LE PRESIDENT: Avant de donner la parole au Représentant du Royaume-Uni, je voudrais préciser que nous n'attendons pas du Secrétariat des commentaires neutres mais des données techniques. Je voulais rappeler cette règle parce que nous étions en train d'avancer et que j'ai eu l'impression, lors de mes contacts, à l'heure du déjeuner, d'un certain recul.
Le Représentant du Royaume-Uni va peut-être nous éclairer sur cette discussion avec M. Tony Wade.
David SANDS SMITH (United Kingdom): I have to start by saying that I felt that in our deliberations this morning we took a step backward. I very much regret that a confrontational tone was introduced into our deliberations when previously the Member States had been engaged on a very constructive basis. I hope that the atmosphere will improve this afternoon.
Mr Chairman, first of all, you asked how we arrived at the figure of US$620 million or US$630 million. I hope I can give you a clear and brief answer. We took the 1994-95 budget figure of US$673 million which, as I said yesterday, we do not actually regard as being a realistic figure, but nonetheless we took it and we deleted from it US$38 million of arrears and then we deleted a further figure for maximum efficiency savings. That follows entirely the approach which was set out in the European Community statement by the Spanish Presidency.
May I go on from there to refer to something that was mentioned by a number of delegations this morning, the question of arrears? Clearly, it is a very important question. I will only touch on it briefly. I would point out that the United Kingdom pays, it pays in full and it pays on time.
I would then like to revert to something that I have said before. I may be becoming boring on this point. I repeat that I believe we must have a realistic and prudent budget so that the Organization can be assured of finance in order to execute its programmes and carry out its duties. A high budget figure where money is not forthcoming would serve nobody's interests.
Now I address the question that you raised with me just now, that of the areas we mentioned yesterday for savings. We discussed this with Mr Wade first thing this morning at an early hour. I hope that Mr Wade will have some information for us this afternoon. We discussed it very much on the basis of areas where savings could be made. Yesterday we gave, and I stress this, some examples of areas but these are areas where we believe that substantial savings can be made. We look forward to hearing what Mr Wade has to say on this, I hope this afternoon.
May I go on from there to say that I have two queries which I would like to put to the Secretariat. In the first place I would repeat the question that I raised with Mr Wade yesterday, which was about the level of expenditure in 1994-95. I asked for clarification on that point. I still await an answer.
My second point is that, frankly, I did not understand Mr Hjort's reference this morning to a higher budget level in order to capture savings. Elucidation or clarification on that point would be most welcome.
Finally, I would say that the United Kingdom trusts that, at the end of the day, we will all acknowledge that FAO cannot spend more than it receives and that logic dictates that the budget reflects the best possible estimate of receipts and is not a fiction raising expectations and inevitably then causing serious disappoint rent.
LE PRESIDENT: Je crois qu'il ne serait pas mal, si le Représentant du Pérou voulait bien nous excuser, que M. Wade réponde à M. Smith.
T. WADE (Officer-in-Charge, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): May I deal with the question first which in effect is the same question that Switzerland asked this morning. I apologise for not having replied to it yesterday.
As I understand it; the dilemma that people are having trouble handling is how we can be spending US$653 million, if the receipts are going to be short, and produce a figure much lower than that. To clarify this, as to the figure that we expect to receive, I am in some difficulty with Switzerland's figures. This is not to say that they are wrong but I do not know quite what all the sources are. I will tell you what my sources are and what the total is. First of all, the income for 1994, which I get from FC81/6 (b), the Interim Statement, is US$312,257,000. That is contributions and miscellaneous income combined. Then contributions for 1995 up to 16 October, as published in CL109/LIM/1, are US$229,580,000. If we add, using your figure to avoid argument, US$70 million from the US, we get a total of US$611,837,000. The difference between that and the US$653 million is US$40 million and that is the potential addition to the deficit that we are carrying at the end of this biennium. We started off the biennium, if you count the working capital loan, at US$42 million. If we add this on, we are up to about US$82 million, which is getting close to the limit of a deficit that this Organization can carry.
The follow-up question may be: why did you spend US$653 million? Here I may have some difference of opinion with the US delegation. According to my records, we were advised in late 1994 of the non-payment of the US$38 million. We immediately changed our expenditure plans and, if I recall, at that Finance Committee Mr Forbord even suggested we ought to be able to save half that amount. We will save at least half that amount and we may save a bit more. We may be able to cut back expenditure a bit more.
We could, of course, cut back expenditure even further. You could decide not to implement the restructuring decentralization but we really do not believe that that would be a wise decision because that would leave us in a worse position at the end of the process than we started off with. I think this is anticipating a little bit Mr Hjort's response to the United Kingdom. If we do not have the resources to implement the new structure, we will not get the benefits of the new structure. For example, prerequisites for decentralization is the communication information project, which is about US$3 million or a little more: if you do not implement electronic mail and sound communications with your regional and field officers, then your decentralization process will not function. Sure, the Director-General could have cancelled that contract, but then we would have been in a position where he could not achieve the savings that we are looking for from that process. There is a certain amount of judgement in this which says that this is the best we can do without damaging the process.
