Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page


14(b) Inter-Agency Relations and Consultations on Questions of Common Interest : Further Developments in Relation with UNDP, WFC and IFAD
14(b) Relations et consultations interinstitutions sur les questions d'intérêt commun: Autres faits nouveaux concernant les relations avec le PNUD, le CMA et le FIDA
14(b) Relaciones y consultas con otros organismos sobre asuntos de interés común : Ulterior desarrollo de las relaciones con el PNUD, el CMA y el FIDA

EL PRESIDENTE: Notarán ustedes que en el Orden del Díaaparece el Tema 14(b): "Relaciones y consultas con otros organismos sobre asuntos de interés común'' Si antes de terminar esta sesión, como seria deseable, concluyéramos este Tema 14(b), podríamos seguir con el Tema 10, Informe del COAG y si no nos diera tiempo lo estudiaríamos esta tarde.

En razón a estas consideraciones, una vez más, ruego a los Presidentes de los Comités, a los funcionarios de la Secretaría y a los miembros del Consejo, que sean breves y concretos.

En el Orden del Día aparecen relacionados los documentos para este Tema 14(b) que espero todos tengan a la mano.

En primer lugar voy a conceder la palabra al señor Yriart, Subdirector General Jefe del Departamento de Desarrollo.

J.F. YRIART (Assistant Director-General, Development Department) In relation to item 14(b), Further Developments in Relation with UNDP, the agenda calls your attention to the reports of the Thirty-Second Session of the Programme Committee and the Thirty-Ninth Session of the Finance Committee. Though I will refer again to them, I would also like to commend to your attention chapter 5 on the field programme of the Summary of the Programme of Work and Budget 1978-79, document CL 71/3, which refers to our expectations in regard to the field programme in the next biennium. I would not like to take too much of your time repeating information which is very well summarized in paragraphs 2.99 to 2.112 of the report of the Thirty-Second Session of the Programme Committee, document CL 71/4. I will instead only update that information in cases where new developments have taken place in the last thirty days.

We reported to the Programme Committee, in accordance with the latest forecast available to us, that in 1977, FAO's total expenditure under UNDP Programmes should reach some $90 to $95 million, a further reduction from the 1976 total of $100 million The latest forecast indicates that our delivery this year will not exceed $90 million. This is mainly because the slight overall increase in total UNDP resources comes too late in 1977 to allow the momentum of increased delivery to show up much before the end of 1977. In fact, we can still feel the effects of the cuts imposed at the end of 1975. For example, having terminated a field expert suddenly during 1976, he cannot be replaced by stroke of a pen in 1977.

The Programme Committee's report in paragraph 2.105 warns against any expectation of an ever-increasing FAO/UNDP Field Programme and describes the reasons which apart from weakness of the resource base are also due to innovations in programme policies that result in decreasing execution of the UNDP programmes by the agencies. I must say, however, that some of these innovations are most welcomed, particularly the increased participation by governments themselves in the execution of their own projects. The agencies, will ever remain ready to assist the governments under new forms such as TCDC in the execution of development projects.

On the basis of elements available and after a weak result this year, on the UNDP side, there could be an upswing to some $120 million in 1978 and some $140 million the following year.

As regards Trust Funds, it is believed that last year's increases will continue at a steady rate, with this year's estimated delivery of some $46 million, followed by approximately $51 million in 1978 and some $57 million in 1979. This exludes the special input schemes OSRO, IFS and FSAS, International Fertilizer Scheme and Food Security Assistance Scheme. The calculations are tentative, and there could be-now unknown -factors which will influence the figures.

From paragraphs 2.107 on, the Report of the Programme Committee refers to several policy issues in the relations between agencies and UNDP and briefly relates the discussions which took place on them at the Programme Working Group (PWG) and Inter-Agency Consultative Board (IACB) meetings at the end of March and beginning of April last in Paris. The most important issues referred to are, first, a paper that the UNDP Administrator was to present to the Governing Counsil Session starting next Monday and which he has now in effect presented, on the "Role and Activities of UNDP"; secondly, the question of the establishment of an Inter-Agency Task Force at UNDP Headquarters; and thirdly, the policy paper which was being prepared, and is now finalized and being submitted to the Governing Council on the subject of Overhead Cost Reimbursement. This latter issue was discussed at the Finance Committee's Thirth-Ninth Session, and the Committee's Report deals with it in paragraphs 3.34 to 3.40.

At the IACB meeting the Administrator requested the heads of agencies to send him further observations on a draft paper on "The Role and Activities of UNDP", which had been presented to them less than a week before the meeting. Most of the agencies did so, but in the final document the Administrator had recognized that the time available for comments was very short in view of the great importance of the issues under consideration and has now invited the agencies to speak when this item is considered next week in the Governing Council. The issues are indeed vital, since the paper submitted by the Administrator seems to be based on the premise that the UNDP should become the development agency of the UN system, while the Director-General stated in his inaugural address to the Council that "the health and tried worth of the system lie in its specialized diversity, its decentralization of initiative and its flexibility of response".

We still have some difficulties with the paper, but trust that it will be possible to resolve these on the basis of the Administrator's own statement to his own Governing Council that he recognizes, and I quote: "the integral nature of the U.N. Development System"; and again I quote: "the concept of publishing and the complementarity between the Specialized and other Agencies in the U.N. system and UNDP."

At the PWG and IACB discussions, the agencies were unanimous in suggesting that the concept of raising funds and seeing to their intelligent use is a primary role of UNDP. Again, even though now the Administrator accepts as a first point of principle that "raising and efficient management of funds for the provision of technical cooperation activities is the basic, primary task of UNDP", we consider that other preoccupations of the UNDP may be allowed to overshadow the importance of that basic, primary task.

Another controversial issue raised by the Administrator refers to his concept of UNDP's role as a funding organization. We believe that the present situation is the consequence of profound realities. The development process does not take place in a laboratory environment. This also applies to the funding of the various components of the United Nations System's collaboration in assisting governments in their development. Overall designs formally agreed to by the international community are only partially attainable at a national level. Both donor and recipient governments are seeking pragmatic solutions to contrasting objectives, forging ahead on various fronts. Recipient governments accept assistance from a variety of sources if it fits in with their own priority. The donors may, for various good reasons of their own, direct some of their external assistance funds through special channels.

The reality is that it is recipient governments and recipient governments only who can and must coordinate development inputs from many sources, and we in the United Nations System must stand ready to assist. It is not one of the Organizations of the System which will decide on the degree of coordination, or the role that the System should play in this context. Here it is the will of the recipient government that prevails. This, we think, is the reality of the development situation as compared with doctrines or theories held in some quarters.

In his paper the Administrator states that several Agencies felt "that the concept of central funding is a thing of the past and that polycentric funding has come to stay". I think that our Organization would certainly subscribe to this view, particularly as the result has been to increase the total flow of resources for technical assistance. It cannot be our concern as an Organization to devise and facilitate mechanisms the results of which would almost certainly be to limit or even to reduce that total flow.

We are hopeful that the discussion next week at the UNDP Governing Council will serve to clarify the position of the governments with regard to the issues I have referred to, and others which are of the maximum importance to the whole of the UN System. The Administrator has also said that he expects the discussion to be only a first stage in a continuing dialogue involving the governments, UNDP and the Agencies.

In regard to the e-tablishment of an Inter-Agency Task Force at UNDP Headquarters a further meeting of several agencies designated at the IACB, among them FAO, was held in Geneva, The Report of this meeting recommends possible terms of reference and modalities of functioning of a Task Force, Nevertheless , we have not heard further from the Administrator as to whether or not he will in fact establish a Task Force.

The Director-General has clearly supported some kind of improved consultation mechanism to be organised between UNDP and the Agencies. He is ready to send his representatives to ad hoc meetings as and when subjects of interest have to be discussed between the UNDP and the Agencies. This would allow him to select the appropriate persons to represent the Organization, according to the subject to be taken up. On the other hand, the Director-General would not agree to setting up a permanent Inter-Agency Task Force at UNDP headquarters. Apart from the obvious difficulties which the smaller agencies would have in participating effectively, we in FAO have great difficulties in endorsing the view that the terms of reference of such a body have been clearly conceived or that the mechanism would work satisfactorily bearing in mind the policy importance of the wide spectrum of issues that would arise.

Finally, on the subject of Overhead Costs Reimbursement. I would like to remind you, Mr. Chairman, that paragraphs 3.34 to 3.40 of the Report of the Thirty-Ninth Session of the Finance Committee refer to the status of this issue in discussions between UNDP and the Agencies.

