constitue le chef de file dans ces différents domaines d'excellence que nous lui connaissons. Par ailleurs, la Conférence des Nations Unies sur l'environnement et le développement de Rio a reconnu à la FAO le rôle de chef de file en matière de forêts et de pêches. Et je crois que les ministres responsables des forêts, qui se sont réunis ici en mars dernier, de même que les ministres responsables des pêches, qui se sont également réunis ici en avril dernier, ont amplement reconnu ce rôle à la FAO. Faut-il lui reconnaître ce rôle sans lui donner les moyens de le remplir? A quoi bon, alors, lui reconnaître cette mission?
De même, au niveau des différents comités que compte l'Organisation, nous avons reconnu que la FAO devait s'intéresser aux implications des Négociations d'Uruguay dans le domaine agricole et nous avons surtout attiré l'attention sur les pays importateurs nets de produits agricoles, dont mon pays, et surtout sur la Déclaration de Marrakech, qui les concerne et nous avons demandé à la FAO d'apporter son concours. Cela demande des moyens. Il y a donc une certaine logique dans le fait de reconnaître à la FAO un rôle, une dimension et de lui donner les moyens lui permettant de remplir correctement et normalement ses activités.
Pour cela, permettez-moi de revenir à ce qu'a dit, Monsieur Le Président, votre chef de délégation, le Ministre français de l'agriculture, quand il affirmait qu'il faut maintenir le niveau de ressources de la FAO, qu'il faut donner à la FAO un bon niveau de contribution. Le chef de la délégation de la Belgique a abondé dans le même sens en disant qu'aller en dessous des propositions du Directeur général conduisait nécessairement à une faillite de l'Organisation qui est la nôtre.
Il nous semble donc que le réalisme commande de prendre en compte l'élan de Québec, les déclarations politiques de haut niveau faites en séance plénière de cette Conférence et que nous puissions à notre humble niveau travailler à l'avènement du consensus. Je crois d'ailleurs que les deux ministres des pays nordiques qui ont été les premiers à intervenir au cours de la plénière l'ont dit avec netteté. J'ai nommé le Ministre de la Norvège et le Ministre de la Suède.
Il nous incombe donc de chercher, à l'intérieur de nos ressources propres, à construire le consensus, car l'échec de cette Organisation serait notre propre échec à tous.
Je voudrais terminer en disant qu'il semble y avoir une sorte d'amalgame, la FAO n'est pas une organisation d'annonces de contributions, où l'on partirait d'une annonce de contributions pour dégager le niveau de budget possible. La FAO est une agence spécialisée des Nations Unies. Il y a des contributions statutaires qui découlent des Textes Fondamentaux qui fondent notre Organisation. C'est cela qui doit servir de référence et non pas des annonces de contributions. Nous connaissons des organisations où ce système d'annonces de contributions a cours, mais nous nous trouvons dans un autre endroit.
Je suis sûr, Monsieur le Président, qu'avec votre sagesse et le soutien politique que les ministres, au cours de la plénière et également au Québec, ont amplement donné à cette Organisation, nous trouverons en nous-même l'aptitude à construire et à créer le consensus.
Sra. Ileana DI GIOVAN BATTISTA (Argentina): Es realmente una difícil tarea intervenir después del elocuente discurso del representante de Senegal. Nuestro amigo Moussar nos ha trazado un cuadro en un tono casi épico, diría yo, que nos incitan a todos a seguir su camino. No obstante, lamentablemente, señor Presidente, nuestros países y la Comunidad Internacional enfrentan ciertas realidades frente a las cuales se estrellan muchas de nuestras ilusiones y de nuestras buenas intenciones.
El Gobierno argentino ha debido hacer en 1995 enormes esfuerzos para equilibrar su presupuesto público. Para el presupuesto de 1996 se han previsto recortes de hasta el 20 por ciento en casi todos los sectores, tratando de preservar solamente la educación y la salud pública.
A raíz de la crisis mexicana hemos tenido que recurrir al mercado voluntario de préstamos y al Fondo Monetario Internacional para colmar un sorpresivo repliegue de capitales que se habían acercado transitoriamente a nuestro país como a otras economías emergentes.
Mi país adeuda todavía el 50 por ciento de la cuota de 1995, pero tengo instrucciones de comunicar a usted, señor Presidente, que será pagada antes del 31 de diciembre de este año.
Esto viene a cuento porque los imperativos de reducción presupuestaria y de austeridad se imponen en todas partes.