I would like to move to the 7.30 meeting with the United Kingdom this morning. Several members have declared their wish to see a budget level lower than US$697.8 million. The purpose of that meeting with the United Kingdom was to explore with them their ideas about the process by which that reduction could be achieved.
The UK delegation reiterated their view, and the view of this Commission in fact, that efforts should be concentrated on reducing costs without affecting programmes. We are talking about efficiency as the first priority, lowering the cost of inputs without lowering the outputs. The Director-General agrees wholeheartedly with that being the first source of any possible reductions in the budget. You can see from the work he has already done that that is the way he is going. I will not repeat all the figures because I too will start to get boring. I have confirmed this morning that he will continue those efforts and I have already provided some ideas about where he sees some potential.
The UK and Canada have said that they would be totally opposed to across-the-board cuts and that this is not the approach that should be taken. I have to say that we agree. I mention this because there could be some confusion later on. If you take the example of travel savings, if those savings materialize, you should be aware that they will appear to be across-the-board and will affect all programmes. They will affect Chapter 2 more than any other programme because there is more travel in Chapter 2 than anywhere else. Saying that there will be no across-the-board cuts does not mean that your favoured high priority chapters will not be
affected; they can be affected. What we are saying, however, is that they will not be affected in this first category of reductions and expenditure in terms of the capacity of those programmes, the outputs that they can produce. I just wanted to make that little point in case you come back afterwards and say that Chapter 2 went down.
If efficiency does not prove to be sufficient, where do you go from there ? The United Kingdom delegation's proposals which they mentioned in their intervention, and which we discussed further this morning, are that the next areas for a reduction of the budget should focus on the non-technical chapters, Chapters 1, 5 and 6. Chapter 1 is General Policy and Direction, 5 is Support Services which is Administration, Finance and General Affairs and Information and 6 is Common Services, basically the support of our buildings, etc., with a view that we should be aiming to protect the normative and operational activities of the Organization or capacity of the Organization. I can assure you that the Director-General wholeheartedly agrees and that in the context of a priority setting of our programmes, these chapters do generally get the lowest priority. I think I reported before that there were some 57 Regular Programme posts taken out of AF in this biennium and another 22 Support Posts and other funded posts, so we are not ignoring the issue that savings must come from these areas. You are also aware that GI and AF are carrying out a restructuring review and we expect that there will be some benefits from these.
The UK delegation and other delegations made some suggestions concerning governance arrangements, concerning the cost of coordination - and I would like to come back to this in a second - building maintenance and a further review of Non-technical Publications. These would all affect the budgetary provisions under Chapters I, V and VI. In our terms, some of those would involve programme cuts, so we have a definitional problem here. If, for example, as was suggested, you cut down the public information services that we provide and maybe remove publications such as the FAO Annual Review or FAO - what it is you will save money, but that for us is a form of programme reduction because the General Information Programme has not got the outputs that it had before. On the other hand it may be one which people can agree is much less damaging than taking out an Expert Consultation on Plant Genetic Resources. A balance has to be found between all these competing priorities. However, I want to caution that we are now moving into the area of programme reductions but within the Non-technical Programmes.
Then there is the question specifically of governance itself which may involve two sorts of changes. These are suggestions coming from the UK delegation, all of which we can look into in much more detail. The first one is to reduce the services provided to meetings. I am cautious with everybody here, but we could reduce verbatim reporting, we could reduce messengers, we could reduce the Translation Service, etc. In terms of services that you want to be provided to future meetings, there are various things which you could decide you will no longer have. We will look at the cost of all these things and will be in a position to support any work that you do in that area.
The second aspect of governance is actually much more in your court, which is, do you want to change the structure of governance? There was a suggestion from the UK about the comparison with UNDP and UNICEF which I have some doubts about, but there may still be scope for change in the structure. If that comes through, of course, the Secretariat will support the effort by making sure that you have all the facts you need in order to know what sort of savings may be possible.
I would like to go back to one area that I mentioned a couple of minutes ago, namely the cost of coordination, or liaison as the UK delegate referred to it. This is in Chapter 1 of the budget, General Policy and Direction, and there is an amount in the document which involves primarily the Liaison Office here at Headquarters which is the Office of External Relations, plus the other Liaison Offices in North America and Geneva, and there are two new offices, one in the European Commission and one in Japan.
We have carried out a very extensive study of the whole coordination process. We have now got it to the stage where we believe we know what it is costing us, and I am afraid the figures are quite horrifying. If I recall correctly, the total cost of coordination is US$24.9 million, an extraordinary proportion of our budget. The major costs are the cost of the units themselves, our attendance at meetings and our production of reports for these coordinating mechanisms, and here is the real dilemma for the whole system. Coordination in some sense is essential for the process to work. On the other hand it is now becoming extraordinarily expensive. We will take that exercise further and try to see how we can identify what needs to be done. We may well need to come back to the Governing Bodies to get the okay, to take actions which may not be common to the
entire system. One particular aspect that I would like to bounce on the Commission as an idea is that we pay US$1 million to the support of the Joint Inspection Unit. It is a common system item, you receive its reports, you give them a great deal of attention in the Council and in the Programme Committee and the Finance Committee. We have grave doubts about value for money in this process. If you were to support the idea that we should no longer contribute to the JIU, it would not present us with any difficulty and it would add US$1 million-worth of savings to the process.