It would interest you to know that only last week the Administrator circulated an addendum to this paper to the Governing Council on Agency Overhead Costs referring to his consultations with the Agencies, and that the first statement he makes is that "the overwhelming majority of the Members of the Board" - he refers to the Inter-Agency Consultancy Board composed of all the Agencies' heads -"expressed the view that the present systen of compensating Agency Overheads should be continued without change". He also notes that Agencies? Heads felt that he should recommend to the Governing Council that the present system should be continuous, not only in 1978 to 1979, as the Administrator suggests in his main paper, but for a longer time so that a measure of stability in planning could be maintained. This was also the view of your Finance Committee. He has not, however, made any recommendation on behalf of UNDP.

I believe that Since the last session of the Programme and Finance Committees there are no other major developments to report on our relations with UNDP.

Following your desires, Mr. Chairman, I would now say a brief word on IFAD. May I again call to your attention paragraphs 2.116 and 2.118 of the Report of the Thirty-Second Session of the Programme Coirr mittee. I would like also to remind you of the Director-General's reference to relations, close relations, with the President of the Preparatory Commission of IFAD in his opening statement to the Council.

There is after the meeting of the Programme Committee, little else to report, except that we have actively pursued with our colleagues of the Secretariat of the Preparatory Commission of IFAD, the pre- paration and the drafting of a Relationship Agreement between FAO and IFAD. The IFAD Preparatory Commisr.on Chairman and Secretariat have been preparing these Relationship Agreements also with the World Bank and the. Regional Ranks. I can report that the conversations have been most constructive and satisfactory and we think that we should be able to arrive at a very well thought out and practical Relationship Agreement that will facilitate the involvement of competent services in assisting FAO in all aspects of what we call the Project Cycle. However, we have not quite finished drafting this Relationship Agreenent.

There are a few details left over and this has prevented us from finalizing the total text and being able to submit it to the Council. We are hopeful that both IFAD and the Preparatory Commission will be able to finish the text and finalize it before the end of this Session, and then the Director-General will be able to submit it to the Programme and Finance Committees and the Committee on Constitutional and Legal Matters preparatory to submitting it to the Council in the November Session, and to the Conference, as the Conference has requested,

D.J. WALTON (Officer-in-Charge, Economic and Social Policy Department): I would like merely to update the information given in the Programme Committee's Report, the section starting at paragraph 2.113. The Programme Committee in its Report refers to the dicussions under way between the FAO and the World Food Council Secretariat to work out an agreement which is technically called a supplementary arrangement within the framework of the overall agreement between FAO and the United Nations.

We have now worked out an agreement at the level of the two Secretariats that is satisfactory to both sides, and the World Food Council is currently awaiting final clearance of the text from the office of the Legal Counsel of the United Nations, We propose for our part to submit the text to the CCLM, the Programme Committee and the Finance Committee in the autumn.

From there it will go to the Council and to the Conference. It takes two to make an agreement, and the World Food Council will wish also to look at it.

The Rules of Procedure of the World Food Council specify that there should be appropriate arrangements concerning cooperation and coordination of the work and the servicing of the Council that the Secretary-General of the United Nations will have concluded after consultation with the Council, with the Director-General of FAO and the Executive Heads of other United Nations agencies concerned.

These consultations with the World Food Council itself regarding an agreement with FAO and possibly with other agencies will have to take place in 1978, Presumably the FAO Conference at the end of the year may wish to delegate to the Council authority to approve the final text at the end of 1978, taking account of any suggestions for modification that might emerge from the World Food Council itself. However , I would like to emphasize that this agreement with the World Food Council will not be a major policy document along the lines of, for instance, the agreement with the International Fund for Agricultural Development. Whereas the IFAD agreement will set up arrangements for effective cooperation between the two bodies, so far as FAO/World Food Council arrangements are concerned, the decisions haye already been taken by the FAO Council and the FAO Conference. I would mention that at its Session in July 1976 the FAO Council - and I am quoting a few words of the report - "felt that it would not be practical at the present stage to seek a hard and fast demarcation of functions between the World Food Council on the one hand and the FAO Council together with its subsidiary bodies on the other hand. The Council felt that complementarity of action between the World Food Council and FAO could for the moment best be promoted by close consultation and cooperation at Secretarial level."

Consequently, the text which will go forward in the autumn will represent, as mentioned in the Programme Committee's report, a codification of the existing decisions and will not represent a major new policy element in the relations between FAO and the World Food Council.

The other main event which has happened since the Programme Committee met has been the preparatory meeting for the third session of the World Food Council. We have made available the report of the preparatory meeting as document CL 71/INF/11. The first part of the preparatory meeting's report consists of a series of draft resolutions which are submitted for consideration by Ministers when the World Food Council meets in Manila immediately following the conclusion of the FAO Council. These resolutions all relate. to areas of direct concern to FAO. Since these resolutions are at present under consideration at the level of capitals in preparation for the Manila meeting I presume that the Council will not wish to examine them substantively and in depth, but I might draw particular attention to the resolution on nutrition because it breaks new ground in the deliberations of the World Food Council and contains, in draft form, a specific recommendation to the FAO Council and Conference,

So far as the Secretariat is concerned, we are in general agreement with the thrust of this resolution, but in the complex and rather difficult negotiation process which took place at the preparatory meeting in the completion of this text, certain elements have been incorporated in the text which seem likely both to us and to the World Food Council Secretariat to create some potential difficulties and I very much hope that these can be ironed out in the course of the discussions in Manila.

Since I have mentioned nutrition I should like also to draw attention to document CL 71/INF/10 which contains the recommendations of the ACC to ECOSOC for new institutional arrangements relating to nutrition, This will come up for specific discussion next week under item 14(d) and I am not suggesting that the Council address itself to the document at this stage but it does deal with the institutional mechanisms through which the substantive recommendations emerging from the World Food Council would be implemented and the two therefore do amount in a way to a package. However, the specifics in the new institutional arrangements for nutrition might be dealt with more appropriately next week.

R.W. PHILLIPS (Chairman, Programme Committee): In view of the fact: that Mr. Yriart and Mr, Walton have already updated rather thoroughly the material contained in the report of the Programme Committee on these issues, anything in the way of detail that I might say at this moment would be an anti-climax, so I will find it rather easy to follow your Injunction, Mr. Chairman, to be brief.

I would make two or three observations, however, on the points before the Council. First, in regard to the relationships between FAO and UNDP, the Programme Committee did have a rather thorough discussion of these issues as Mr. Yriart has already pointed out. It was fully aware of the problems relating to the future of UNDP operations in relation to the availability of financial resources. Its overall assessment at the time was that the future was not too bright in this respect for the combined trends to which Mr. Yriart has referred, which would tend over the long pull to perhaps limit any expectations of any major expansions in FAO's field programme financed out of UNDP resources. That is something that is problematical, so this was only an assessment on the part of the Programme Committee of the nature of the trends that seem to be affecting the future.

On this whole question of relationships and the difficulties which are emerging and which will be discussed in Geneva next week and thereafter, I would just call your attention to paragraph 2.112 of the Programme Committee's report where it is noted that the Committee expressed its concern over several less-than-positive elements in relations between UNDP and the Agencies partially stemming from the resources crisis and partially to be found in uncertainty over their respective responsibilities within the system. The Committee expressed the hope that solutions might be found through an effective dialogue based on full consultation between UNDP and the Agencies.

With that I will leave the UNDP side and turn to IFAD to take the matters in the order in which they have thus far been presented, and I would make only one point which you will find in paragraph 2.118 of the Programme Committee's report, namely, that pending the time when IFAD is established and has its own resources, the Committee supported the provision of the necessary further support for the interim Secretariat during 1977.

Turning now to the relations between FAO and the World Food Council, I do not really need to add any information to that supplied by Mr. Walton, but I would point out that on the question of nutrition which is dealt with in paragraph 2.115 of the Programme Committee's report, this relates not only to item 14 (d), as Mr. Walton has mentioned, but also to the discussion of the Programme of Work under item 16. The Programme Committee's observations on the section of the annex of the Summary Programme of Work which is contained in document CL 71/3 on page A8 of the English version, section 2.1.6, nutrition is actually found in the Committee's report in paragraphs 2.59 and 2.60. Since this is an issue which relates directly to the Programme of Work and Budget as it involves the nutrition activities of FAO, it is probable that delegations will wish to look at the issue at that point in addition to anything they might wish to say here.

In closing I should underline that decisions in this area regarding the proposed new Committee structure within the United Nations system for coordinating activities within the nutrition field and for the servicing of those activities by FAO will directly involve the Programme of Work and Budget for the next biennium.

' M. BEL HADJ AMOR (Président par interim, Comité des Finances): Je me trouve dans la même position que Dr. Phillips, à savoir que nombreux sont les éléments qui ont déjà été anticipés concernant cette question. Cependant, je voudrais quand même mettre en relief deux ou trois points qui méritent d'être relevés.