Por eso mi Delegación no puede menos que asociarse al pedido ya efectuado en el 108° y 109° períodos de sesiones del Consejo al Director General para que se extremen los esfuerzos para efectuar economías que consientan no aumentar la carga contributiva de los países miembros.
Se ha mencionado reiteradamente el error de haber contado con 38 millones de dólares de atrasos como recursos del presupuesto del último bienio, que se revelaron ficticios.
Por otra parte, señor Presidente, los documentos que se nos han sometido (el 95/3 y el informe del Comité de Finanzas y del Programa) demuestran que, en primer lugar, la ejecución del presupuesto y programa de trabajo del último bienio se ha hecho a un ritmo menor que el previsto y todavía existen fondos no comprometidos o no gastados.
En segundo lugar, el Comité de Finanzas registra cierta satisfacción por el cumplimiento del programa de trabajos, a pesar de un índice de alrededor del 20 por ciento de vacantes. Esto parecería demostrar que economías suplementarias son aún posibles. Por supuesto, que nos sentimos preocupados porque, como ha dicho el Delegado de Senegal, podrían verse afectados ciertos programas, pero también pensamos que habrá diversos programas o subprogramas que ya han cumplido su cometido, que ya han cumplido con el fin para el cual fueron creados y que podrían ser eliminados.
Creemos además que algunas medidas ya adoptadas por el Director General darán sus frutos. La descentralización permitirá reducir costos. El Programa de Cooperación Técnica entre países en desarrollo y el Programa de Consultores retirados, permitirán reducir costos.
El acceso a los datos on line permitirá reducir los costos de publicaciones. Creemos que también son posibles algunas economías dentro de los Servicios Generales.
Señor Presidente, las cifras respectivas a los estados que aún no han efectuado ningún pago respecto a las cuotas de 1995, o tienen la cuota de 1995 parcialmente impagada, si bien no representan un desmejoramiento respecto a años anteriores, demuestran una situación que no puede seguir arrastrándose en esta magnitud.
Ante semejante previsión de recursos, parecería razonable proponer niveles de presupuesto que se adecuen a las posibilidades reales que reconocen los países miembros.
Por supuesto, señor Presidente, deseamos reafirmar que todos los miembros de la Organización deben cumplir con las obligaciones contraídas. Este deber es aún mayor en el caso de aquellos países cuya trayectoria histórica los involucra estrechamente con la FAO y aquellos países cuyas contribuciones constituyen parte sustancial del presupuesto de la Organización, afectando con sus atrasos el desenvolvimiento de esta Institución.
Sin perjuicio de ello, la Delegación de Argentina cree conveniente adecuar el presupuesto de 1996/1997 a niveles que sean compatibles con las posibilidades de financiación real. Creemos que el desarrollo futuro de la Organización depende no sólo del nivel presupuestario que se establezca, sino del efectivo cumplimiento de las contribuciones al mismo por parte de los países miembros. El nivel de presupuesto debe ser objeto de un consenso genuino. De nada sirve profundizar confrontaciones o dar lugar a mayores atrasos o incumplimientos de cuotas.
Finalmente, la austeridad de que estamos hablando no es sino la misma que hemos aplicado en nuestros países. También la FAO deberá adecuarse al dictado de los tiempos. Esta adecuación exigirá una consideración paralela de labores y prioridades. Pero esta tarea, realizada con equilibrio y con ponderación, redundará, sin duda, en una FAO más vigorosa, preparada para enfrentar nuevos desafíos con una nueva juventud para los próximos 50 años.
Klaus GARCKE (Germany): The deliberations of 109th Session of the FAO Council and of the sessions of this Commission made it clear that Member States' views on the appropriate level of the Programme Work and Budget 1996-97 vary to a serious extent. Nevertheless there was a common understanding of the need to reach a consensus on this most important question and, indeed, we should make all efforts to avoid voting on the Programme of Work and Budget. A vote on the budget would not, and I repeat would not, solve the underlying problems. It would create a most serious financial situation for the Organization. We should avoid adopting a budget level which has not the necessary financial support. Therefore, the Programme of Work and Budget 1996-97 proposed by the Director-General must be brought down to a financiable level. We share the view expressed by the UK delegate during our morning session that there is still room for considerable savings. We believe we can do more for the same, or even for less, as Norway mentioned an hour ago. We cannot be sure, however, that we will be successful in bringing down the budget to a financiable level. We cannot exclude the possibility of a difference between a budget which the majority can adhere to and one which is at a fully financiable level. We have to take precautions against this case. Any difference to the fully financiable level has to be frozen in order to avoid a cash deficit. This freezing is a major point in our understanding of a realistic budget. We cannot accept the adoption of a PWB with foreseeable underfunding. Freezing does not mean the elimination of appropriations but adjusting their use to a financiable level.