Mr Chairman, I would like to say that I found the meeting with the United Kingdom delegation very useful and I can assure you that the Director-General will spare no efforts in trying to find ways of reducing costs and preserving programmes to the extent possible. Of course, I am not providing you with figures. I advised the UK delegation this morning that there would not be time in the few hours between our meeting and now to go through that process and, as you know, I have been here anyway.
We believe that there is scope in the first category, we remind you again of the risks that we referred to, namely the other cost increases that we have to absorb, and we are left with a situation where we really have to rely on you to let us know what target we have to work towards. From this discussion, however, I think there are certain principles which you may want to include in your report. Efficiency comes first. Secondly, if there are going to be any form of programme reductions, they should be on Non-technical Programmes, not Chapter 2 and 3. Thirdly, if the worst comes to the worst, you will have to go into Chapter 2 and Chapter 3. The extent to which all that happens depends, of course, on the level of the budget and the level of each of the three categories as we move through them.
LE PRESIDENT: Je vous remercie de vos explications. Evidemment, en tant que Président, je suis à la recherche d'un chiffre, même s'il n'est pas très précis, mais un ordre de grandeur. Nous en reparlerons peut-être plus tard entre nous.
Srta. Gabriella VASSALLO CONSOLI (Perú): Es una gran satisfacción para mi delegación poder anunciar que el Perú ha cumplido con el pago de sus adeudos a la Organización. El esfuerzo que hemos hecho para honrar nuestro compromiso se enmarca en el contexto de la difícil situación financiera por la que atraviesa la FAO y en consideración al apoyo que el Gobierno peruano ha dado siempre a las actividades que esta Organización realiza en los países en desarrollo, particularmente en nuestro país. Esto nos permitirá asimismo poder participar plenamente en los trabajos de esta Conferencia.
Respaldamos la propuesta del Director General y lo felicitamos por sus esfuerzos en presentarnos un nivel presupuestario de crecimiento real cero.
Consideramos que la FAO debe continuar mejorando la relación costo-beneficio de sus programas y en su labor de reducir los costos administrativos sin afectar negativamente su eficiencia.
Es nuestro parecer, que el nivel de presupuesto de la Organización debe reflejar los requerimientos financieros para la ejecución de sus programas.
LE PRESIDENT: Merci de votre intervention qui montre que vous avez vous-même pris en compte la nécessité d'une plus grande efficacité, si nécessaire. C'est ce que le Directeur général a commencé, mais cela devrait être poursuivi.
Klaus GARCKE (Germany): I would like to come back to Mr Wade's question in order to clarify a little what he meant by the proposal which we made yesterday and in the preceding meeting of the Council. We made that proposal for the case that there is no consensus on the level of the budget. In this case we cannot be sure that all States make their contributions in full. Thus it is no longer guaranteed that the budget will suffice to carry out the Programme of Work and Budget. To be realistic we must take precautions for this case.
- 172 -
What we suggest is a provisional budget freeze up to the amount of the expected non-payment of contributions. Freezing does not mean eliminating appropriations but adjusting their use to the financiable level. The amount to be frozen derives from the following elements: there are indications up to what budget level financial obligations could be fully met by all Member States. Any difference between this non-level and an adopted Programme of Work and Budget higher than this will create a shortfall equivalent to the respective assessment rate. This amount has to be frozen.
Such a necessary precaution should not be interpreted as lack of faith in the Organization. On the contrary, it is meant to help the Organization cope with the given difficult situation. This is why we attach great importance to this precautionary measure. This measure has already been applied in other United Nations specialist organizations and is reflected in budget resolutions of that organization. With your permission, Mr Chairman, I will read the text of such a resolution. It is only one sentence. It reads: "the governing body of X organization decides that from the total amount of appropriations, an amount representing X percent of those appropriations should be kept in reserve by the Director-General pending receipt from Member States of their assessed contributions."
LE PRESIDENT: Nous aurons à revenir sur ce sujet vraisemblablement et sur le cadre, qui existe, de deux résolutions, pour essayer de voir comment tout cela s'articule, mais ultérieurement. Peut-être pourriez-vous préciser les Organisations dans lesquelles ce système fonctionne. Pouvez-vous nous le dire?
Klaus GARCKE (Germany): Mr Chairman, it was UNIDO in which such a resolution was applied.
LE PRESIDENT: Ce n'est pas un exemple tellement citable. Enfin bon... Il n'y a pas d'autres Organisations, l'OMS par exemple?
Gebrehiwot REDAI (Ethiopia): Mr Chairman, not only do we congratulate you on your election to this important commission, but we are certain you will bring it to a meaningful conclusion.