D'abord, concernant les relations avec le PNUD, le Comité a été informé que l'une des solutions proposées par le PNUD pour ce qui est des frais généraux des agents d'exécution et le coût de soutien des projets de terrain, est qu'ils soient intégralement absorbés par les budgets ordinaires des institutions participantes et chargées de l'exécution. On peut voir les effets de cette solution si on se réfère au paragraphe 3.37 du Rapport du Comité des finances. En effet, on constate que pour le biennium 74-75, le programme ordinaire a subventionné les programmes de terrain à raison-de 8,2 millions de dollars, alors que cette subvention aurait atteint 48,8 millions de dollars si le programme ordinaire avait pris en charge tous les frais de ce soutien. On peut voir les conséquences pour notre budget.

Je dois dire qu'au cours des débats, le Comité n'a pas pu s'empêcher quand même d'exprimer certaines préoccupations et c'est pour cela qu'il estime, au paragraphe 3.36 ''que si l'ECOSOC et l'Assemblée générale sont appelés à examiner quelque proposition'' il faudrait que les agents d'exécution participent et donnent leur point de vue concernant les futures propositions, car il faut les prendre en considération étant donné les conséquences financières.

Un autre aspect qu'il faut retenir, c'est, que toute décision qui serait prise concernant les relations avec le PNUD retentira indiscutablement sur les autres programmes extrabudgétaires. Là-aussi, la FAO doit prendre très sérieusement en considération cet aspect.

Au paragraphe 3.40, le Comité a donné son point de vue concernant le fait que si la FAO ne peut pas obtenir du PNUD le remboursement intégral des frais de soutien, il convient de conserver le taux actuel de remboursement de 14 pour cent. De toute façon, nous attendrons les résultats des-consultations qui sont en cours.

Pour ce qui est des relations avec le FIDA, je n'ai pas grand'chose à ajouter, si ce n'est que le Comité a approuvé et appuyé la politique du Directeur général qui consiste à donner le maximum de soutien au FIDA. Il a également donné son accord pour l'augmentation de programmes au titre des investissements.

Je rappelle, à titre d'information, qu'en 1977, des crédits supplémentaires d'un montant de 60 000 dollars ont été également octroyés au FIDA pour les services de soutien.

Enfin, pour terminer, - et j'anticipe un tout petit peu étant donné que c'est une question qu'on étudiera quand on examinera le sommaire du programme et budget - je voudrais simplement rappeler, en ce qui concerne le Conseil mondial de l'alimentation, que pour les prévisions budgétaires de 1978-79, il n'y aura pas de prévisions concernant des frais ou des coûts pour le Conseil mondial de l'alimentation, étant donné que ces coûts seront désormais à la charge de l'ONU. Je vous rappelle à cet égard que pour 1976-77 ces coûts se sont élevés à 600 000 dollars.

EL PRESIDENTE: Les propongo que tomemos conjuntamente todo el tema 14 (b) para efectos prácticos. ¿Están ustedes de acuerdo?

W.A.F. GRABISCH (Alemania, República Federal de): Una sugerencia, señor Presidente. Nos preguntamos, si antes de iniciar el debate, no nos convendría escuchar primeramente las opiniones de los representantes de las agencias pertinentes, si estos representantes quieren agregar algo a lo que ha sido ya expresado en las introducciones.

EL PRESIDENTE: Si algún señor representante está en la sala y desea intervenir creo que el Consejo no haría ninguna objeción para escucharles. ¿Nadie quiere hacerse presente?

Gracias por su buena intención colega Grabisch.

H. PUURUNEN (Finland): I have the honour to speak on behalf of the observer delegations of Denmark, Norway and Sweden as well as on behalf of my own delegation. Firstly we note with great satisfaction that the Director-General in his opening statement very clearly emphasized the importance of the cooperation with UNDP in respect of FAO's field operations. We recognize the great significance of close and good cooperation between UNDP and FAO which we have stated at earlier occasions on behalf of all Nordic countries. We have also stressed the spirit of the consensus as a basic prerequisite for mutual understanding and action between the two organizations.

It seems to us appropriate that the Council should under this item devote some thought to a problem which has become acute in recent years, namely that of administrative overhead costs on projects financed from extrabudgetary sources, mainly from UNDP.

As the distinguished members of the Council are aware, the executing agencies of UNDP, out of which FAO is the largest in money terms, are at present reimbursed for administrative overhead costs at the rate of 14 percent ON the cost of projects executed. The level and method of this reimbursement and conversely the extent to which administrative costs would have to be covered from regular budgets of the executing agencies, has been, as we all know a subject of discussion between UN agencies for a long time. Together with the growth of extrabudgetary technical assistance the problem has grown to a dimension which has implications on the coherence of the UN Development System established by General Assembly resolution 2688 (XXV) and reaffirmed most recently by General Assembly resolution 31/171. It should be borne in mind that the same basic question arises also in connection with Funds-in-Trust arrangements, with co-operative programmes of the World Bank and other simmilar funding arrangements. The Administrative Committee on Co-ordination has called for more uniformity in respect of these reimbursement arrangements but no common policy has yet been arrived at.

To illustrate the magnitude of the problem, I would like to indicate that in 1975 the overhead reimbursements from UNDP to FAO were 17.3 million dollars, equalling some 29 percent of FAO's regular budget. The corresponding figures for 1976 were 15.7 million dollars and 24 percent. It can easily be seen from these figures that the problem is of considerable significance for FAO and even more so for UNDP, which in 1976 used a total of 55.4 million dollars for these costs.

The basis for reimbursement of overhead costs has always been, to a degree at least, arbitrary and not based on objective measurements or analysis of the said costs. In this connection it may be noted that while administrative budgets of both FAO and other agencies are closely scrutinized by the governing bodies, the overhead cost is generally accepted. An attempt by the ACC to introduce a cost measurement system to collect factual information on the overhead cost has not yielded satisfactory results.

The present rate of 14 percent is a temporary solution decided by the UNDP Governing Council in 1975 and will be reviewed in the current session of the UNDP Governing Council.

At the 23rd Session of the Inter-Agency Consultative Board in Paris in April this year the UNDP Administrator presented a number of options to the Executing and Participating Agencies to form a basis for a discussion on the subject in anticipation of the debate in the current Governing Council session. Most agencies pronounced thenselves for retaining the present system of reimbursement.

In the view of our delegations, the problem is worthy of a debate in the Council on the various alternatives to solve this problem. There is also another aspect which gives some concern to our delegations, namely that of the coherence of the UN Development System. It has become evident that the UN agencies concerned with development should be able to work together in partnership and co-operation. For this purpose the causes of friction between them, out of which the overhead reimbursement seems at the present time to be the largest one, must be effectively removed.

We would therefore like to suggest that the Council should request the Director General to present to the FAO Conference this year a report on the implications of various alternative solutions to the overhead cost problem for FAO's management and its total administrative budget. The alternatives to be studied should include the present system, inclusion of the total overhead cost into the regular budget of FAO, arrangements for UNDP support of an agreed infrastructure level in FAO, inclusion of overhead costs in individual project budgets, and any other alternative the Director-General may deem advisable to study. On the basis of his report the Conference could then establish that FAO should proceed in this matter and contribute towards the systemwide solution of this problem.

L.H.J.B. VAN GORKOM (Netherlands): For me personally it is of great importance to attend today the debate in the Council of FAO on the relationship with UNDP, since I shall be attending next week's meeting of the Governing Council, the high-level meeting on Thursday and Friday; and it is therefore essential that I know the views on the matter expressed in this Council. What should be uppermost in our minds is, of course - and it needs to be said again and again - the vital interests of the recipient countries in technical assistance from the United Nations system. And it is our view that the interests of the recipient countries are best served if the technical assistance to be provided by the United Nations system is provided in a coherent and coordinated manner.

Now, from the opening statement of the Director-General, and also from the report of the Programme Committee and from the statements made this morning, I must conclude that although at the country level, in the field, cooperation and coordination between UNDP and FAO is apparently being executed without, I would say, any major problems, yet the general relationship between FAO and UNDP is not without problems. I regret and I do think that in the dialogue which has to be pursued between UNDP and the agencies it is imperative that a right balance be struck between the role of UNDP as described in the consensus, and the vital autonomous role - I repeat the words: autonomous role - of the agencies as defined in the Charter of the United Nations, and as further refined in the consensus and subsequent decisions.