Such a necessary precaution should not be interpreted as a lack of faith in the Organization. On the contrary, it is meant to help the Organization to cope with a given decision.
Avraam LUCA (Cyprus): Under the current financial constraints, the preparation of a balanced proposal as presented in the main document C 95/3 could be considered a real achievement, having in mind also the request of Member States for retaining the principle of zero real growth for maximum absorption of cost increases and for increased efficiency. In the light of these general observations we have no difficulty in endorsing the applied approach to priority selection in the direction of resources.
Referring to specific priorities for the major Programmes 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5 and Technical Cooperation Programme, we wish to register our support for the proposed priorities as described in paragraphs 36 to 45 and in the respective chapters of the document under review.
As regards the areas presented concerning reduced resources and activities, we want to suggest that more efforts be made to secure additional funds for the following programmes, sub-programmes and activities which, in our view are no less important. These are activities relating to climate change, post-harvest management, activities in areas of nutritional requirement and nutrition training, activities on the impact of environmental degradation of marine fisheries and assessment of climate change implication and fisheries policy advice at country level.
For this reason, while expressing our support for the resolution of paragraph 55 proposed by the Director-General for supplementary appropriation, we also suggest that the aforementioned activities and programmes be treated as priority issues, should additional funds become available.
Evidently the payment of arrears could be a substantial source of additional funds. At this point we wish to emphasie the need to intensify the efforts for the payment of arrears of contributions which surely constitute a financial obligation to this Organization.
Referring to the overall resource situation and the calculated information on page 41, we notice with concern the considerable reduction of extrabudgetary funds during the period 1992-93 and 1994-95. The funds for UNDP projects indicate a reduction of almost 40 percent, while the funds of support costs for administrative operational support to UNDP and Trust Fund projects were also reduced by 23 percent. Further reduction of these funds is foreseen for the following period 1996-97.
Similarly the Trust Fund projects which are the highest single share in total of extrabudgetary funds were also reduced by eight percent during the past period, although these funds are expected to increase by four percent in the following period. No doubt the diminished sources of extrabudgetary funds sooner or later will cause negative effects on other related activities of FAO.
I wish to express our appreciation and commend the Director-General for all the efforts he has made and the measures he has taken to reduce costs and prepare a balanced Programme of Work and Budget for the next biennium. At the same time, I wish to call upon him to intensify further his efforts to achieve additional savings and reduction on costs by introducing, where necessary, appropriate changes with the view to making the Organization more efficient and more cost effective.
Finally Mr Chairman, I refer to the crucial issue of the level and the approval of the budget. The position of my delegation is strongly in favour for a consensus approval. We do believe that the approval of the budget by consensus is also a commitment for each Member State to honour its financial obligation to this Organization.
Mme Seydou OUSSEINI AMINATA (Niger): Mon pays, comme les autres pays de la sous-région, soutient le budget à croissance 0. Mon pays, qui est redevable à la FAO, s'est engagé à honorer ses obligations et ma délégation souscrit au Programme de travail et budget 1996-97.
Nous comprenons les difficultés financières auxquelles la FAO doit faire face, mais nous ne pouvons opter pour la réduction de ce budget, au moment où nous avons le plus besoin du soutien de la FAO et des autres organisations. Toutefois, si des réductions doivent être faites, nous souhaitons que les priorités fixées par la FAO, et surtout le Programme spécial, puissent être maintenues, ceci parce que les interventions en faveur du développement doivent être une action à long terme pour engendrer des résultats concluants.
A cet effet, nous lançons un appel à la communauté des donateurs internationaux pour qu'elle examine cette question de plus près.
Aguinaldo LISBOA RAMOS (Cap-vert): Tout en souscrivant aux déclarations des présidents du Groupe des 77 et du Groupe africain, je serai bref. Ma délégation voudrait cependant saluer le Directeur général et le Secrétariat pour la présentation du Programme de travail et budget très clair, détaillé et équilibré. Obéissant aux recommandations du Comité de programme et du Comité des finances, ils ont réussi à absorber d'importantes augmentations de coûts et réalisé des économies tout en cherchant à ce que le budget soit suffisant pour réaliser les activités découlant du mandat de l'Organisation sans nuire aux priorités et à la
crédibilité de l'Organisation comme centre d'excellence dans les domaines de l'agriculture, des forêts, de l'élevage, des pêches et de l'alimentation.