The Programme of Work and Budget was prepared with the active participation and involvement of duly represented Member Nations. It underwent the strict scrutiny of two committees, separately and jointly. The Secretariat was instrumental in providing the necessary information and in sharing valuable experiences. Mr Chairman, we have been listening carefully to many interventions, and the Director-General's efforts to revitalize the Organization were commended. Given the concern about the current economic environment the world is facing and the help we got from Member Nations, we believed that extra care had been taken in the preparation of the budget. The efforts to absorb sizeable costs and other effective measures are some indications of his efforts. It is our considered opinion that there is always room for improvement in running an Organization like FAO but the measures to be taken have to be viewed from different angles and have to be weighed so as to minimize the repercussions.
Allow me to comment briefly on the budget on which we are hoping to get consensus. We have difficulty in understanding why we have to have different budget levels for the 1996-97 biennium. As one delegate said, numbers of budget levels can be reached on political decisions, and we are not opposed to that. However, it is important at this juncture to view the mandate of FAO as a project. In this case we have had to identify the activities of the project, and therefore, the programmes of work that we have approved for implementation are the activities. We had consensus on the programme activities and agreed to make no cuts. What logically follows is the allocation of resources for the activities. This biennium's programmes are likely to become the unlucky victims of a conventional wisdom of identifying activities first, and financing them by a flow of resources whose arrival is not very certain. This is not an oversight on the part of those who prepared the budget but rather on the part of those of us who are not honouring our commitments.
In conclusion, we would like to bring to the attention of members that there can only be one budget that is prepared by the Director-General based on the programmes. If we had to have a budget different from what is being proposed, it could only be on two conditions: one, if the methodology on which the budget were
prepared was inherently defective; two, if we were to start from the level of available resources. As pertains to the latter, this was not the case. We therefore appeal for consensus on the budget proposed by the Director-General.
LE PRESIDENT: Je vous remercie de votre déclaration qui va dans le même sens que l'ensemble des délégations africaines et que d'autres délégations des Caraïbes.
Robert F. ANDRIGO (Canada): I would like to begin by echoing the words of my UK colleague referring to the unfortunate change we have had in the atmospherics of this Commission.
Turning to your question as to how respective delegations reached their particular levels, in regard to the Canadian calculations, the record is very clear and I would simply refer you to that record. Put simply, we looked at the resources that we needed to deliver the essential programmes of the Organization. We obviously had to factor in the capacity of the membership to pay and the fiscal realities that exist at this particular point in time. We also had to build in a realistic assessment of income generation for the Organization. This was in order to arrive at a level of budget that can be fully financed. It is time for us to depart from the past practice of delivering programmes against an uncertain revenue stream. I think that explains our position.
I would like to comment on the iron law of US$697.8 million that was pronounced this morning by Mr Hjort. It is important to consider that, if we agree on this level or if we conclude with this level, however we reach it, we are immediately looking at a deficit based on past performance of some US$70 million in terms of non-receipt of assessed contributions from the membership excluding the contribution of the largest Member State. When, based on the information we have received at this meeting, we had a possible shortfall from the largest Member State, we come to a figure of about US$105 million in shortfalls that we can project at the moment that such a budget will be passed. That will be equivalent or slightly superior to the amount of money that Mr Hjort today indicated will be dedicated to the Agriculture Department.
I really question the responsible nature of a decision that would depart from this particular point, and I think all of us - certainly my delegation - would have great difficulty in justifying a choice of that quality to our governments.
Coming to the level itself and coming again to this iron law, I have difficulty with the concept by virtue of the fact that no-one in this room, as far as I can understand, including the Secretariat, has said the possibility of further savings and further efficiency and productivity gains to the Organization. By definition, starting at a level of US$697.8 million, we are looking at a lower level of budget as one which can deliver a given set of work as contained in this particular programme. So I do not understand this downward inflexibility, this failure to recognize the reality that all of us have to face. What we need to do, Mr Chairman, is devise a process for defining the details that underlie the potential that all of us have ascribed to. We can have some legitimate differences of opinion on that, but the position of the budget level is very definitely not that US$697.8 million is an iron law. My delegation and many others have detailed possibilities which still remain to be addressed and we would not be acting responsibly if we did not address all such possibilities.
My final point, Mr Chairman, leads me to some questions supplementary to those asked by the Swiss delegate this morning. I think it will be helpful to our deliberations if, in the context of the expenditure data that has been provided to date, we could have some breakdowns, most particularly of expenditure data respecting staff and non-staff costs. By staff costs I mean the complex of mechanisms that are used to compensate for the fact that the vacancy rate is particularly low. We have spoken of some differences in reconciling actual performance with the figures that I have given and it would help our deliberations if we had those. I would like to ask a supplementary on the question raised by the UK yesterday on the issue of NPOs. I understand what Mr Wade said this morning; yes indeed, the 65 positions have disappeared from the roster of the FAORs but they have not disappeared from the roster of Professional staff of the Organization. The next change for Professional staff as I see it in the charts provided in the PWB is a change of 16, not of 65, and I think that still leaves open the question of where the savings have been made and whether they are real.