Mr. Yriart rightly drew the attention to some conclusions and sentences in the report DP/261 which very well may become a famous report in the next two years, the report of the Administrator on the role and activities of UNDP; and he drew attention to what is stated there on the partnership role, where it is said that the paper DP/261 is predicated on conviction of the integral nature of the United Nations development system and the concept of partnership and complementarity between the specialized agencies and the UNDP. That should indeed remain our principal point of departure. I repeat that in the provision of technical assistance by the system, coherence and coordination are essential, but what is more essential is, of course, the central coordinating role of the recipient countries themselves; that should be put right in the forefront of our discussions.

Now we believe that UNDP, and in particular the resident representative of UNDP in the field can only play their role assigned to them by the Consensus. If he gets full support and if he cooperates with the country representatives, with the experts provided through the country concerned and through the system by the specialized agencies, including first and foremost FAO.

The other side of the matter is, of course, that the resident representative, acting as what has. been called primus inter pares from his side fully respects the role of the agencies and their input and the importance of their input in the country programme exercise.

In the UNDP paper and in Mr. Yriart's very important introduction, by the way I am looking forward to hearing his statements on the same point next week in Geneva. In the paper and in his statement attention is given to the role of UNDP, should it become the central source of the financing or should it be the main source of financing. The position of the Netherlands government is one of principle but at the same time one of flexibility. We do note, as is being noted in the paper of the Administrator, that in the last few years a not unimportant stream of resources has been channelled into trust funds and into other sources of financing in cases where this was obviously in the interests of the individual recipient countries. Our position is that UNDP should remain the main source of financing for technical assistance but that flexibility should be left to channelling resources through other funds outside UNDP provided further that in the spending of the resources in the execution of projects still a desirable necessary measure of cooperation and coordination in the fields is carried out.

Mr. Yriart has also drawn attention to another sentence in the report of the Administrator where two principles are enunciated. The first principle is a continuing fundamental preoccupation of UNDP must be to raise and manage - Mr. Yriart added efficiently I agree - and efficiently manage funds for technical cooperation. I agree with that principle. Whether the UNDP should develop into a development agency I believe that is perhaps a matter of words. My delegation does not believe that UNDP should grow into a new big overriding development agency but we do believe that over and above the fundamental preoccupation of UNDP to raise and manage funds for technical coopérâtion,UNDP under the Consensus and under subsequent resolutions of ECOSOC and the General Assembly does also have a policy-making role and a conceptual role. I cannot see that there should be any conflict with that kind of policy-making role of UNDP and the autonomous - I keep repeating the word 'autonomous' because I believe it is essential for the agencies - and the autonomous policy-making role of the agencies.

The Netherlands delegation does not believe that UNDP should play a major role in executing projects itself. The executing role of UNDP should in our view be limited to a minimum, a minimum of certain worldwide or regional projects for which obviously there is no other agency to carry out that same task. In the past perhaps there has been a tendency for UNDP to play too big, too overriding a role. I know, knowing the Administrator and knowing the UNDP staff, that UNDP and that the Administrator himself has a very keen and right insight inta the role of the agencies and I am convinced at next week's meeting it will be possible to strike a balance between UNDP's role and the role of the agencies.

Much has been made of the financial difficüfcies of UNDP. I am fairly confident that these difficulties now belong to the past. I do think and I should like to stress this, that the financial difficulties should not lead to a move, to any move to affect the system of system-wide planning and system-wide cooperation in technical assistance as defined in the Consensus. My government still adheres to that Consensus, although we are fully aware that after seven years the time may have come to start thinking about certain adaptations of the Consensus.

Now by way of preliminary and tentative suggestions I should like to put before you a few points of which perhaps in due time a consensus could be adapted. First of all I believe it could be possible and it should be possible that certain types of technical assistance be financed through the regular budgets of the agencies. We could support such an adaptation, but again I repeat, provided that the central role of UNDP and that the cohesion of the system should not be affected. Perhaps the time has come that we start thinking in the agencies and in UNDP about certain criteria, criteria for what kind of technical assistance activities should better be financed by the agencies.

The second suggestion relates to overhead costs. Now so far as the decisions to be taken next week are concerned I can tell this Council already, as I shall say to the other Council next week, that we are open-minded in this matter and that we could in principle go along with any Solution which would gather the favour of the majority, such as for the time being, one, two, three years, for the time being to continue the present system but, and here I refer to the important statement just made by our Finnish colleague, we do think that the time has come to contemplate the possibility of financing agency overhead costs through the regular budget.

A third point in which the consensus might perhaps be adapted would be in the role and the nomination procedure for the resident representative. The possibility would be that the agencies be given a stronger voice in the appointment of resident representatives as representatives of the UN system. Perhaps it could be contemplated that they be appointed by the Secretary-General as representing the system.

The fourth point to which we should give attention is certainly the execution of projects by governments themselves within the framework of TCDC. We are in favour of this but we believe that there are also the agencies and UNDP should play a role of useful, mutual advisors.

So far as the inter-agency task force at headquarters of UNDP is concerned, proposed by the Administrator, I have noted very carefully Mr.Yriart's statement on the matter and the stand taken by the Director-General on that proposal. I must confess that I do see great merits in the arguments put forward, particularly the impossibility for FAO to send the whole range of broad expertise in various fields and disciplines to headquarters and the difficulty for FAO to appoint one or two people who could really deal with the whole field of FAO problems. Having said this I am not yet quite convinced and I think we must give further consideration to the matter and come back to it next week in the Governing Council of UNDP,

At this stage the point is not on the agenda but allow me just to say a few words on the Joint Inspection Unit report of Mr. Bertrand because it related immediately to the point at issue, the relationship between FAO and UNDP. Contrary to the Programme Committee, we do think that report has come at a very timely moment in our discussion on system-wide technical assistance. We do not agree with all the conclusions of the report and I should like to state straight away that together with the Programme Committee we do assign a central role, of course, it cannot be stressed enough, to the recipient countries coordinating role, but I do think that the suggestion on country programming made by the Bertrand report are most valuable and merit further consideration.

I would have hoped to go somewhat deeper into this question of country programming and the role in country programming also of the Bretton Woods Institutes, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, but in view of your exhortations before and in view of the fact that we are already behind schedule I will resist from this but I will have the few remarks that I wish to make circulated amongst the members of the Council.

Finally, two more words for FAO and the relationship with IFAD. We are quite satisfied both from Mr. Yriat's statement and in our own experience in the Preparatory Committee of IFAD and elsewhere that we are on the way to a very fruitful cooperation and partnership between FAO and IFAD. The Dutch instrument of ratification can be expected to be deposited within a few weeks.

Finally, on technical cooperation between developing countries I have said something about that already. We are quite ready and prepared to support the draft resolution on this matter presented by Argentina.

H. ABDALLAH (Egypt) (Interpretation from Arabic): In view of the shortage of time and pursuant to your request, Mr. Chairman, asking us to be brief, I shall say concisely what I have to say.

First, we have to express our deep thanks to Mr. Yriart for his statement, likewise to Mr. Walton for having spoken of the relations between FAÓ, the World Food Council and UNDP. I shall start on the subject from the very end by saying we have no substantial comments on the relations of FAO with the World Food Council, nor between FAO and UNDP and'IFAD which is still under establishment, but we look forward to close cooperation between FAO and these two very important organizations or agencies. The statement that Finland delivered on behalf of the Scandinavian countries was very important, speaking on main points. I wish to express full support to his statement, particularly in suggesting that the Director-General prepare a working paper on the reimbursement of overhead costs of UNDP and to include in this statement or paper his views on the subject, and we expect this paper to be submitted at the future Conference.

As for the appointment of a responsible person to UNDP or to act as liaison between UNDP and the Specialized Agencies or each of the agencies, here we have considerable doubt on the validity of this suggestion, based on the points raised by Finland; particularly that which finds no real value in that suggestion. Likewise, we look forward to receiving the paper on policy which is to be presented by the UNDP to the governing body in June, and we hope that this paper will define very many of the points still pending between UNDP and other specialized agencies.

Likewise, we share in the opinion in connection with the role of UNDP itself, and here, I too, with other delegates, say there should be primarily a coordinating role and not an executive role, and I think the agencies should maintain their task or feature, and we feel that this statement by UNDP does really emphasize the autonomy of each of the agencies, and in our case plays an autonomous role in agriculture. We hope that on the other hand UNDP will become a centralized agency as well as at the same time that each agency will maintain its autonomy and physiognomy.

H. Adji Ismet HAKIM (Indonesia): My delegation would like to express its appreciation for the introductory statements made by Mr. Yriart and Mr. Walton concerning the relationships with the UNDP, World Food Council and IFAD. We have also heard with interest the statement made by Finland on behalf of the Nordic countries and the statements made by the Netherlands and Japan concerning the relationships particularly with UNDP.