Nous appuyons la proposition d'un Programme de travail et budget à croissance réelle zéro avec l'absorption possible des augmentations de coûts et nous espérons qu'il sera adopté par consensus dans un esprit de partenariat comme les conseils à caractère universel de la FAO. Nous commençons déjà à sentir les effets du processus de restructuration et de décentralisation et nous encourageons la FAO à poursuivre ses efforts dans le sens d'une plus grande rationalisation et efficacité. Nous donnons aussi notre accord aux priorités établies dans le Programme de travail et budget tout en regrettant que d'importants programmes et activités n'aient pas pu être considérés.
Le Programme spécial de production alimentaire à l'appui de la sécurité alimentaire des pays à faibles revenus et à déficit vivrier et l'EMPRES, qui vise directement la sécurité alimentaire, méritent aussi tout notre appui. De même, ceux qui concernent le développement agricole et rural, l'aménagement et la maîtrise des eaux et des terres, la lutte intégrée contre les ravageurs de cultures, demeurent une priorité. Nous sommes convaincus que le Sommet mondial de l'alimentation sera l'événement qui marquera les activités de la FAO en 1996. Sa portée ne doit pas être réduite, qu'il s'agisse de ses objectifs ou de sa durée.
L'adoption du Code de conduite de pêche responsable sera une des plus importantes décisions de cette Conférence. Nous espérons qu'il sera ratifié par les Etats Membres et que les conditions seront créées pour sa mise en oeuvre dans le plus bref délai.
Nous saluons le lancement d'un Programme d'assistance dans les petits Etats insulaires et l'augmentation des activités du PCT et du PCDC.
Pour terminer, ma délégation souhaite que la FAO dispose des ressources nécessaires pour aider ses Etats Membres à relever le défi qui consiste à éliminer définitivement la faim et la pauvreté de la face de la terre.
J.B. PIETERS (The Netherlands): This agenda item is of great importance for the Netherlands because in our view we are discussing a matter of principle here and the outcome of the discussions concerned will influence the future of FAO which goes beyond the financial aspects.
As the Dutch Prime Minister said in New York on the occasion of the 50th Anniversary of the UN, the Netherlands is in favour of a fundamental change of the United Nations System, including the specialized organizations. This should lead to a more effective and efficient system, to be realized however by a step-by-step process.
This brings me to the Programme of Work and Budget of FAO. We and the other Member States made a commitment to FAO and the funding of the Organization. All the Member States have the obligation to pay their assessed contributions. As long as you are a member of an organization you have to fulfil your obligations to the organization and to the other Member States. Of course, it is possible to change the system and I underline that, it can not be done on a unilateral basis. Changes have to be made by consensus of the Member States; and that, Mr Chairman, is a matter of principle. The Netherlands cannot accept the announcement of a cutback in its contribution by one Member State, thus changing the scale of contribution and thereby changing the system of contributions without a decision of the Conference.
Mr Chairman, my country is still in favour of the principle of real zero-growth and although this budget proposal reflects a negative growth, the Netherlands Government can support it. FAO needs a budget that allows the Organization to fulfil its tasks. However, FAO should eliminate overlap and duplications with the activities of other organizations like UNDP and UNEP.
In the reorganization process the Director-General focused on normative tasks and decentralization and we endorse this choice. However, Mr Chairman, what seems to be missing is the focus on UNCED and follow-up activities. These formed the very basis for the last PWB and my delegation is surprised and concerned that these have disappeared. FAO is the UN task manager for some important chapters of Agenda 21. Regarding FAO's role in the support of the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests, my delegation is in favour of an increase on the Major Programme on Forestry. In more general terms, in my delegation's
view, Agenda 21 activities need a more cross-sectoral approach, which seems currently inadequately highlighted, except for biodiversity and sustainable agriculture.
Agenda 21 should also be the framework for the Special Action Programmes. The Netherlands has concerns about the development of the SAPs. These should have a wide and horizontal scope and should be part of a more integrated programme.
The Netherlands delegation compliments the Secretariat with the form it puts on its activities as a technical advisor for the implementation of the Uruguay Round. The document outlines excellently the activities of the CODEX Alimentarius Commission and my delegation has much appreciation for the way the CODEX is being used as a reference frame for the WTO. My delegation is looking forward to the next biennium toxological re-evaluation for those products which have been evaluated long ago.