LE PRESIDENT: Je vais maintenant m'adresser au Représentant de la Pologne, parce que chaque fois qu'on a voulu lui donner la parole il était absent, je suis désolé de le souligner.
Actuellement nous discutons du niveau du budget. On a discuté des orientations du programme et la Représentante de la Pologne s'est exprimée sur ce sujet, sur le Plan à moyen terme. Si vous avez à présenter des considérations générales qui ne sont pas relatives au niveau du budget, vous nous donnerez une déclaration écrite qui sera insérée dans le verbatim à la bonne place.
Jan BIELAWSKI (Poland): Mr Chairman, I believe that your comments and your suggestions are well grounded and that is why, first of all, I should like to make an apology for the lack of continuity in the presence of my delegation. We have had rather grave circumstances at this Commission as a result of which the delegation is smaller than when it started.
Passing to the substance of my statement, we have accepted the PWB as a well-prepared, clear document and we appreciate the transparency and logic of each programme. Secondly, at this critical point we wish to voice our full support for FAO and the Director-General. Our position is that we are prepared to support the budget proposed by the Director-General but at the same time, as an associate member of the European Union, we also want to associate ourselves with the position of the European Union indicating the need for further dialogue in search for further savings and, first of all, to achieve consensus on the budget level which would not undermine the Organization's power to act.
We are in favour of the evolutionary changes in the FAO programmes and structures and we want to emphasize that these are already well advanced. We agree, of course, that cost efficiency should belong to the fundamental principles of sound financial management.
We have noted various reductions, savings and other steps which have been undertaken in the overall context of reform and we welcome them, but we do believe that there are still some possibilities particularly in reducing administrative costs.
On a positive note we believe that the changes which have been implemented, and those to come, will add to the efficiency of the Organization in carrying out its programme of work.
We support the special programme on food production which in turn supports food security in low-income and food-deficit countries and which indicates the need for a universal approach to world food security. We also support the EMPRES Programme for the control of migratory insects and pathogens, and regret that our offer of cooperation in this particular area made during the 106th Session of the Council has not been taken by the Secretariat. In short we do support all high priority areas outlined by the Secretariat, especially the emphasis placed on plant and animal genetic resources and forestry.
We wish to congratulate the FAO Secretariat on its work on the preparation of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. This Code is going to be endorsed by this Conference and we fully support its most efficient implementation.
In connection with the work of the joint FAO/IAEA Division we would especially like to support the expansion of pesticide control and the emphasis laid on food quality assessment. Regarding Programme 2.2 we follow with interest the implementation of the ICN generated plans of action on nutrition and are prepared to make further contributions in this area.
We wish to lend strong support to the work of Codex which has now assumed greater importance following the completion of the Uruguay Round agreements and the establishment of the WTO. In this connection we support FAO's activity in fish marketing information and international trade in fish and fishery products, and the establishment of EASTFISH as an FAO project funded by the Government of Denmark and covering eastern and central European countries.
We also believe that the global information and early warning system will play an increasingly important role in assessing world food supply for those in need and we support the expansion foreseen in this sector. We follow with great interest the developments leading to the World Food Summit which will take place here in
- 175-
one year's time and hope that this will focus the attention of the world on the need to increase the availability of and access to food and ensure that food production increases will at least run parallel to increases in world population.
My country views with alarm the problems facing ocean fish harvests and attaches great importance to the implementation of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. As aquaculture and fish farming are the fastest growing sectors in fisheries we hope that FAO will pay particular attention to requirements in this area and support Member States in expanding this important sector. Because of its multidimensional nature, we have had doubts about the wisdom of placing sustainable development in a separate department of the Secretariat, but having reviewed the points presented in this programme we hope this activity will be stepped up to the benefit of Member States.
We have always been supportive of the Technical Cooperation Programmes implemented by FAO and would like to see these increased but we realize that, in view of budget restrictions and priority needs of developing countries, this cannot be done to any significant degree. We therefore welcome new cooperation agreements with Member States which hopefully will result in a much greater efficiency in implementing the TCP.
While we appreciate the need to limit documentation and meetings in FAO to a minimum, we hope reductions being proposed will not have a negative effect on analytical and normative functions nor reduce the benefits that Member States have from receiving information on the various aspects of the programme. We do realize that we have to accept reductions and restrictions in many activities.
We agree that FAO does not need to continue to act as a distributor of seed and plant material and we also feel that FAO does not need to carry on activities in relation to climate changes. We have many other international, national and regional bodies dealing with this. We also wonder whether it is advisable to reduce work done in parasitic disease and veterinary service performance in the Organization. In view of the increased participation of the private sector in plant protection we agree with the proprosals made to reduce such support by FAO and in view of the priority given to world food security we would warn against drastic reductions in the areas of human nutrition. We support reductions in the major programme on fisheries and forestry which are probably areas that can be taken over by other agencies more closely related to environmental and industrial issues than FAO.