We would like at this stage to refer only to two points that were brought forward by these countries, one concerning the type of technical assistance suited for the specialized agencies. We know that FAO has started with its Technical Cooperation Programme a kind of technical assistance in helping the developing countries in a quick and flexible manner to assist them in filling gaps and to stimulate the flow of investments and aid from financing institutions and other sources. We have been informed that this programme has already started and that 50 countries from all regions have benefited from the TCP in the form of 80 projects involving a total of some six and a half million dollars.

We understand also that this kind of technical assistance is very much appreciated by the Member Countries of FAO and in particular the developing Member countries of FAO because they realize that this kind of assistance is really the assistance that responds to the immediate needs of the developing countries. We therefore, since the inception of this Technical Cooperation Programme, have given it full support, and also in the new Programme of Work and Budget we also give full support and we would like to see this programme carried on further. In this way, FAO has already chosen its kind of technical assistance.

The second point we would like to refer to is the question of the agency overhead cost. We understand that Finland, on behalf of the Nordic countries, also requested the Director-General to prepare a report on the implications of this agency overhead cost and that it will then be submitted to the FAO Conference. At this stage, we are really in difficulties in considering this matter, because we do not have much information about the agency overhead cost before us, but anyhow, I am lucky to have some kind of information regarding this overhead cost. My delegation has been informed that the FAO in 1976 was just an executing agency for the UNDP programmes. It has executed nearly 1 384 projects amounting to $115 million and that represents nearly 30 percent or exactly 29.3 percent of the total UNDP project expenditure for that year.

We have also been informed that the FAO will execute the same peresentage of the total programme in 1977. Besides this, FAO has also executed extra-budgetary programmes, mainly under the trust arrangement covering some one thousand projects involving $112 million. The support costs in 1974-75 totalled $48.8 million, and it is estimated that in 1976-77 the figure will be around more than $50 million. The Regular Programme has also contributed an amount of $8.2 million to the support of the field programmes which means there is already a subsidy provided from the regional programme for the executing of extra-budgetary financed projects.

We also know that this 14 percent figure of the reimbursements of the total project delivery had been agreed to after a long period of consideration and on the basis of cost measurement studies especially adapted to UNDP needs.

We therefore think that it is not the time now for us to again ask the Director-General for further studies on this point, especially since we would like the money from the regional programme to really be used for the implementation of action-oriented projects at the country-level. We therefore express our concern about the financial consequences if the overhead cost is lower than the 14 percent figure and its unfavourable impact on the activities that would be carried out under the extra-budgetary funds. We think that this 14 percent overhead cost is the minimum one that should be accepted as support cost, and we also believe that this should provide as well a suitable standard not only for the UNDP but also for other extra-budgetary programmes.

Again, our basic consideration is that we wish that the regional programme funds used be as much as possible for the execution of programmes and projects at the country level, in helping to implement action-oriented projects.

We therefore would like to request the Council to consider this view of our delegation and if possible to support it, and later on we shall request that the Di rector-General convey these views to the Governing Body of the UNDP Governing Council.

This is our intervention at this stage, and if necessary we would like to have the right to intervene further.

Y. NARITA (Japan): Just some remarks about this item. We have carefully studied the report concerning this. My delegation has the view, as previous speakers have pointed out, that the collaboration and coordination between the FAO and the UNDP must be maintained. My delegation fully supports the view which was expressed by the Netherlands. My delegation has the impression that the report that we now have about the UNDP future is rather pessimistic. We know that FAO is the executing agency; it is the first to receive the UNDP resources, and consequently is the agency which is affected more by the UNDP financial crisis.

It is the view of my government that UNDP has recovered from financial crisis, though there remain many problems to be solved, and I think it was more or less the view shared by the Governing Council in January in New York.

Concerning the World Food Council which will be held in Manila at the kind invitation of the Government of the Philippines, we hope it will successfully be concluded, and it is the view of my government that the WFC as a Ministers' level meeting will not be the negotiating forum but will give guidance and policies to international fora on World Food Problems.

With regard to IFAD, we are satisfied by the development of the Preparation Commission and we hope that IFAD will come into existence as soon as possible. In that regard we hope all governments concerned will set up the necessary procedure to ratify the agreement.

C. HIGGINSON (United States of America): With specific regard to FAO/UNDP relations we share the Programme Committee's hope that full consultations between the Agencies will result in the resolution of what may to some appear to be insurmountable problems.

We must recognize however that the special difficulties of UNDP have created specific cash flow problems in late 1975 for specialized agencies like FAO and the results may be felt in the next biennium. However, to help restore UNDP'S solvency we are seeking to increase our contribution to UNDP for 19 78 by 30 percent. This increase and other increases by major donors are reflected in Mr. Yriart'S statement as expected increases in funding from FAO in 19 78 and 19 79. We must reconeiaize however that recipient governments have a large stake in determining the share which agriculter receives from total resources made available by the UNDP. Recipient governments also decoded how projects will be implemented. We lay great importance on the country programming /?/ This is even more important now that the second development decade is being considered.

In addition, we are planning a major statement in the near future on UNDP and UN Development System which we hope will ensure solid funding and promote forms which are necessary to make this assistance more effective.

Referring now more specifically to the Programme Committee Report, we are somewhat disappointed over the inclusion of paragraphs 2.107 and 2.108 of the Programme Committee's Report, particularly since these paragraphs seem to reflect concern over issues arising in UNDP but without recommendations or comments. Although the Programme Committee wishes to look further into these matters of dispute at its next Session, we think it would be far preferable for the Director-General to discuss and resolve with the UNDP and other Executive Heads these contentious issues at the Agency level.

With regard to UNDP reimbursement of overhead costs on project execution we concur with the views of the Di rector-Genral and Finance Committee that if the UNDP and ECOSOC and the UNGA are to consider any different reimbursement, these bodies should be fully aware of the views of the governing bodies of the Agencies concerned.

With regard to FAO/World Food Council relations and the Programme Committee's comments we note that matters such as WFC rental and operational costs are matters for the two Secretariats to resolve. Accordingly, we hope there will be the fullest cooperation between FAO and the WFC on these substantive matters. Each body can be helpful to the other and should work as closely as possible together.

On FAO/IFAD relations the delegations should encourage effective working arrangements between these bodies and the early conclusion of the Agreement between them. I think both these bodies should be commended on their cooperation to date.

N.M. MiAUNGULLU (Malawi): The Malawi delegation is grateful to the Secretariat for the explanations it has given on the relations between FAO and the other agencies in the United Nations system, the UNDP and the World Food Council specially. IFAD is not yet off the ground of course, but even so, the Malawi delegation looks forward to the effective functioning of this important institution which we hope will augment with vigour the Food and Agricultural development efforts of countries like Malawi.

My country concentrates its development effort on the rural sector and aims directly at the uplifting of the living standards of the people in the villages. This is why we look forward to the effective functioning of IFAD.

On the UNDP/FAO relations, the Malawi delegation feels that the existence of problems in this relationship is to the disadvantage of the agricultural field programmes, and therefore the sooner these problems are solved through appropriate and effective cooperation between the two agencies the better.

We have no particular comments to make on the WFC/FAO relations.

R. CONTRERAS CORTES (España): Voy a ser breve porque no quiero referirme a las cuestiones de las relaciones de la FAO con el PNUD, sobre lo cual hemos oído intervenciones extremadamente interesantes que habrá que estudiar con cuidado. Tampoco tengo nada que decir sobre las relaciones de la FAO con el FIDA. Quiero hacer solamente una observación en lo relativo a las relaciones con el Consejo Mundial de la Alimentación. Siempre ha sido una preocupación el que podía haber un doble empleo entre estos dos organismos, el Consejo Mundial de la Alimentación y el de la FAO. Por desgracia, parece que es preciso continuar sobre este tema. Cuando asistimos a reuniones del FIDA no vemos gran diferencia de tono con lo que se dice aquì Incluso en la ultima reunion preparatoria del FIDA se ha dicho que convendrìa estudiar allí el tema de la Reforma Agraria, tema típico de la FAO.

En el párrafo 214 del documento 4 se habla de que se está estudiando un acuerdo suplementario para delimitar las funciones de los dos organismos. Pero el señor Walton nos ha dicho que no se pensaba hacer una línea de demarcación estricta entre los estudios de estos dos Consejos. Y además nos ha dicho que los problemas técnicos se estudian conjuntamente por ambas secretarías. Esto quiere decir que no se establecerá una demarcación clara, y además que los asuntos van a ser propuestos a los dos Consejos por el mismo grupo de técnicos, con el peligro de que se va a decir lo mismo en ambos Consejos.