The Netherlands congratulate the Director-General with the reorganization which took place. However, we are of the opinion that more can be done. Apart from structural aspects, a reorganization should include aspects of human resource management and should be an ongoing process, which will make FAO an even more effective and efficient Organization. FAO should meet the organizational standards of today, namely more decentralization of responsibilities, yes, and short lines of communication with the Organization.
We support the proposal that FAO should pursue the elimination of bureaucratic layers.
Furthermore, the Netherlands is of the opinion that the reorganization should not only focus on the Organization itself, but also on the Governing Bodies. Therefore we support the proposal for a working group for a governance reform.
If FAO is able to implement measures in these fields, it should be able to save a substantial amount of money at the same time. In so doing, the Organization can set a realistic course towards an even more effective and efficient organization for food and agriculture.
Sra. María E. JIMENEZ DE MOCHI ONORI (El Salvador): La delegación de El Salvador desea manifestar su pleno apoyo a la declaración hecha hace un momento en esta sala por el Presidente del Grupo de los 77.
Nosotros compartimos plenamente los siete aspectos por él planteados, esto nos permite poder dedicar nuestra intervención a indicar a esta Comisión, en forma muy breve, cuáles son los programas y actividades en los que El Salvador se encuentra particularmente interesado y que, consecuentemente, apoya.
Como país de bajos ingresos y con déficit de alimentos, El Salvador respalda el Programa Especial sobre producción de alimentos, en apoyo a la seguridad alimentaria de esos países, y desearíamos que a corto plazo este programa pudiera ser ampliado a otros países de la Región de América Latina y el Caribe.
Lamentamos que el establecimiento de oficinas subregionales tenga que ser pospuesto por restricciones presupuestarias. Expresamos que para El Salvador es muy importante que la subregión a la que pertenecemos pueda contar con una oficina que atienda más de cerca sus ingentes necesidades. Lamentamos también que los recursos asignados al Programa Principal: Pesca no hayan sido incrementados en la medida que las necesidades lo requieren.
En mi país estamos trabajando intensamente para que el sector pesquero pueda ayudarnos a incrementar los niveles nutricionales de la población. La integración efectiva de la mujer en el desarrollo agrícola sigue siendo una prioridad fundamental de mi Gobierno, por ello damos nuestro apoyo a los recursos asignados en el Programa de Labores y Presupuesto para este objetivo.
Vemos con satisfacción el incremento neto para el Programa Principal: Montes, previsto en el Programa de Labores y Presupuesto. Dentro de ese Programa Principal las actividades orientadas a resolver el grave problema de la deforestación merecen todo nuestro apoyo. El Salvador, lamentablemente tiene un índice de deforestación muy alto si no de entre los más altos en la Región de América Latina.
Por otra parte, para que nuestros Gobiernos puedan trabajar en la formulación, elaboración y puesta en marcha de políticas agrícolas que respondan adecuadamente a las verdaderas necesidades de nuestra población, es necesario que contemos con diagnósticos adecuados en esta situación, por ello apoyamos las actividades de la FAO en este sector.
Las necesidades son muchas, inmensas, los recursos son pocos. Podríamos continuar detallando aquí muchas otras necesidades muy sentidas: medio ambiente, recursos fitogenéticos, ordenación y di versificación de cultivos, pero nos pararemos aquí.
Creemos que no debemos descansar hasta alcanzar un nivel de presupuesto adecuado e instamos a que así se haga.
Por último, quisiéramos reiterar lo indicado por el Jefe de nuestra delegación en la Plenaria, en el sentido de que El Salvador comparte el principio fundamental de que todos los países miembros de esta Organización deben honrar sus obligaciones financieras en forma plena, en tiempo y sin condiciones.
Joseph ELANG (Cameroun): Monsieur le Président, étant donné que le Cameroun intervient pour la première fois, nous avons le plaisir de vous présenter nos vives félicitations pour votre élection à la tête de cette Commission très complexe.
La délégation camerounaise s'associe aux précédentes délégations qui ont reconnu, d'une part, les efforts inlassables déployés par le Directeur général pour restructurer la FAO en la rendant plus dynamique, ainsi que la valeur et la clarté des documents présentés par le Secrétariat général, d'autre part. Elle tient donc à féliciter toute l'équipe de la FAO pour le travail ainsi effectué en si peu de temps. S'agissant du Programme de travail et budget, nous pensons, à l'instar des autres collègues du Gabon, du Sénégal et de l'Egypte, que le travail demandé a été fait. Il faut d'ailleurs relever que si le Projet de budget à allouer à la FAO fait couler tant d'encre et de salive, c'est que le problème de la faim se pose de manière différente d'un pays à l'autre. En effet, si dans certains pays le problème est de savoir ce qu'il faut faire pour écouler les surplus agricoles, dans d'autres par contre des centaines d'hommes, d'enfants et de femmes meurent encore de faim. Réduire donc les moyens de l'Organisation mondiale la plus puissante en matière de lutte contre la faim revient une fois de plus à délaisser ces déshérités.