Winston RUDDER (Trinidad and Tobago): Clearly we are seeking a consensus on the budget proposal. It seems to me we are chasing an elusive shadow. I have heard many proposals seeking a budget level that needs to be fully financed. The question I have is what assurances do we have that any budget level will be fully financed and at what level?
LE PRESIDENT: Monsieur le Représentant de Trinité-et-Tobago, je laisserai cette réponse technique au Secrétariat mais d'après ce que j'ai pu comprendre du débat, compte tenu de la réduction unilatérale de la contribution américaine critiquée par tous et considérée comme un scandale, il me semble que le chiffre finançable se situe entre les deux extrêmes proposés d'une part par la Suisse, à savoir 640 millions, et d'autre part par le Canada qui a parlé de 625-630 millions.
Je souhaite que nous ayons une consultation au sein du Groupe de contact à ce niveau-là puisque nous avons parlé de mécanismes qui permettraient de distinguer un budget, dont nous somme sûrs qu'il sera financé, des dépenses supplémentaires. Cela n'empêche pas d'accepter le niveau proposé mais il convient d'aménager tout cela d'une manière réaliste en fonction des financements. Je crois que c'est là l'idée autour de laquelle nous tournons tous et je pense qu'au sein du Groupe de contact nous pourrions peut-être mieux définir comment y parvenir.
Igor MARINCEK (Switzerland): Mr Wade has given a figure of US$611 million which are the receipts which can be expected if the US pays US$70 million. He has explained that you plan to make expenditures of US$653 million. At the beginning of September we had in the Working Fund and Special Reserve Account a combined figure of US$40 million which might be less by now. Perhaps Mr Wade could tell us how much we
have in these two funds today. I think he should know how much that is. It is not certain that the Working Fund and Special Fund Account can cover the difference between what is there and what the Secretariat planned to spend.
You recall also you entered the biennium with a deficit of US$42 million. If you spend US$653 million, do you qualify this as being a sound way to spend?
Secondly, if we approve the budget level proposed by the Director-General which was US$698 million, having spent US$653 in this biennium and with some negative figures probably in all different accounts, how do you then proceed? You will be looking in a very deep canyon on the first of January.
Andrea SEMADENI (Suisse):
Aspects forestiers
Vu l'importance de la FAO dans le suivi forestier du Sommet de la Terre de Rio, une augmentation des moyens mis à la disposition du Département des forêts de la FAO en termes réels et nominatifs, de même qu'en comparaison avec les autres départements de la FAO, semblerait opportune.
Programmes de travail
Aspects généraux
Tous les domaines de compétence et d'expertise de la FAO sont couverts par le programme proposé; la Suisse, qui n'est pas un pays dans lequel la FAO est active, limite sa réflexion sur ce programme à des éléments pouvant soutenir son intervention dans le cadre de sa coopération bilatérale avec divers pays et sur la politique générale du Département des forêts.
Politique forestière
Le rôle clé que doit jouer la FAO dans le suivi forestier de la CNUED n'est pas assez clairement mis en exergue et il serait souhaitable de voir formulé un programme plus conséquent en-la matière, mettant en relation les divers éléments du programme de travail du Panel intergouvernemental sur les forêts et l'intervention de la FAO dans le développement des divers thèmes du Panel. De plus, le Programme de travail de la FAO ne montre pas clairement quels sont les moyens humains et financiers engagés dans ce domaine. Etant donné qu'il en va du rôle de chef de file en matière de politique forestière internationale, un effort de clarification, une présentation d'un programme plus détaillé et la mise sur pied d'un budget spécialement affecté à ce domaine sont indispensables.
Coopération ONG
La Suisse approuve la tenue de réunions avec les ONG impliquées dans le développement durable des forêts. Elle serait heureuse de voir, dans un avenir relativement court, une modification des statuts de l'Organisation, qui permettrait l'intervention directe des ONG dans les réunions formelles des organes statutaires de la FAO. Ceci assurerait la transparence de la politique forestière de l'Organisation et la participation active d'intéressés comme elles ont été formulées dans le cadre des documents adoptés lors du Sommet de la Terre de Rio.
Foresterie communautaire
L'évaluation du "Forests, Trees and People Programme" FTPP avait abouti à deux recommandations qui ne sont pas reprises dans le programme de travail, à savoir:
- le FTPP devrait être renforcé par du personnel additionnel,
- des ressources supplémentaires du budget ordinaire de la FAO devraient être affectées à ce programme
afin de le renforcer.
La Suisse se pose les questions suivantes:
- qu'est-il advenu de ces recommandations?
- les postes vacants ont-ils été repourvus?
- y a-t-il eu allocation de ressources humaines et financières supplémentaires?
De plus, la Suisse se demande quels seront les effets de la décentralisation de plusieurs fonctions de la FAO sur le FTPP. Le moyen le plus efficace de la gestion de ce programme est de la confier à l'Unité de Foresterie communautaire de la Division de politique et de planification du Département des forêts.1
T. WADE (Officer-in-Charge, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): This is getting rather complicated. The USS611 million and the US$653 million are about income and expenditure. The US$653 million is not cash going out of the Organization. Much of that is in the form of commitments which will not be paid util 1996 so the relationship between those two figures and the borrowing from the Special Reserve Account and the Working Fund is simply not there. The need to use resources from the Working Fund and SRA is based partially on the deficit brought forward from 1992-93 which is about US$40 million and partially on this issue. Can I suggest that it probably does not have a great bearing on the answer you are looking for today.