Por consiguiente, yo quería únicamente expresar el deseo de mi delegación de que precisamente en la redacción de ese acuerdo suplementario se tenga muy en cuenta la necesidad de que no haya doble empleo entre la FAO y el Consejo Mundial de la Alimentación y que por consiguiente de que se redacte con un espíritu ciertamente de diferenciación estricta entre los estudios y los enfoques de los problemas de cada lugar.

A. CISSE (Niger): Nous avons écouté avec beaucoup d'attention et d'intérêt ce qui nous a été dit sur les rapports entre la FAO et les différentes Orpanisations internationales d'intérêt commun.

Nous notons la diminution des fonds du PNUD mis à la disposition de la FAO. De 122 millions de dollars en 1974, on passe à 90 millions de dollars en 1977 et cela en relation avec la crise économique de ces dernières années.

Les relations entre le PNUD et la FAO doivent s'établir dans les limites de compétence de chaque Organisation, Le PNUD a droit au contrôle de l'utilisation des crédits qu'il met à la disposition des institutions, et ces dernières doivent avoir assez de liberté pour mener à bien les diverses opérations techniques qu'elles ont à exécuter. On estime que le gouvernement des Etats qui reçoivent les aides doivent ventiler les projets entre les diverses sources de financement de manière à réaliser une certaine coordination. Mais il faut insister sur la nécessité d'instaurer des relations souples et non pas établir un rapport de subordination entre la FAO et le PNUD.

Au sujet du CMA, on souhaite la prise en charge des frais de location et du secrétariat du CMA par les Nations Unies, une collaboration intime entre le CMA et la FAO, une'meilleure coordination des objectifs de la production alimentaire mondiale.

S'agissant du FIDA, nous félicitons le Directeur général de sa formule pour la contribution de la FAO au secrétariat intérimaire du FIDA. Nous attendons beaucoup du FIDA. Nous pensons que la FAO aura une grande part dans l'exécution de projets financés par le FIDA, et qu'une collaboration sera établie entre les deux secrétariats.

Pour conclure ce chapitre, nous notons que la diminution des fonds du PNUD aura certainement un reflet sur les activités de la FAO, mais la naissance du FIDA et surtout la participation de certains autres organismes bancaires comme la Banque africaine de développement, la Banque mondiale et bien d'autres, au fonctionnement de la FAO par le financement des activités des programmes de coopération technique permettra de trouver une ligne normale pour ses activités.

L. LAPEBY (Gabon): Je voudrais d'abord féliciter les comités qui ont étudié les documents qui nous sont soumis, remercier les responsables qui nous ont présenté les documents et tous ceux qui sont intervenus au cours de ce débat.

Je ne voudrais pas essayer de jouer au prophète mais je ne peux pas manquer de faire un rapprochement entre le fait que vous nous ayez demandé de modifier notre ordre du jour et ce qui s'est passé déjà dans cette enceinte au cours d'un précédent Conseil. La proposition que vous nous aviez faite, Monsieur le Président, a été la conséquence d'une demande de certains de nos collègues pour connaître l'opinion du Conseil sur un certain nombre de faits, notamment pour ceux qui assisteront au prochain Conseil d'administration, pour avoir la température de la FAO - je ne dis pas que tous ont la même intention -vis-à-vis des propositions du Directeur du PNUD. Je voudrais cependant, étant donné la situation qui se projette et dont les chiffres des trois dernières années sont éloquents (347 millions de dollars pour 1977, 370 millions de dollars pour 1976 et 410 millions pour 1975) que cette croissance, que j'ai utilisée à l'envers parce que les années ont été prises dans l'ordre, nous édifie sur les difficultés qui se dessinent. De 1 600 et quelques experts FAO-PNUD vers la fin de 1975, nous sommes descendus à 1 200 et nous continuons de descendre. Pourtant, autant que nous puissions nous le rappeler le PNUD avait fait pression sur le Directeur général pour que la FAO augmente le volume de ses activités sur le terrain et c'est ce même PNUD qui a été à l'origine des difficultés et beaucoup de pays en voie de développement, qui avaient vu commencer des projets, les ont vu s'arrêter. Je voudrais rappeler aux différents délégués que lorsque le peintre veut apprécier le juste ton de sa touche sur sa toile, il prend du recul, s'il en a la place, sinon il se contente de l'effet que produit cette touche à la distance où il se trouve lorsqu'il l'a faite. Lorsque les responsables veulent essayer de comprendre ce qui se passera dans un certain nombre d'années ils vont faire des études, des projections parce qu'ils n'ont rien de palpable, de concret, de mesurable mais ils ont quand même besoin d'imaginer. D'aucuns dans cette enceinte, et plusieurs même, avaient critiqué le programmi de coopération technique que le Directeur général avait proposé pour que le PNUD conserve sa vocation financière unique en tant qu'institution au sein du système des Nations Unies et que la FAO n'ait pas de disponibilités financières pour intervenir sur le terrain.

La situation actuelle, quelle est-elle? Elle se trouve assez délicate et je dirais même très mauvaise à long terme. Il se trouve que pour le chiffre indicatif par pays, dans le cadre 1977-1981 les bases d'accroissement ont tenu compte d'un taux d'accroissement de 14 pour cent à titre d'objectif. C'est talentueux d'avoir autorisé,lorsqu'on peut se rendre compte qu'il y a des difficultés à l'horizon, la programmation à cent pour cent et c'est le Directeur du PNUD qui a donné des instructions dans tous les programmes engagés,mais je dirais aussi qu'il est cynique de vouloir employer des fonds dont on ne dispose pas.

A ce sujet, je voudrais utiliser une simple image, il serait difficile à un responsable de formation de convoi de chemin de fer d'espérer pouvoir accrocher des wagons à un train qui a déjà démarré et pourtant le contenu de ces wagons est indispensable et peut-être primordial lorsque ce train arrivera à destination.

C'est pour cela que je voudrais espérer que les propositions du Directeur du PNUD seront heureusement redressées lors du prochain Conseil car sinon le PNUD deviendra un instrument anti-développement et c'est malheureusement cet instrument que je vois à l'horizon parce que le consensus dont nous avons pris connaissance au cours de notre Conseil semble être dépassé, je ne sais pas pour quelle raison mais peut-être uniquement pour que le PNUD devienne l'organe de développement et le développement - je crois que tous ici peuvent l'affirmer - ne peut pas être l'oeuvre d'un seul organe, soit-il des Nations Unies, comme il ne peut pas être l'oeuvre d'un seul homme et dès qu'un seul homme veut être le responsable unique - et j'utilise le terme unique" du développement - qu'il se rappelle que, uniquement pour procréer, il lui faut aussi la femme.

Le délégué de la Hollande a été dans son intervention, après le délégué de la Finlande, très construc-tif et comme il assistera au prochain Conseil du PNUD, je peux fonder en lui les espoirs des pays en développement, espoirs qu'ils ont mis dans le PNUD et que le PNUD décevrait si le Directeur du PNUD maintenait ses propositions.

Je voudrais rappeler que je suis un peu déconcerté - et je ne le savais pas - d'apprendre que c'est seulement maintenant que le PNUD met à l'étude, je dis bien à l'étude, un système de gestion informatique. La gestion informatique n'est pas une science nouvelle et il a fallu la crise de 1975 pour que le PNUD se rende compte qu'il lui fallait l'informatique pour éviter la crise financière qu'il a connue. A tous égards, si les difficultés qui existent actuellement ne sont pas aplanies et si le PNUD ne revient pas à des dispositions plus ouvertes, ne tolère pas et n'accepte pas que les institutions des Nations Unies gardent leur autonomie dans les décisions, - et cela est très important - ces institutions resteront mais le PNUD lui, risque de périr; la négation qui se manifeste est dangereuse. Je voudrais espérer simplement que les pays en développement ne se laisseront pas prendre au piège car l'époque est révolue où,par des chemins tordus, par des artifices, par des astuces, on pouvait jouer au Samaritain.

Maintenant je crois que les pays en développement sont plus armés et que les propositions qui sont faites par le Directeur général ne sont qu'un amalgame. A mon avis, au moment où l'aide financière ne lui est plus exclusive, le PNUD cherche à trouver une place et peut être même à diriger cette aide financière, mais nous verrons le moment venu à garder les limites entre les différents types de financement et les différents types d'aide. Qu'on ne nous dise pas que le PNUD est l'organe primus interpares, ceci a été accepté, mais que le PNUD ne joue pas sur cela pour demander un staff qui ferait en sorte que la FAO disparaîtrait. Nous ne l'admettrons jamais.