S'il est normal et même obligatoire que la Direction générale recherche en permanence des solutions tendant à une meilleure maîtrise des coûts, nous pensons qu'à l'heure actuelle le fait d'imposer à la Direction générale de la FAO un programme et un budget auxquels elle n'est pas préparée serait précipité et reviendrait à lui faire porter une camisole de force et par conséquent dont elle ne serait pas responsable. La question qui se pose est de savoir si nous pouvons en même temps imposer un budget à l'Organisation et lui faire obligation des résultats. Ma délégation pense que cette démarche est contraire à l'éthique et aux procédures de la FAO. Il faudrait, à notre humble avis, faire confiance à la Direction générale qui en si peu de temps a montré qu'elle était responsable, et par conséquent lui laisser le soin de préparer son budget, quitte à ce que, pour des échéances à venir, un budget de plus en plus restrictif lui soit imposé.
En effet, pour ma délégation, le fait de modifier le budget de la FAO en ce moment où 800 millions d'enfants nous interpellent, où un Sommet mondial de l'alimentation est en préparation, où des foyers de tensions s'allument çà et là, serait un manquement grave à nos devoirs, une déviation des objectifs de la FAO qui sera obligée de revoir des programmes qu'elle a pourtant établis avec minutie. Saurons-nous en répondre devant l'Histoire? Bien entendu ma délégation en appelle à ses autres collègues pour l'apurement de leurs arriérés et le paiement à temps des contributions surtout que la Direction générale a consenti des facilités à cet effet. Pour terminer, la position de ma délégation qui est celle du Gouvernement camerounais est d'abord de continuer à faire confiance à la Direction générale de la FAO qui en très peu de temps a déjà fait montre de beaucoup de responsabilités en adoptant le budget proposé par elle, de rechercher une solution consensuelle afin d'éviter des précédents fâcheux et d'en appeler à tous les pays membres afin que des moyens adéquats soient mis à sa disposition pour lui permettre de poursuivre efficacement et honorablement sa noble mission.
LE PRESIDENT: Nous avor terminé nos travaux. Je crois que certains d'entre nous vont rentrer chez eux et méditer un peu sur tout ce qui a été dit aujourd'hui de manière à ce que, demain, nous ayons un second
débat dans lequel M. Wade répondra aux questions, M. Hjort fera ses commentaires et, moi-même, j'essaierai de dégager les principales lignes qui ont été présentées.
Pour que les choses avancent, j'ai suggéré que la délégation qui a présenté des mesures d'économie en matière de gestion uniquement - c'est-à-dire sans affecter le Programme lui-même car, cela est très important, il ne faut pas toucher au Programme - se rapproche du Secrétariat pour voir s'il ne serait pas possible, d'ici demain matin, d'avoir une esquisse réaliste de ce type d'économie. Encore une fois, il ne s'agit pas de toucher au Programme mais de voir ce qui est possible. Si nous nous apercevons que des économies de ce type ne sont pas chiffrables, nous serons dans une situation difficile parce que, d'une part, il n'y aura pas de consensus et, à ce moment-là, il faudra procéder à un vote dont le résultat ne fait aucun doute; et en même temps, un certain nombre de délégués partiront de la Commission II et de la Conférence avec une vision négative de la FAO, de son Directeur général et du Secrétariat, ce qui ne serait pas non plus très juste.
Je crois qu'il vaut mieux nous arrêter et réfléchir calmement, de manière à ce que, demain, on aboutisse à une possibilité de consensus. Je le répète: il ne faut pas porter atteinte au Programme.
Je vous remercie de vos efforts. J'ai trouvé que les positions avaient tendance à se bloquer, ce soir, et que nous revenions un peu au débat du Conseil, alors que, ce matin, nous avions été plus coopératifs les uns avec les autres. C'est peut-être une impression qui est liée à la fatigue que je ressens et que vous devez tous ressentir après un débat assez compliqué.
The meeting rose at 17.45 hours.
La séance est levée à 17 h 45.
Se levanta la sesión a las 17.45 horas.