Your next question was whether I qualify this as a sound way to spend? We have been running on a knife edge now since 1988 with all sorts of difficulties and no sound estimation of what income we are going to receive. We have managed to cope and to implement the Programmine to the maximum extent possible with very little borrowing. We have not borrowed externally to fund the budget at all. Very occasionally we have had to fund a dip in resources so that, for example, until the US contribution comes in towards the end of the year, we could continue operations. We have kept the ship going in rather stormy weather and on an even keel. Have you ever heard us of not paying salaries, or suddenly cutting programmes unplanned without any forethought? The answer "no" so I think, therefore, it is a sound way to manage the Progamme.
We are trying to maximize the use of potential resources maintaining the principle that this is a going concern. I agree that by the end of this biennium we will have reduced, unfortunately, the flexibility available to us, and the Director-General will be in a difficult position for 1996-97 but if you want to ask the question "Who is responsible for that?" then I will tell you!
Where do we go from here? Once a budget level has been decided then the Secretariat decides what is the realistic level of resources that are going to flow into this Organization and this is where the dilemma comes. If you vote for a high budget, 75 percent of the Organization is likely to stay within the norms that the rules require and so therefore we have the benefit of that 75 percent and 25 percent clearly will not. If the US votes against the budget we understand they will be in a very difficult position under their own law. They cannot pay more than 80% of their contribution so we do not want the US to vote against the budget. We want a consensus budget because we want them to be in the best possible position to pay their contributions to the Organization within the contraints they currently face.
We will therefore evalutate what receipts we think are likely based on the outcome of the vote on Friday which will have two basic influences in it. Firstly it will have a budget level and secondly there will be an abstention or a vote for by the United States, or possibly a vote against and we do not want that because it makes a difference to the cash flow forecast which, in turn, influences exactly the way we work. Having found the figure we then apply the principles we stated before, which are that we, of course, continue to search for efficiencies. We then look at reducing the non-technical programmes, and if we have to, the technical programmes and at least in the latter two cases where one is making decisions between programmes we apply the criteria we use in determining priorities. We try and refine those criteria taking into account what we have heard over the last two days and we come back to you with a plan for the implementation of the budget which is the best possible response the Director-General can give you within those principles.
That is the response to those questions, Mr Chairman but there are two others. May I take them now?
The first was from Mr Andrigo, the distinguished delegate of Canada, who used the argument that due to the net reduction in 16 posts that meant that we had not saved the 65 posts from the NPOs, we could only have saved 65 less 16. There are thousands of individual decisions in this document and I do not try and net one off against the other. If you want to look at the net result, then 16 is the net result. If you want to look at the consequence of an individual decision you must only take those individual decisions. The reason we do not have minus 65 is because a whole series of restructuring decisions were made that resulted in additional posts.
_________________
1 Texte reçu avec demande d'insertion au procès-verbal
The ESA (Agriculture and Economic Development Analysis Division) was created. The Department of Sustainable Development was created and some of the posts are new such as the Director of the Division of Women and People's Participation. Therefore, there are a whole series of changes within the budget, each one of which has to be looked at as a separate decision.
There is no question that 65 international posts were eliminated from the FAO offices and that money was taken out of the budget. Sixty-five NPO posts were created and that money was put into the budget. I assure you the saving of US$8.2 million is due to the cost differential between those to two types of employment contracts which is definitely a benefit to this budget. The US$8.2 million has been used for other posts or the Special Programme. However, we cannot say because there is no direct connection between these tangible amounts.
Mr Chairman, the same delegate asked about expenditure. Salaries forecast for the biennium would be approximately US$358 million. Temporary assistance and overtime will be US$11 million, other human resources will be US$53 million and the rest, which is a whole series of things, will be on non-staff resources. That is the other balance of the US$653 million dollars. I have individual figures here so I cannot tell you what the difference is. I think those were all the questions.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: Based on recent history concerning the financing of a budget and the receipt of contributions, our experience is that only one major donor has not paid its full assessed contribution and that has been the case irrespective of the votes. There have been rare cases where Members other than the major contributor had voted no; however they still paid their full assessed contribution. With respect to shortfall, our records show that on balance in recent years there has been about a three to five million dollar increase in outstanding arrears. To put this whole matter into perspective, if the maximum amount that the major contributor should pay is US$70 million, in other words the mid-point between US$550 million and US$600 million, then the shortfall at the levels that are being discussed here would be US$20-30 million. That would be substantially less than the shortfall in the current biennium.