M. FOFANA (Observateur pour la Guinée): Nous tenons d'abord à remercier tous ceux qui ont préparé les exposés et ceux qui ont souligné la question maintenant en discussion. Nous nous félicitons des précisions que nous a apportées le Secrétariat de la FAO et nous nous rallions à certaines interventions, notammenc à celle de l'Indonésie qui nous a fait une analyse assez pertinente de la question. Nous nous joignons également aux délégations qui espèrent qu'entre la FAO et le PNUD une collaboration juste et équitable s'instaurera et qu'un accord se fera dans les meilleurs délais, accord qui mettra l'accent sur les responsabilités respectives de chacune de ces organisations.

Pendant la crise du PNUD, que nous avons vécue il y a deux ans, les pays en développement se sont préoccupes des incidences néfastes que nous avons ressenties sur le terrain et nous avons également évalué les dommages que certaines organisations ont subi dans leur action vis-à-vis de nos pays. On nous a dit heureusement qu'une reprise est en cours au niveau du PNUD. Nous nous félicitons de cette reprise, mais je crois que souvent il nous arrive de projeter l'histoire dans l'avenir. Il est aussi juste de se rappeler à chaque instant d'où nous venons et ce que nous étions, lorsque nous entreprenons dss actions nouvelles. C'est la raison pour laquelle ma délégation s'abstiendra de.faire une certaine apologie, mais nous tenons toutefois à affirmer notre conviction quant à l'avenir. Nous pensons que la décentralisation dans le cadre de l'étude de restructuration de l'ensemble da système des Nations Unies devrait être envisagée dans le sens de l'intensification des actions des organisations respectives tout en maintenant et en renforçant leur autonomie. Autonomie ne veut pas dire divorce,ne veut pas dire divergence dans l'action, l'autonomie ne veut pas non plus dire subordination d'une partie vis-à-vis de l'autre. Notre, ami de l'Indonésie a souligné une initiative heureuse que nous vivons actuellement au sein ds cette Organisation, action que toutes les délégations et que tous les pays membres devraient encourager, à savoir le programme de coopération technique q'ji est une expérience nouvelle qui tient compte d'un passé que chacun de noup a regretté, et les pays donateurs et les pays bénéficiaires. C'est pour cela que nous nous rallions à la proposition faite par le Directeur général de la FAO quant à la révision, du moins un examen assez juste, des relations qui existent ou existaient entre la FAO et le PNUD.

Je crois qu'à ce stade des actions respectives de toutes les organisations des Nations Unies, il serait périlleux de souscrire à un certain centralisme qui, certainement, ne correspondrait même pas aux réalités actuelles du monde; notamment, sur les questions stratégiques comme la lutte contre la faim, la malnutrition, en relation avec les structures nouvelles que nous entreprenons au niveau du nouvel ordre, économique international. C'est pour cela que j'exprime des craintesen écoutant le représentant des Pays-3as qui souligne certains soucis ou certaines aspirations de sa délégation dans les rapports interinstitutions. Nous sommes d'accord avec lui lorsqu'il dit que nous devrions définir les relations entre le PNUD et la FAO mais nous soulignons que cette définition doit être basée sur l'autonomie, notamment pour les actions sur le terrain. Tout en maintenant un renforcement de la coopération entre ces deux organisations, (c'est le souhait de tout le monde,) l'action doit être renforcée et réaffirmée.

Nous sommes certains que les pays donateurs en tiendront compte et nous ne pouvons qu'encourager les vues de la FAO dans la définition de ses nouveaux rapports. Nous nous félicitons également de l'accord qui se dessine entre la FAO et le FIDA. Nous sommes d'accord avec le représentant de l'Indonésie lorsqu'il exprime et souhaite que la FAO soit l'Organisation principale de l'exécution des programmes que le FIDA pourrait envisager, vis-à-vis des pays, dans le cadre de ses attributions. Nous donnons notre confiance au Président du Comité préparatoire du FIDA et je crois qu'au cours de la dernière session de cette Commission il a tenu compte de ce souhait exprimé par les pays bénéficiaires. En ce qui concerne les relations entre la FAO et le Conseil mondial de l'alimentation, nous souscrivons une fois encore au souhait exprimé par le représentant de l'Egypte et le représentant de l'Indonésie et nous esperons que là aussi, même dans le cadre de la définition de la politique mondiale, le rôle de la FAO soit réaffirmé tout en consolidant également toutes les actions que pourrait entreprendre le Conseil mondial, notamment avec l'élection future, je l'espère, de Son Excellence M. Tanco, des Philippines, qui voudra renforcer toutes les actions entreprises par son prédécesseur, le Dr. Marei.

Je crois que j'ai dépassé le temps qui m'était alloué et je m'en excuse auprès du Conseil. Je suis sur que le Conseil tiendra compte de l'intervention du représentant de l'Indonésie.

Q.H.HAQUE (Bangladesh): At this stage of the debate on this subject I think I can be very brief because most of what I should have liked to say has been covered by other speakers. With regard to inter-agency relationships we believe that the first concern should be that we do not duplicate efforts or waste the efforts of one agency when it should be the responsibility of the other. There should not be any substitution of the work but we believe that there should be a supplement, if it is necessary, all the agencies in the United Nations family work for the same goal. So, keeping the goal in mind, the main goal being service to humanity to improve its quality of life, all agencies should try to discharge their responsibilities in an atmosphere of mutual cooperation.

In this respect, besides the charter or inter-agency relationship document of the agencies, one other thing is very important: the relationship of the policy or management level officials of one agency and another, the personal relationship. In this regard I wish to mention here that the first point about FAO/UNDP relationship, we have noted that the relationship of the present administrator of the UNDP and the Director-General of FAO is very excellent. Mr. Morse was here and he underlined this point about the relationship with the Drector-General of FAO. In his opening statement the Director-General of FAO also referred to his relationship with Mr. Morse. This is very important,we feel.

Even when there are defined responsibilities, it happens that when personal relationship is not very happy, problems might arise. We therfore feel there need not be any apprehension as to the relationship between UNDP and FAO; we feel they are working hand in hand in the closest cooperation. There has been no problem whatsoever so far, but while saying this, we also believe that both UNDP and FAO would be discharging their responsibilities within their charter and within their jurisdictions as defined in the instruments of creating this Organization. Again in the FAO and IFAD where there are similar things, the personal relationship between the two heads of the Organizations. Of course, IFAD does not as yet have one but it has a Chairman of the Preparatory Commission, the relationship between the two heads of Organizations is excellent. There has been no problem and we look forward to the days when there will be excellent cooperation between these two organizations.

As regards WFP and World Food Council, I do not see that there could be any problem whatsoever.

So, we believe that while inter-agency relationships sould be based on their respective responsibilities, at the same time it should be tempered by a spirit of cooperation and mutual understanding. If we have that, there should not be any problem and so far we have seen that these relationships have not posed any problem, so that there is no cause for any apprehension and it has been working excellently.

A.F. EL SHAHAWY (Libya)(interpretation from Arabic): I shall attempt to be very brief. With respect to the item we are now discussing - that is the relations of our Organization with other organizations, this is a point which is very important and I should like to express the hope that it will be discussed under Items 14 and 16.

It would seem to me, owing to discussions which have taken place, that the most important point is to guarantee food supplies by all means. The final aim is to improve the food situation for all peoples, particularly the developing peoples. Despite all resolutions and despite all the funds which have been created in order to achieve these goals, despite all the recommendations which have been passed and will be passed in order to improve fruit production and vegetable production to guarantee nutritional elements for human beings and better health, despite all these factors we have not achieved very positive results. In view of the fact that I am a specialist in nutrition and in view of the fact my country is dealing with this question and has thus created an institute for development of marine and animal -resources in order to enable my count to do its duty in this field and also to plan in the field of agriculture and nutrition, as I was saying, we have thus created this institute, we are dealing with marine resources and fishery resources and we are therfore asking that this field should be studied very carefully. My country has asked the Organization to deal with the question of nutrition and improving the nutritional situation, the food situation by all ways and means and I think paragraphs 2.16, 2.58 and 2.115 contained in document CL 71/4 and document CL 71/10 reply to these questions partly. My delegation would express the hope that the Organization will attach to Resolution V the specific importance it imparts and as it will request the other specialized agencies to participate in the implementation of that resolution.

The government of Libya is convinced of the need to establish and strengthen relations with the Organization, we are convinced of that principle and thus our country has given its agreement for the strengthening of the Institute for Regional Cooperation in which we participate with a sum of $1300 000 to put to technical assistance afforded by FAO to that project. The relations between this -organization and the Nutritional Institute of my country are ones which are very closely knit. The collaboration is based upon the training of the necessary cadres for the countries and this is in line with FAO for the creation of national planning institutes in the question of food and nutrition and thus it would be necessary to review the possibilities of cooperation between the countries of the area for the strengthening of this institute in order to enable to comply with the goals set out for it and the Organization should also define priorities for that are.

Thus we will welcome any steps which will be taken by our Organization or by the other organizations and also we would welcome any advice given by the organizations. The main thing is that we should guarantee better foods for our populations.

J.F. YRIART (Assistant Director-General, Development Department): i ant to thank the Council for these very interesting views that have been expressed, that will certainly be most useful for the Director-General and for us, his collaborators, in the coming weeks when we have to represent FAO in the ÜNDP Governing Council.

I am also very happy to find a confirmed desire in the Council that our collaboration with IFAD be close and, shall I say, intense and this is how we have every reason to believe that it will be.

I think there is one specific point in the discussions regarding relations with UNDP on which I would like to make certain considerations and this is in regard to the suggestion that the Director-General prepare a study for submission to the FAO Conference on the question of reimbursement of the agency costs. Of course, the Director-General is very willing always to comply with the desire of the governing bodies. However, I would like to say that unfortunately the timing of such an effort on the part of the Secretariat would be the wrong time and the effort would be fruitless. Decisions are going to be made now in the UNDP Governing Council because I want to remind you that the present system of overhead reimbursement is one that was established by the UNDP Governing Council to expire this year. So the UNDP Governing Council will have to take a decision which, as I informed the Council, the overwhelming majority of the agencies hope that it will be to continue the present system and to continue it with certain stability in time, otherwise it becomes very difficult for the agencies to plan properly on the use of their resources. So there will be a decision made at the UNDP Governing Council and when the Conference meets we will be able to inform you of what that decision is and whether, because of the decisions of the Governing Council, it is indeed necessary or not that our governing bodies continue to review this matter.

You will forgive me if I make a few further remarks to this problem of the agency costs and forgive a little bit of agency affinity. We are very proud of the efficient manner in which FAO operated its cost measurement system. It was I think, and I should not say this and I hope my colleagues from other agencies do not take it badly, but it was perhaps the most detailed and effective application of the system and when the present reimbursement system in the UNDP Governing Council was established really the negotiations or the consultations between the UNDP and the Agency Secretariats were rather firmly based on the FAO cost measurement system and the figures that we arrive at are the figures that were reflected by our cost measurement system as regards the relevant time that we had to employ in delivering both administratively and technically our field programme, and these measurements have continued to be true with the only possible variation, which is quite understandable, that the volume of delivery, of course, affects the percentage cost of delivery. In other words, when the volume of delivery increases we become more efficient and costs go down and vice versa and this is exactly what happens in every agency.

Having said this there is only one further thing that I want to say and I want to thank those who have recognized this, like the delegate of the Netherlands, and stress it for those who have shown some concern, and that is that the beneficiary countries to our field programmes have every right not to be concerned about the execution of the UNDP programme projects by the agencies. Perhaps I should say that we did as good or as bad as ever but for that certainly we continue to be as close with our colleagues in the UNDP, and this goes for all the agencies, as ever, and in all the cases our aim is to execute the projects with the greatest proficiency, with the greatest technical skill,and I think, as 1 repeat, the delegate of the Netherlands recognized these discussions, continuing dialogue, that we have on policy matters does not affect at all at the level of execution of projects and I am glad to see heads waving in assent on the part of colleagues from United Nations Agencies.

On the other hand may I say, and this is a very personal thought, that I have always retained great respect for the quality of people when I see that they can conduct a very very frank dialogue and this I am glad to say is something that the delegate of Bangladesh in a way referred to and this is that in this very active dialogue, controversai indeed, between the UNDP and the agencies, at no time has the power of expression, the frankest expression as you can see, been curtailed because those who take part in the dialogue really have one thing at heart and if you will allow me to put the United Nations System, because the United Nations System has a concept that will be most effective in assisting the developing countries and in administering the resources that we receive from all sources and this I think is really what everybody wants to do.

EL PRESIDENTE: Concluimos así la discusión de este tema. Creo que yo mismo debo atenerme a la brevedad sobre la cual he venido insistiendo. Podría entonces decir que, en cuanto a las relaciones entre la FAO y el PNUD, el Consejo reitera una vez más la necesidad de que exista una estrecha cooperación entre esos dos Organismos dentro de un espíritu de mutua comprensión, que se reitera una vez más el apoyo al consenso, aunque se sugirió la posibilidad de que ese consenso sea revisado para adaptarlo a las nuevas circunstancias después de los 7 años de su existencia.

El delegado de Países Bajos hizo sugestiones concretas a este respecto, tal vez limité mi referencia a una de ellas, a la posibilidad de que dentro de los programas ordinarios del presupuesto regular de los Organismos se puedan financiar proyectos de asistencia técnica, lo cual dio lugar a que varias delegaciones reiteraran su apoyo al programa de cooperación técnica, actualmente como parte esencial del programa del Director General de la FAO.

Sobre el PNUD, creo que hubo acuerdo en el.sentido de señalar a este Organismo como fuente.principal de financiación para proyectos financiados con recursos extrapresupuestarios, reconociendo también la conveniencia de que paralelamente a los fondos del PNUD se estimulara el aporte y la afluencia de otros recursos para contribuir a esas financiaciones.

Finalmente, creo que en cuanto al PNUD el Consejo estuvo de acuerdo en los conceptos que se expresaron en el sentido de que no debe convertirse el PNUD en un organismo de ejecución, que no debe ejecutar proyectos y que dentro de las relaciones entre el PNUD y las agencias es necesario conservar la autonomía, la propia fisonomía de cada una de las agencias.

Sobre el 14 por ciento como gastos generales de reembolso hubo también algunas intervenciones. Recibió cierto apoyo la propuesta de pedir al Director General que presentara un informe en la próxima Conferencia sobre las repercusiones que en cuanto al presupuesto propio de la FAO tendría cualquier cambio o alternativa posible dentro de ese 14 por ciento.

Sin embargo, otras delegaciones no se mostraron de acuerdo y después de la explicación del señor Yriart, creo que podríamos aceptar esa situación hasta cuando el Director General esté en condiciones le referirse nuevamente a este asunto y desde luego consultar a los órganos rectores. Sobre el grupo de representantes de las respectivas agencias ante el PNUD, hubo también algunos comentarios de los cuales se ha dado traslado al Comité de Redacción para ver qué se puede presentar a este respecto.

En relación con los otros dos organismos, el IFAD y el Consejo Mundial de la Alimentación, creo que también se insistió en que es necesario que haya una estrecha cooperación entre la FAO y esos dos Organismos. En cuanto a las relaciones entre la FAO y el Consejo Mundial de la Alimentación, creo que también se destacó la necesidad de que haya una relación adecuada para evitar una duplicación de actividades. Si no hay ningún comentario por parte de los miembros del Consejo podríamos así concluir este tema y ahora voy a pedirle al señor Ministro Seneine, Primer Vicepresidente, que si es tan amable, asuma la presidencia y también al señor Embajador del Perú, Samanez Concha, Presidente del Comité de Agricultura, quien desde ayer espera con santa paciencia al fondo izquierdo de la sala,que venga a la tribuna para que presente el informe de su Comité.

S. QUIJANO-CABALLERO (United Nations): I am most grateful for having been given the opportunity at this time to make some very brief comments, since I felt that I should not remain silent on this occasion when matters of inter-agency cooperation and relationships were mentioned when this distinguis-ed Council discussed some very specific issues, but inasmuch as very general remarks were made on the agency relationships, I felt that I should mention that perhaps, and I shall be very brief at this time, and to reassure the members of the Council that there has perhaps never been such unity of purpose amongst the different components and parts of the United Nations family as it exists today.

As you know, under the chairmanship of the Secretary-General, the ACC hold various meetings throughout the year during which matters of common concern are discussed, particularly for this purpose of maintaining the closest cooperation and coordination amongst the agencies and to serve in the best and most effective way all our Member Countries.

EL PRESIDENTE: Señores, no obstante la intención que había expresado antes al Consejo en el sentido de que dado el retardo en que nos encontramos se prosiguiera ahora con el tema 10 del informe del COAG, por razones válidas se me aconseja que es mejor que se posponga la discusión del informe del COAG para la próxima semana, y que ahora después de oír algunos anuncios de nuestra Secretaría, se levante la sesión para reanudarla esta tarde con el tema 16, que es uno de los asuntos sustantivos de este período de sesiones. Espero que el Consejo esté de acuerdo y de nuevo mil excusas al señor Presidente del COAG.

Si no hay ningún comentario levantamos la sesión hasta las 2.30 de esta tarde.

The meeting rose at 12.20 hours
la séance est levée à 12 h 20
Se levanta la sesión a las 12.20 horas

Previous Page Top of Page Next Page