I wanted to make one further point because I think I was misunderstood by some with regards to improving efficiency and cost effectiveness. The thrust of what I said, which you can review in the Verbatim, is that the Director-General was the leader in the drive to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of this Organization and you can be assured that he will continue to be the leader in making it more efficient and effective. I in no way said that there was not the potential for capturing additional savings. What I said is that many of the matters that were considered by the Programme and Finance Committees, which are in the reports, are the very ones that the Director-General himself had identified. You can be assured that he will implement anything that can be implemented subject to the constraints that the Conference imposes with respect to not doing damage to the programmes.
LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie le Directeur adjoint de ce message positif, qui correspond d'ailleurs tout à fait à ce que le Directeur général a indiqué dans son introduction, au quatrième paragraphe de la page ii du document C 95/3:
"Ces quelques chiffres résument les propositions du point de vue strictement financier. Il était par conséquent important de les dévoiler en toute franchise dès le début de cette introduction. Etant donné que certains Etats Membres ne sont pas prêts à les accepter, les délégués devront négocier, durant la Conférence, la fixation d'un niveau budgétaire susceptible de recueillir un consensus adéquat."
Je cite donc le Directeur général car je voulais vous rappeler cette phrase importante, qui est d'ailleurs un peu confortée par ce que vient de dire M. Hjort.
Je me propose maintenant de suspendre notre débat pour que le Groupe de contact se réunisse dans la salle de la Malaisie et de nous revoir, ici, vers 18 heures pour voir d'une manière plus froide et sans excitation réciproque si les choses ont pu avancer. Je pense que c'est la meilleure procédure à adopter et je demanderai à M. Hjort de nous prêter M. Wade pour répondre éventuellement aux questions qui seront alors posées.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: You just read a sentence that said that the delegates will have to negotiate during the Conference with a view to establishing a budget level which would attract adequate consensus.
The meeting was suspended from 16.00 to 18.45 hours.
La séance est suspendue de 16 heures à 18 h 45.
Se suspende la sesión de las 16.00 a las 18.45 horas.
LE PRESIDENT: Je dois vous dire que malheureusement le Groupe de contact n'est pas parvenu à trouver une solution en dépit des efforts de votre Président pour essayer de construire des ponts entre les positions. Par conséquent, nous sommes conduits à remettre la réunion du Groupe de contact à la Salle de la Malaisie à 10 heures demain matin. Cette réunion sera précédée par une réunion du Groupe de l'OCDE présidée par Mme De Clercq, comme vous le savez, à 9 h 30 dans la Salle du Liban. Le Comité de rédaction pourra se réunir dans la Salle de la Malaisie à 13 heures, sous la présidence de M. Aboul Naga, délégué de l'Egypte, si nous accomplissons quelques progrès d'ici là.
Enfin, on m'indique que le Groupe africain se réunira dans la Salle du Liban à 14 heures demain. Dans ces conditions, nous ne pouvons reprendre les travaux en Plénière que lorsque nous aurons le rapport, c'est-à-dire vers 20 heures.
J'invite tous ceux qui font partie du Groupe de contact à réfléchir à nos discussions afin que nous parvenions à une solution sur le sujet très délicat du niveau du budget.
La délégation de la Suisse nous a demandé d'ajouter à propos du Programme de travail et budget 1996-97 une déclaration relative aux aspects forestiers du Programme de travail et donc nous décidons qu'elle sera incluse dans le verbatim après le début de la déclaration générale sur les aspects financiers.
T. WADE (Officer-in-Charge, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): The question from Swaziland concerned the transfer to US$519 000 out of Seed and Planting Material Development, which is an area of particular interest to them and other delegates, into Conservation and Management of Plant Genetic Resources. This primarily related to a transfer of staff costs with regard to an Information Officer for the Plant Genetic Resource Programme.
The Seed and Plant Genetic Resources Service deals with two sub-programmes, respectively:
2.1.2.1 - Conservation and Management of Plant Genetic Resources, and
2-1-2-3 - Seed and Planting Material Development.
These two sub-programmes are integral parts of the overall activities of the Seed and Plant Genetic Resources
Service.What was noted by the distinguished delegate from Swaziland as a reduction in the sub-programme Seed and Planting Material Development of US$519.000 is accounted for by an internal shifting between the two sub-programmes belonging to the same Seed and Plant Genetic Resources Service.
The reduction in question corresponds to staff costs transfer (the Information Officer on Plant Genetic Resources and related clerical assistance) from the sub-programme Seed and Planting Material Development to the sub-programme Conservation and Management of Plant Genetic Resources, which is proposed in order to complete the establishment of the Plant Genetic Information and Exchange Unit, as recommended by the FAO Conference 1991 (item 107).
In addition, I would like to underline that both sub-programmes are complementing each other in supporting seed production and development activities.
Just to give a few concrete examples, with particular reference to African countries, I could mention the efforts to promote networking activities on improved on-farm seed production and conservation for SADC countries, and a regional training programme for seed production improvement for Central African countries, particularly addressed to women in rural communities.
LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie M. Wade de ces précisions. Je n'avais pas eu le temps de lire le document. Je me suis donc trompé et vous prie de m'en excuser.
The meeting rose at 18.50 hours.
La séance est levée à 18 h 50.
Se levanta la sesión a las 18.50 horas.
